✍ Scribed by Keith Stenning; Corin Gurr
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
A recurrent theme in studying the interaction between human and formalism is the understanding of how people interact with representations in reasoning and communication. In contrast to the best known theories, which approach the question of the impact of representation upon reasoning through explanations in terms of human computational architecture, we present here a more fundamental approach. This approach separates the problem into two parts-issues about computational complexity arising from the nature of the semantic interpretation (issues which are abstract with regard to architecture); and issues about how human computational architecture in particular can be brought to bear on different representations. On this view, for example, diagrams are often logically inexpressive and this is why they lead to efficient inference.
This paper presents experiences in applying this semantic approach to the empirical study of modality assignment in three disparate domains: logic teaching, safety critical software engineering and the teaching of formality. We show how, in each of these cases, an account of the semantics of representations in simple formal terms permits the analysis and modelling of what would otherwise be incomprehensibly complicated behavioural phenomena. The results of these apparently diverse studies indicate that individual differences in what might be termed cognitive styles have a significant effect upon a humans use and understanding of various formalisms. This, we argue, is evidence that HCI researchers require a more analytical means to relate the cognitive and social sides of HCI than has previously been available. Furthermore, we also take the studies presented here as evidence that our approach is a substantial step towards providing such a means of analysis. ᭧ 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES