RE: [Heartlogic-dev] getting closer - a few comments on UI

[William L. Jarrold]

I feel like I replied to this days ago.  Pardon me if repeat.
But if so, this reply is slightly different than before.

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Josh White wrote:

> > For what it's worth, I changed it to [-1,1] because that seems like
> > the most canonical range.
>
> I vote: don't show -1 to 1 to users.  Use 0 to 10 for normal people to
> comprehend.

perhaps.

well, i've noticed it is still the old 5 rating scale.

that is fine with me....nonetheless, i put the following on the wiki...

Some Issues:

What scale to have users rate on:

(a) binary

(b) ternary (a la Tim Chklosvki)

(c) quintary (a la my dissertation, e.g. 1-5)
+ like dissertation theefore data is more reusable.

(d) 10-ary
+ fine grained ratings
- a LOT to chose btwn
- reliability may suffer
- hard to have 10 radio buttons corresponding to each level

> > > > ....<whiney voice on> ya know i kinda like to see the standard
> > > > deviation.  People aren't THAT phobic of math science are they?
> > >
> > > Hey, why not?  I think people are going to feel more interested and
> > > involved if they are able to see the stats.
> >
> > Josh said no.  I don't care so much.  Whatever.
>
> Definitely no standard deviations.
>
> Doubters should ask their friends who are not in  Doubters should 
ask their friends who are not in science to define "standarscience to 
define 
"standard > deviation".  If more than half can, keep it on your page.
>

Good idea.

I put this idea on the wiki.

Bill