On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 02:29 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote: > Instead of saying... > > Story > > Jack and Jill went up the hill > > to fetch a pale of water > > Understood As > > Jack wants something about a pale of water for himself. > > ....say.... > > Story > > Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of water > > Understood As > > Jack wants something about a pale of water for himself.
Yah, I had that on my TODO list. Thanks for the nudge. > Also don't say "Most experts agree." Say most "humans" (too nerdy or > nerdy chic??) or "of our research participants" or "of our > volunteers." Changed. > Also don't say... > > The statistics above represent the combined ratings of everyone who > has rated this appraisal. Following standard APA notation, N is the > number of samples, M is the average on a scale of -1.0 (highly > unbelievable) to 1.0 (highly believable), and SD is the standard > deviation. > > ...first of all no need to say this is APA standard notation. Removed. > second, > do it however we do it for "Vienna is wet." and friends (i.e. the > rumination story). OK, maybe, but I want to let them diverge for a while. It's more creative. ;-) > ...also don't say... > > Understood As > > Jill is indifferent about a pale of water for herself. > > ...say.... > > After reading this story HAL thinks that: > > Jill is indifferent about a pale of water for herself. > > How correct is HAL? > > ...and have not believability ratings but correctness ratings, a la... > > Completely Incorrect > Slighly Incorrect > So So > Slightly Correct > Completely Correct > > [except presented horizontally] Wow, uh, seems like a good idea. Give me a day or two to digest it. > ...ALSO THIS SEEMS LIKE AN IMPORTANT SUGGESTIONS this kinda makes more > sense if the participant saw them grouped meaningfully. E.g. like > so... > > Jill is indifferent about a pale of water for herself. 1 2 3 4 5 > Jack is indifferent about a pale of water for herself. 1 2 3 4 5 > Jill thinks that Jack is indifferent about a pale of water for herself. > 1 2 3 4 5 > Jack thinks that Jill is indifferent about a pale of water for herself. > 1 2 3 4 5 > > ....Whuddyasay to that? I don't think that works as well as shuffling all the questions together. Here are some reasons off the top of my head: * What if an impatient web surfer only answers half of the questions? * It gets monotonous. * Reliability might suffer because the order that the questions are presented might have some affect on the ratings. > One more suggestion... > > For the rumination Vienna is wet study, the type in boxes where we ask > them to comment, can you pretty please with sugar on top put it > *below* the radio buttons? Also ... Done, but I want our team of useability testers to squint at this before I am convinced that it is the one true best way. > Do you have any comments about the truth of this statement > > ...would be better as this.... > > Feel free to add any comments about the believability of this > statement or about your rating right here. > > ...and maybe just "any comments" after the first 3 items. Done. > See this would be another great place for a wiki. I'm not convinced. -- If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Heartlogic-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/heartlogic-dev
