CPSC 547 Project 3 Report by Terence Russell
Part 1 - WebGrid Exploration.
First Impressions
My first encounter with WebGrid was through the link to a grid on manufacturing
systems. I was immediately overwhelmed by seemingly strange phrases like "You
can elicit another capability using a triad of systems". Unless one has
invested the time to start with a new grid jumping ahead and viewing precreated
grids will only confuse the individual. The two examples provided, instruction
systems and manufacturing systems, seemed a little esoteric. I suggest an example
grid be created using a domain that is more relevant to students.
Grid Description
For my first grid, I choose the domain of computer games with the context "The attributes of my favorite games".
Hence the elements I created were games that I had played and enjoyed.
In total there were twenty games. For my constructs I used some of the possible
attributes that could be used to describe my favorite games. For example one of
the constructs used had the terms "Graphic Violence" and "No Violence". Thus
each game could be shown across a relative spectrum of violence.
Grid Analysis: PrinCom
The PrinCom chart indicates there is a single tight clustering characterized by the construct
"sprite based--polygon based", and a loose clustering characterized by "No violence--Graphic violence".
Grid Analysis: FOCUS
FOCUS does a good job of grouping those elements that are very similar.
3D action games were grouped fairly close together, as well as strategy
based games. In general FOCUS told me what I already knew. This is due
to the fact that I alone created the constructs and picked the elements.
Thus it should be expected that my views of these games would be
represented in FOCUS's correlations. One surprise was the placement of the element
"Virtua Racer" far from the other 3D games. Instead it was placed near games that
require simple hand-eye coordination like "Tetris" and "3D Pinball". Thus FOCUS
seems to see the true essence of an element based on the supplied constructs.
Link to the grid created for part one.
Part 2 - Elicitation of constructs on CPSC547 topics.
Construct Development Explained
All of the constructs I developed were based with the use of the Triad Elicitation function.
I tried to create opposite terms that best fit the three elements while keeping in mind that the other elements would need to be matched with the constructs. For instance in developing the
"Developer Hyped Product--Consumer Hyped Product" I had the choice of the elements "multimedia and hypermedia",
"information highway", and "visual programming". A random thought came into my head that said the
first two elements are related in that advertisers and the media hype them to Joe consumer. Thus
with that thought I realized that "Visual Programming" is often hyped to developers as the way
to produce software. Those two thoughts seem to be at opposite ends of the pole. The other four
constructs were created in a similar fashion.
Grid Description
Brian Gaines supplied a grid for this part of the project. The context of this grid was "aspects
of advanced information systems", and the provided elements were the topics taught in CPSC 547.
There were no preexisting constructs and so I added five of my own.
Grid Comparison
The terminology used by Brian and myself were generally very different.
The closest we got to an agreement was on my term called "GUI Based" and Brian's
term called "Targeted on Interface". Surprisingly when it came to distinctions
we were pretty close. Of the five constructs I created, four of them scored 75
and over while the highest correspondence was at about the 90 mark.
By the construct comparison chart we fall into the Correspondence
category. Thus we apply the same meaning to different constructs. Looking
back at our constructs, there seems to be a simularity in our choices.
For instance Brian created "Application technology--Communication technology"
while I created "High Data Persistence--High Data Flow". It is fairly easy
to see how "Communication technology" deals with a "High Data Flow". Similarly
Brian developed "Programming--Multimedia" whereas I developed "Developer Hyped Product--Consumer Hyped Product". Clearly "programming" and "developer products" are similar, as is "multimedia" and "consumer product".
Link to the grid created for part two.
Part 3 - Elicitation of constructs on my presentation topic.
Grid Description
For my final grid I based it on the context "Ethical & Liability Issues on the Internet".
The chosen elements were all issues with an ethical or liability aspect. Constructs were selected for their ethical or legal properties, and how well each of the elements fit within the construct terms.
Grid Analysis: PrinCom
The constructs were clustered into two groups: One is characterized by the construct "no liability--possible liability"; The other is characterized by "maximum effect to others--minimal effect to others". These two clusters represent a grouping of the respective liability constructs and the ethical constructs.
Basically elements that are illegal activities appear on the right hand side of the graph, and legal activies on the left.
Interestingly "spamming", "direct marketing", and "adult pornography" all appear in a region of legal and ethical activities. This of course is due to my own thoughts on such things. For instance I generally believe that "spamming" and "direct marketing" are performed by
individuals who are not aware of netiquette rules. "Adult pornography" is now generally only made available to adults and in our society is considered neither illegal nor unethical.
Grid Analysis: FOCUS
FOCUS like PrinCom grouped my constructs along ethical and liability lines. There was some consensus in what I thought were "good intentions", "minimal effect to others", and "ethical behaviour", which to me makes sense since I consider them to be near equivalent.
"Child pornography" was the least like any of the other elements mainly because it was the only criminal activity.
Link to the grid created for part three.
TA for 547.