User Tools
emfaseinternal
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
emfaseinternal [2014/07/11 12:36] federica.paci@unitn.it [EMFASE Internal Activities] |
emfaseinternal [2021/01/29 10:58] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== EMFASE Internal Activities ====== | ====== EMFASE Internal Activities ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This wiki page describes the main decision points of the EMFASE project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| ===== EMFASE conference call 11 July 2014 ===== | ===== EMFASE conference call 11 July 2014 ===== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 16: | ||
| - Proposal of DBL | - Proposal of DBL | ||
| - Contribution to D2.1 | - Contribution to D2.1 | ||
| - | |||
| - | Discussion for comprehension questionnaire | ||
| - | Main hypothesis: | + | === Comprehension questionnaire === |
| - | - There is no difference between the comprehension levels of graphical and textual risk models | + | |
| - | Sub-hypothesis: | + | |
| - | - Visual graphs are better than tables for understanding how separate paths/rows are related | + | |
| - | - Visual graphs are better than tables for calculation and consistency checking | + | |
| - | - Tables are better than visual graphs filtering out specific information | + | |
| - | Discussion about the definition of graphical model: nodes and edges definition is not exhaustive; a working definition which specifies which are the elements of the graphical models is needed. We need to understand which are the features of the graphic model, in order to identify if these features work or not. | ||
| - | The scenario identified in Oslo was Poste Italiane Home Banking. | ||
| - | Direct observation | + | Main hypothesis: |
| - | MR explains how they defined criteria (according to MEM), sub-categories (according to success criteria), categories (as defined in Oslo) and indicators (defined by DBL)that can be measured and direct observed. | + | * There is no difference between the comprehension levels of graphical and textual risk models |
| - | A brief description of the experimental protocol is needed: how are you going to do the direct observation? How are you going to measure what you are observing? Consider that only partial observability will be available, how are you going to solve this problem? | + | |
| - | Actions list | + | Sub-hypothesis: |
| - | FP: share paper about comprehensibility by 11/07 | + | * Visual graphs are better than tables for understanding how separate paths/rows are related |
| - | UNITN, SINTEF: provide semi-final Comprehension Questionnaire by 8th August | + | * Visual graphs are better than tables for calculation and consistency checking |
| - | DBL: provide a short description on the added-value for the project and for the participants and the protocol for the observation by End of July | + | * Tables are better than visual graphs filtering out specific information |
| - | UNITN: provide 1 page with protocol for Section 4 of D2.1 | + | |
| + | Discussion about the definition of graphical model | ||
| - | Some interesting article for the experiments {{:research:experiments:articles.zip|Zip Files with experimental Articles}} | + | * Nodes and edges definition is not exhaustive; a working definition which specifies which are the elements of the graphical models is needed. We need to understand which are the features of the graphic model, in order to identify if these features work or not. |
| + | * The scenario identified in Oslo was Poste Italiane Home Banking. | ||
| + | === Direct observation=== | ||
| + | * MR explains how they defined criteria (according to MEM), sub-categories (according to success criteria), categories (as defined in Oslo) and indicators (defined by DBL)that can be measured and direct observed. | ||
| + | * A brief description of the experimental protocol is needed: how are you going to do the direct observation? How are you going to measure what you are observing? Consider that only partial observability will be available, how are you going to solve this problem? | ||
| + | === Actions list === | ||
| + | * FP: share paper about comprehensibility by 1th July | ||
| + | * UNITN, SINTEF: provide semi-final Comprehension Questionnaire by 8th August | ||
| + | * DBL: provide a short description on the added-value for the project and for the participants and the protocol for the observation by End of July | ||
| + | * UNITN: provide 1 page with protocol for Section 4 of D2.1 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some interesting article for the experiments {{:research_activities:experiments:articles.zip|Zip files}} | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Line 227: | Line 232: | ||
| Deadline end of April. | Deadline end of April. | ||
| - | |||
emfaseinternal.1405074999.txt.gz · Last modified: 2021/01/29 10:58 (external edit)
Page Tools
