NoteCards is a general hypermedia environment designed to help people work with ideas. Its intended users are authors, designers, and other intellectual laborers engaged in analyzing information, designing artifacts, and generally processing ideas. The system provides these users with a variety of hypermedia-based tools for collecting, representing, managing, interrelating, and communicating ideas. This paper presents the NoteCards system as a foil against which to explore some of the major limitations of the current generation of hypermedia systems. In doing so, this paper highlights seven of the major issues that must be addressed in the next generation of hypermedia systems. These seven issues are: search and query, composite nodes, virtual structures, computational engines, versioning, collaborative work, and tailorability. For each of these issues, the papers describes the limitations inherent in NoteCards and the prospects for doing improving the situation in future systems.

A design rationale (DR) is a representation of the reasoning behind the design of an artifact. In recent years, the use of semiformal notations for structuring arguments about design decisions has attracted much interest within the human-computer interaction and software engineering communities, leading to a number of DR notations and support environments. This paper examines two foundational claims made by argumentation-based DR approaches: that expressing DR as argumentation is useful, and that designers can use such notations. The conceptual and empirical basis for these claims is examined, firstly by surveying relevant literature on the use of argumentation in non-design contexts (from which current DR efforts draw much inspiration), and secondly, by surveying DR work. Evidence is classified according to the research contribution it makes, the kind of data on which claims are based (anecdotal or experimental), the extent to which the claims made are substantiated, and whether or not the users of the approach were also the researchers. In the survey, a trend towards tightly integrating DR with other design representations is noted, but it is argued that taken too far, this may result in the loss of the original vision of argumentative

Many researchers have proposed representational schemes to capture complex reasoned discourses. In this paper, we use our experiences with argument representation to examine some of the issues affecting the design of these representational schemes. Our discussions focus on how well a particular scheme, Toulmin structures, maps into the domain of argumentative discourse and captures and highlights various phenomena we consider central to argumentation. We then use this analysis to explore several complementary representational schemes. Finally, we discuss some relatively unexplored factors that influence the usability of these schemes. 1.

Conflict is an inevitable part of both requirements elicitation and system design. As McDermid points out elsewhere in this volume, requirements are negotiated, not captured. During this process, the participants will disagree over how to interpret features of the application domain, what the requirements for a new system are, and how to meet those requirements. Conventional

Abstract not found

A few representations have been used for capturing design rationale. It is important to know in what ways they are adequate or limited so that we know how to improve them. In this paper, we develop a framework for evaluating design rationale representations based on a set of generic design tasks. We build the framework by progressively differentiating the elements of design rationale that, when made explicit, support an increasing number of the design tasks. With this framework, we evaluate the expressiveness of the existing representations. We also present a language, DRL, that we believe is the most expressive of the existing representations without being too complex for human users. We also discuss the limitations of DRL as open problems for further research.

This paper surveys a number of fields

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING ELECTRONICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT An Annotative Approach to Better Hyperauthoring and Associative Linking by Timothy J. Miles-Board Early hypertext visionaries proposed entire online archives of the world's literature, with everything associatively linked to everything else. Today, the most widespread hypertext system is the World-Wide Web (WWW), a publicly accessible and glob- ally distributed medium. However, the WWW is not living up to the promise of hypertext associativity - the majority of hypertext linking on the WWW is estimated to be intended for navigational purposes only.