Comparing Constructions Through the Web Creating a New Grid 
One of most glaring deficiencies of the WebGrid system however, is the lack of an on-line help system. The terms elements and constructs can be somewhat confusing at first, and at times, it may be difficult to think of appropriate constructs, even with the aid of the triads. Furthermore, the tools that users can access to graphically display personal constructs have no accompanying explanatory text or comments. Of the graphs that were provided, the PrinCom graph seemed most intuitive, although all graphs would have benefited from a legend and/or accompanying instructions on how to read the graph. This would save the user the trouble of having to refer to "Comparing Constructions on the Web". Once the idiosyncrasies of the system have been mastered however, WebGrid is fairly easy to use.
On a side note, the Display option did not seem to work properly. Whenever one of the Display, PrinCom or FOCUS buttons was pressed, the graphic that was displayed was the one that had most recently been displayed, and not the graph with new constructs/elements added. To see the new graph, the Reload button had to be pressed, although this was not indicated to the user. Note that this is not problem of WebGrid per se, but may be related to the use of the Netscape Browser.
Even so, for some constructs, although the elements were ranked similarly by myself and Gaines,
it is debatable whether or not the same construct was meant. For example, although
elements ranked similarly on the constructs "Interactive-Non-Interactive" (myself) and
"Development Tool-Application" (Gaines), it is likely that these two constructs
are NOT the same.
In any case, there generally did not seem to be any conflicts in the use of terms.
That is, there did not appear to be instances in which the
same terms were used, but different constructs were meant.
The grid for this domain was fairly difficult to construct as this topic was presented
in class in fairly general terms. Furthermore, the topic is extremely broad,
and it was difficult to find constructs that applied to most of the elements.
Even so, "Personal" Constructs are subjective. While it may be helpful in collaborative
work as discussed in "Comparing Constructions on the Web", the grid is often
meaningful only to the user, and not to anyone else. If the domain is
too broad, it may be difficult to find any useful patterns, and if the domain
is too narrow, it may be difficult fo find appropriate constructs.
II. Elicitation of constructs on CPSC547 topics
Constructs
Seven constructs for this domain were determined through the use
of the triad button, and by considering some of the key aspects of each topic
(eg. the graphical nature of Visual Programming and the Interactivity of
Virtual reality). None of the constructs that were considered had exact Correspondence with
those already given by Gaines, although there was some Consensus . For example,
"Application to General Users" (myself) corresponded with "Human-Oriented tool" (Gaines).
Also "Static Knowledge" (myself) corresponded with "Only act as programmed" (Gaines). Despite the
difference in terms used, it was apparent by the element scores that myself and
Gaines had agreement on the meaning of these properties.
Personal Constructs on CPSC 547 topics
Analysis
The PrinCom grid showed loose clustering of some of the constructs. For example, using
my constructs for the domain, the grid loosely grouped together "Non-Interactive" systems
with Static Knowledge". Conversely, "Dynamic Knowledge" was grouped with "Interactive" systems.
The PrintCom graph also demonstrated that "Text-oriented" systems are in more
advanced stages of development, whereas the state of the art for graphically
oriented systems appears to be more primitive. Using the FOCUS option,
"Multimedia and hypermedia" and "Information Highway" were shown to be closely related
topics, as were "Electronic Publishing" and "Digital Libraries".
III. Elicitation of constructs on EDI/EFT
Constructs
For the domain of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), various
components of these technologies were used as elements. These included Value Added
Networks, Digital money and Smart Cards. Some of the constructs used for this
domain included those used for part II, including "State of the Art" and
"level of Human Interaction".
Personal Constructs on EDI/EFT
Analysis
Again, as in previous grids, the PrintCom graph was more or less scattered, although
some patterns emerged that could be expected. For example, the elements "Automated Payment"
and "Digital Money" fell into the same quadrant. Similarly, supportive components
of EDI/EFT such as "Standards" and "Security" also fell into the same quadrant. The
FOCUS graph showed similar relationships between the elements, also grouping
"Smart Cards" with "Automated Payment" and "Digital Money", and "Value Added Networks"
with "Security" and "Standards".
IV. Some Final Comments...
As previously stated, WebGrid seems to be quite useful in helping a user to organize
his or her thoughts. Patterns between elements are likely to emerge that are
not immediately obvious to the user. It is likely to be most helpful when a
great deal is known about a subject, where it can be used to articulate ideas and
concepts about that topic.
Last modified March 22th, 1996
Jeanette Long (long) Homepage
, Mail