Re: [Heartlogic-dev] getting closer - a few comments on UI

[William L. Jarrold]

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 02:00 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > Done.
> >
> > Great thanks.  But
> >
> > (a) the green rectangle with the stats is still there.
>
> Oh, should be gone now.

I see the green rectangle onjj the Story stuff.  E.g.....

Story

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of water
After reading this story, HAL thinks that:
In Jacks opinion, Jill wants something about a pale of water for herself. 
N = 3, M = 0.17, SD = 0.58

....maybe this is where  you said the two presentation styels should be 
inconsistent for creativity?


 > >> (b) the text has two problems in it, viz....
> > You judged this statement as <b >moderately believable</b >. We have
> > collected 2 ratings so far (including yours).  The average believability
> > rating is 0.50 on a scale of -1.0 (highly unbelievable) to 1.0 (highly
> > believable)
> >
> > ...
> >         b1: it has a <b > moderately belieevel</b> html typo.
>
> Good catch.  Fixed.

Verified. Awesome.

> > I think this should be the long version to be shown the first time.
> > Then after it should be....
> >
> > # of ratings so far: 2
> > Average rating: 0.5 (-2 to 2)
>
> Good idea.  I'll do that.

Great.  I don't see it that way yet.

> > ....<whiney voice on> ya know i kinda like to see the standard
> > deviation.  People aren't THAT phobic of math science are they?
>
> Hey, why not?  I think people are going to feel more interested and
> involved if they are able to see the stats.

Josh said no.  I don't care so much.  Whatever.

If we continue to be divided, maybe we find enough ingorant (-: friends of 
ours and ask them.

> >   In
> > spite of that, I would midly prefer a range of 1 to 5 over -2 to 2.
> > Josh (or...ppst, Peter?, you there? (-:), can you break the tie here?
> > So this is how it should look...
> >
> > # of ratings so far: 2
> > Average rating: 3 (1 to 5)
> > Standard Deviation: 1.3
> >
> > ...but like I said, Josh/Peter maybe you can decide this before I obsess
> > too much.
>
> For what it's worth, I changed it to [-1,1] because that seems like the
> most canonical range.

maybe to a scientist or technical person but not an average person.

josh opinions?

i'll dig up some ignorant friends.

> WLJ also mentioned that we might try some other
> kind of ratings besides Likert ratings so it makes sense, at least
> internally, to store the ratings in normalized rating space.

you mean internally to store them as -2 to 2?  perhaps.  buut not show 
them to human participatns.

what kind of normalization are you talking about linear or gaussian?

bill

> --
> If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
> (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)