This is what it says..........
Spouses love each other.
Do you have any comments about the truth of this statement? [
type in box
]
Rate the believability of the statement.
[ five radio buttons for different believability levels]
......I like it like that.
--------------
To that goal, I propose a New Idea (as if we need any more!
But this
one's good! :)
Do it as a cartoon panel.
First: "Water is lighter than air"
Then a GIF animation of HAL looking at this fretfully, and
shaking his
head "no"
Then two buttons: a hammer and a kiss.
If you click the hammer, a huge cartoon hammer bonks HAL on
the head.
He looks alarmed, then says (in a cartoon text bubble) "thanks, I
needed that!"
The kiss button, causes a lipstick print on HAL's cheek. He grins.
I'll ask the www.dieselsweeties.com artist to make us the
graphics for
free.
Woa. I definitely like the idea of nice graphics. And free is even
better.
A risk of bonking HAL on the head is that participant
personality will be
a confound...E.g. little kids and sadists will get a real kick out of
bonking hal on the head.
How fast are gif animations on the avg computer?
....Well how about this...lets think about it more. My main
interest is
content of the items experimental design. If others want to
make it look cool and be fun go for it...
Yes, I've thought about it more, annd I'd like us to have the
first goal
of getting this up so that we can have 10 items that are semi-doable
and that we get 10 people to do them. We should think about graphics
after then.
But, please keep incubating on good graphics, animations etc.
They will
become more and more important if and as we want to attract 100's to
1000's to 10K's of respondants.
Bill
-Josh
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden
On Behalf Of William L. Jarrold
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:53 PM
To: Joshua N Pritikin
Cc: 'Open Heart Logic, dev mailing list'
Subject: RE: [Heartlogic-dev] rumination prototype
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 10:50 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 02:02 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
Jesus loves his father. [q]
...and then later, they can click on this and see why.
I.e. they
would see the premises which were:
Sons love their fathers. [p1]
Jesus is God's son. [p2]
Hrm, do you want to do this (click to see reasons) for
the pilot?
Yes, the would be my moderately strong preference.
We must remember that we are building a platform for doing
all sortsa
experiments.
OK.
The web interface is easy, but we have to load the data into the
database. In what scriptable format do you want to provide this
information?
By data, I assume you mean the content of the items, right?
(Here is where I be comin' from: I usually think of data
as somethign
that we scientist collect rather than put in our experimental
apparatus.)
So, assuming I am correct, I would like to defer on this until we
nail down design issues such as the look and feel of the
interface, the nature
of the reversed, or mutated etc type items.
BUT, enough with my ceaseless procrastination!!!, here is a rough
stab.
For each item there will be...
a) an item id
b) THING-TO-RATE: a hunk of html text that when plugged into your
doodad is the thing that they will be rating.
c) BACKGROUND: another hunk of html text that will be
viewable if the
participant wants to see where b) came from. (this would
contain info
like "This item was reversed. Click here to see what we mean by
reversed." or "This item was actually a deduction that HAL
made after
doing some thinking. This is the chain of deductions that
HAL made
in order to come up with that deduction."
...in the beginning we will hand craft b) and c). In our
stary-eyed
futures we will have a program generate b) and c) based on
the output
of an AI (such as Cyc or KM plus its CLib).
...Also I hope you can do this so that we can add more
fields beyond
a, b and c if we need to. Is that posssible?
Also, the item id should encode what condition the item
was in. E.g.
(i) was it a deduction or a ground fact? (ii) Was it from
Cyc or KM?
(iii) Was
it reversed or unreversed?....Hrm, perhaps the better idea is
to leave the
item id be any unique char string and have other fields for
(i), (ii),
(iii). Well, Joshua, you are the programer dude. Your call.
Hrm, instead of telling me which items you want, why not
just modify
the attached script?
Sure, will do, but not right now.
One more question, for the reversed items do we tell people
after they
rate the item?
Yes. (As a parity check I will restate wha is hopefully
obvious) We
definitely would *not* tell them before they rate it that it is
reversd. If we did tell them before, this would tip them off that
they should rate
it unbelievable.
For example:
HAL believes the following statement is FALSE:
Water is lighter than air.
Most experts agree that this statement is highly unbelievable.
Minor point: I would phrase this as "HAL thinks" rather
than "Most
experts agree."
If you want it to look like this then we need to store a flag
somewhere indicating that the assertion is reversed. Hrm.
I'll think
about it.
Maybe. I was thinking that the "This item is reversed"
clue would be
stored in "c) BACKGROUND:".
But as I alluded above, we might not want to overload the
item id and
thus there are other reasons to have a field include
whether the item
is reversed or unervrsed or who-knows-what.
Bill
--
If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
(Permanently
replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)
_______________________________________________
Heartlogic-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
_______________________________________________
Heartlogic-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
_______________________________________________
Heartlogic-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev