1 / 72

Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia

Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia. Luis Francisco-Revilla Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University. 1. MASH. What is M ulti-model A daptive S patial H ypermedia?. 2. APPROACH. What were the challenges in creating MASH?. 3. SYSTEM. How was MASH instantiated?. 4.

stella-dotson
Download Presentation

Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia Luis Francisco-RevillaDepartment of Computer Science Texas A&M University

  2. 1 MASH What is Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia? 2 APPROACH What were the challenges in creating MASH? 3 SYSTEM How was MASH instantiated? 4 EVALUATION How effectively does the system function? 5 CONCLUSIONS What were the lessons learned?

  3. 1 MASH Hypermedia Map-based Hypermedia Adaptive Hypermedia Multi-model Adaptive Hypermedia Spatial Hypermedia Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia

  4. Problem HT 1 AH MH MAH SH Hypermedia often provides arigid presentationof the information MASH “Sometimes I want the link and sometimes I don’t” “I think these two objects might be related”

  5. HT AH MH MAH SH MASH Adaptive Hypermedia 1 Hypermedia • Personalize presentations • Adapt presentation to multiple aspects Adaptive Hypermedia User Model Task Model Multi model Adaptive Hypermedia Situation Model Risk Model

  6. HT AH MH MAH SH MASH Multiple Independent Models 1 • Complexity and scalability • Easier knowledge engineering • Portability and reutilization • Amortization of costs • Privacy and distribution • Control over personal models Very Risk So-so Not Very Competitor So-so Not Not So-so Very User Not So-so Very User Competitor Not So-so Very Not So-so Very Risk

  7. HT AH MH MAH SH MASH Hypermedia Map based Hypermedia Spatial Hypermedia Spatial Hypermedia 1 • There was a need to know the context • Due to their heavy use, maps became the primary interface Aquanet VKB

  8. HT AH MH MAH SH MASH Spatial Hypermedia 1 • Objects are not restricted to represent documents (e.g. objects may represent chunks of information within a document) Navigational Hypertext Spatial Hypertext

  9. HT AH MH MAH SH MASH Spatial Hypermedia 1 • Objects are not restricted to represent documents (e.g. objects may represent chunks of information within a document) Navigational Hypertext Spatial Hypertext

  10. HT 1 AH MH MAH SH MASH Spatial Hypermedia • Objects are not restricted to represent documents (e.g. objects may represent chunks of information within a document) Navigational Hypertext Spatial Hypertext

  11. Spatial Hypermedia HT 1 AH MH MAH SH MASH • Users can interact with the information and seethe effects of altering its structure • Reflect “perceptually” vs. reflect “cognitively”

  12. Spatial Hypermedia HT 1 AH MH MAH SH MASH Communication is via perceivable structures User Back-end Processes Systems use spatial parsersin order to develop a shared understanding of these structures

  13. HT AH MH MAH SH MASH Spatial Hypermedia 1 • In Web-based Spatial Hypermedia and Presentation Oriented Spatial Hypermedia, Readers and Authors are not the same person anymore

  14. 1 MASH Hypermedia Map-based Hypermedia Adaptive Hypermedia Multi-model Adaptive Hypermedia Spatial Hypermedia Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia

  15. 1 MASH 2 APPROACH Conflicts Classification Suggestions 3 SYSTEM 4 EVALUATION 5 CONCLUSIONS

  16. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 6 Adaptation in Spatial Hypermedia • Content • Relational • Spatial

  17. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Suggestions • Models provide suggestionsof how to adapt the information presentation Model 1 Bold, Increase size Object

  18. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Suggestions • Models provide suggestions of how to adapt the information presentation Model 1 Bold, Increase size Object Object

  19. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Model 1 Emphasize Object Methods and Techniques • Since Adaptive Hypermedia,high-level methodsare translated to low-level techniques

  20. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Methods and Techniques • Since Adaptive Hypermedia,high-level methods are translated to low-level techniques Model 1 Emphasize Object Emphasize = Bold, Increase size In Spatial Hypermedia the number of techniques increases Object

  21. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Methods and Techniques • Since Adaptive Hypermedia,high-level methods are translated to low-level techniques Model 1 Emphasize Object Emphasize = Change border color, Increase border width In Spatial Hypermedia the number of techniques increases Object

  22. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Methods and Techniques • Since Adaptive Hypermedia,high-level methods are translated to low-level techniques Model 1 Emphasize Object Emphasize = Change background color, Increase font size In Spatial Hypermedia the number of techniques increases Object

  23. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Methods and Techniques Suggestions specify the adaptation method, its strengthand the model’sconfidencein the suggestion • Since Adaptive Hypermedia,high-level methods are translated to low-level techniques Model 1 Emphasize by 1.5; 0.80 confidence Object Emphasize = Change background color, Increase font size In Spatial Hypermedia the number of techniques increases Object

  24. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Conflict Management • Conflictsoccur when multiple adaptations cannot be simultaneously represented Model 1 Model 2 Prevent from viewing Emphasize Object ?

  25. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Conflict Management • Conflicts occur when multiple adaptations cannot be simultaneously represented Model 1 Model 2 Prevent from viewing Emphasize Object ? Manage conflicts: • Prevention • Detection • Resolution Managing conflicts is more than resolving conflicts

  26. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Conflict Prevention • Augment medium expressiveness • Dynamically map high-level methods low-level techniques • Embrace ambiguity Model 1 Emphasize Emphasize  Increase font size De-emphasize De-emphasize  Fade out Model 2

  27. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Conflict Detection • Conflict propagation • Scope of conflicts • Spatial parser It does not look like a list anymore! Suggestion 1 Suggestion 2 Since the communication is via perceptible structures, when the structures break the communication breaks Suggestion 1 Suggestion 2 Conflicts can propagate in many directions

  28. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts Conflict Resolution • Merge suggestions • Strategies: • Weighted average • Suggestion strength • Suggestion confidence • Model confidence • Heuristic best Model 2: Model 1: de-emphasize emphasize Object average suggestions average suggestions Object

  29. 2 Classification APPROACH Suggestions Conflicts emphasize emphasize emphasize emphasize Conflict Resolution • Determine mapping from adaptation methods to techniques • Balancing author and reader control • Specify mapping and resolution strategies Object Object Object Object Object

  30. 1 MASH 2 APPROACH 3 SYSTEM WARP Process Behaviors 4 EVALUATION 5 CONCLUSIONS

  31. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process WARP • Multi-model Adaptive Spatial Hypermedia • Executes in a Web-browser • Novel features • Transclusion links • Personal readings • Annotations • Behaviors

  32. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Demo 1 • Relationships: • Explicit, Implicit, Transclusion • Behaviors • Online News • Collections • Commercial Web-page • Transclusion, Import and Export

  33. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Behaviors • User actions and system adaptations can affect existing spatial structures • Spatial parser identifies structures • Behaviors can preserve spatial relationships

  34. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Transformer Analyzer Parser Platform Adaptation Process (1) • Objects prior to adaptation

  35. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process M1 M2 Transformer Mn Models Analyzer Parser Platform Adaptation Process (2) • Inference of implicit structures

  36. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Transformer Analyzer Parser Platform M1 M2 Mn Models Adaptation Process (3) • Context inference and conflict prevention

  37. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process M1 M2 Transformer Mn Analyzer Models Parser Platform Adaptation Process (4) • Suggestion of adaptations

  38. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Transformer Analyzer Parser Platform M1 M2 Mn Models Adaptation Process (5) • Transformation and adaptations

  39. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Conflict? Transformer M1 Analyzer M2 Parser Mn Models Platform Adaptation Process (6) • Extended conflict detection

  40. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Transformer Analyzer Parser Platform M1 M2 Alternatives Alternatives Mn Models Adaptation Process (7) • Alternative creation

  41. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Transformer Analyzer Parser M1 Platform M2 OK? OK? Mn Models Adaptation Process (8) • Evaluation of alternatives

  42. 3 WARP SYSTEM Behaviors Process Transformer Analyzer Parser Platform Adaptation Process (9) • Final adaptation

  43. 1 MASH 2 APPROACH 3 SYSTEM 4 EVALUATION Qualitative Results Quantitative Results Experiment 5 CONCLUSIONS

  44. Experiment 4 Qualitative EVALUATION Quantitative Objectives 1 Comparative study • Non-adaptive spatial hypermedia • Multi-model adaptive spatial hypermedia Investigate the effects of adaptation in the process of reading spatial hypermedia Usability of the system 2 3

  45. Experiment 4 Qualitative EVALUATION Quantitative Population • 16 participants • 18-40 years old • From Texas A&M University and Bryan/College Station community • Varying degrees of expertise (8 beginner, 8 advanced)

  46. Experiment 4 Qualitative EVALUATION Quantitative Task • Web designers for a non-profit organization • Must author a Web page using a text editor in 90 minutes • Requirements and evaluation metrics for the Web page • Spatial hypertext about HTML as information support

  47. Experiment 4 Qualitative EVALUATION Quantitative Time Activity 15 minutes Training in software tools (WARP and authoring environment) 5 minutes Completing the computer and Web expertise questionnaire 20 minutes Completing the HTML and XHTML questionnaire 90 minutes Authoring Web page 10 minutes Completing the questionnaire about use of the system 10 minutes Interview 2:30 hours Evaluation Procedure

  48. Experiment 4 Qualitative EVALUATION Quantitative Initial Interface (not adapted)

  49. Experiment 4 Qualitative EVALUATION Quantitative Demo 2 • Adaptation of the experiment’s interface

  50. Experiment 4 Qualitative EVALUATION Quantitative User Model Initialization

More Related