Forum Posts Feed
Submitted for your consideration
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Aug 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Thanks for the feedback, Alexander. My responses or mingled with yours below.
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>Now, in respect to the taxonomy:
>
>- Re
>the Main Purpose, I believe that the Collect-Create axis covers it quite well. I can
>also think of applications whose main purpose is to “Create via re-Organisation of
>Collected information” and I would place these closest to the middle of the axis.
>Brainstorm, Connected Text (e.g. break down imported text to smaller chunks and
>inter-associate these) and possibly Tinderbox would fit in this description.
I agree with this. Let me clarify my use of the term “create.” I don’t mean “creative.” This is really more a question of the source of the actual content. Does the application facilitate collection from other sources, or generation from one’s own thoughts and ideas. Most every application can do both, but where on the spectrum does the application’s strength fall? I don’t intend to imply that one type of application makes you more creative than another, or that one type is more useful to “creative type” people.
>- Re
>the Organisational Scheme, I am not so sure. For starters, I don’t think of tags as
>saved searches; the critical aspect of search is that it is machine-driven. Tags,
>just like the Topic approach, rely on the user to proactively classify the
>information. The fact that they are often in flat lists and not hierarchical is
>secondary. By contrast, search-based is just that: the user collects the
>information but is not concerned with its organisation, they just expect the
>software’s indexing to be able to locate it quickly when needed.
I do not disagree, but let me explain why I chose to include tags with search instead of topic. I wrestled with this some before deciding to include tags under search, because I was not thinking about what the user did, but how the application works. The topic approach is static and manual. The user physically puts the item in its place and that is how it is displayed and found. With tags, you can apply multiple keywords, some of which you may never make reference to. In some programs, Evernote being especially so, the user experience of tags is similar to topics. Perhaps instead of “search” I should use the term “index.” It may make my view clearer. In that case tags are just a way for the user to more actively index the information.
>
>As an example, take
>Evernote. As discussed often in this forum, it boasts a very powerful search but lacks
>hierarchical folders; as a result, one would be tempted to classify it as a Search
>application. However, it also offers hierarchical tags, with which info can be
>organised as in a folder tree (but items can very easily belong to more than one
>categories). In this respect then, tags are just a more flexible take on Topics.
You may be right. The key is trying to figure out the taxonomy that will give people the best idea of which application will best serve their needs. This requires more contemplation and input from others.
>So,
>I would initially maintain the Search-Topic axis but I would restate the description
>to include tags under Topics, i.e. the distinction would be something like “Search
>(Automatic)” vs. “Topics (User-defined). Artificial intelligence applications
>which can themselves extract Topics would fall somewhere in the middle.
>
>I also see
>an additional ‘dimension’: this is the organisation of information items via
>relationships. It is the approach taken by TheBrain and all wikis, including
>ConnectedText. Sure, these tools also provide tagging, but this is complementary.
>At their core lies the original concept of hypertext.
In my initial approach, I assumed the relationships were topical. That is, if Topic A in ConnectedText contains a link to Topic B, this is a topical scheme. However, it is NOT a hierarchical scheme, so perhaps it does require its own dimension. More food for thought!
If this is to be useful, then the ultimate goal should be to give us a basis for comparing applications, and for people looking for tools to find the one(s) that best meet their needs. We’re off to a good start. I’ll see if I can keep the ball rolling.
Steve Z.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Aug 18, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>Let me clarify my use of the term “create.” I don’t mean “creative.”
>This is really more a question of the source of the actual content.
Understood. I considered also the term “develop”, but this also applies to the re-organisation I mentioned (therefore making no distinction on the source), so “Collect-Create” are probably the best ends for the axis.
>I wrestled with this some before deciding to include tags under search,
>because I was not thinking about what the user did, but how the application works. The
>topic approach is static and manual. The user physically puts the item in its place and
>that is how it is displayed and found. With tags, you can apply multiple keywords, some
>of which you may never make reference to. In some programs, Evernote being especially
>so, the user experience of tags is similar to topics. Perhaps instead of “search” I
>should use the term “index.” It may make my view clearer. In that case tags are just a way
>for the user to more actively index the information.
I feel that the proactive vs. passive role of the user in organising the information is an important one to make, (a) because with Google and desktop search engines very little such proactive work is done nowadays and (b) it is by doing such work, e.g. in academia, that one recognises patterns, develops theories, perceives solutions, etc.
>You may be right. The key is trying to figure out the taxonomy that will give
>people the best idea of which application will best serve their needs. This requires
>more contemplation and input from others.
Definitely.
>In my initial approach, I assumed the relationships were topical. That is, if Topic A in
>ConnectedText contains a link to Topic B, this is a topical scheme. However, it is NOT a
>hierarchical scheme, so perhaps it does require its own dimension.
I think that relationships may imply various associations between Topics other than topical; in any case, as one moves around their model, they will eventually find all Topics interrelated…
>If this is to be useful, then the ultimate goal should be to give us a basis
>for comparing applications, and for people looking for tools to find the one(s) that
>best meet their needs.
You might also want to consider the “content vs. structure” distinction discussed here http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/4232/30 and briefly on the next page.
Posted by Hugh
Aug 18, 2012 at 03:08 PM
Although Steve’s taxonomy demands more thought, I am pretty happy with it as it is.
For me the y-axis/North-South/primary-purpose distinction is the key one. It is here that for newbies there appears to be the most confusion. It would be very useful to be able to indicate to them where on that spectrum particular applications lie.
The x-axis is likely to be complicated by the understandable desire of developers to create applications that identify, organise and access information as much as possible every-which-way - topical placement, tags, linking, wikis, hierarchical folders, “artificial intelligence”, maps, diagrams, concordance-based search, to name the few I can immediately think of - and therefore will probably be more arbitrary. The complexities involved in adding and understanding an extra dimension could outweigh the advantages.
Posted by Peter
Aug 18, 2012 at 06:22 PM
What a great discussion guys! Very helpful. I have no time to comment just now. I will just say that the “taxonomy” diagram you produced Steve is very useful. Perhaps we could develop it further by critiquing the axes and adding more apps to flesh this out.
Posted by Hugh
Aug 19, 2012 at 07:33 AM
MS Word outline, extreme top right.
NoteMap, top right.
MyBase, bottom right.
Hard-disk file system, extreme bottom right.
Ecco Pro, on the y-axis, slightly below Tinderbox?
Zoot, just to the left of the origin, on the x-axis?
(Just being provocative.)