Human–Information Interaction with Complex Information for Decision-Making
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Explanation of Terms
2.1. Simple Information
- ■
- Single path. One path can be fully defined that will result in the answer.
- ■
- Right/wrong answer. The correctness can be tested and the information declared correct or not correct.
- ■
- Complete information. The completeness can be tested and the information declared complete or not complete.
- ■
- Closed system. All of the factors that might influence the answer can be defined and accounted for.
2.2. Complex Information
- ■
- Multiple paths. There is no single path to an answer. A person can take many different paths and all will work. The effectiveness of the paths may, of course, vary.
- ■
- Open-ended. The idea of “complete” is undefined. A person can continue to collect information and refine their understanding with an essentially infinite amount of information. Instead, a person has to pick a stopping point and make a decision.
- ■
- Needs cannot be predefined. The information that a person needs cannot be predefined. Of course the major or essential information can be predefined, but the many smaller information elements that can exert a strong influence vary too much between individuals.
- ■
- History. The information exists within a continuum and that history influences how it gets interpreted and used.
- ■
- Non-linear. The overall situation shows a non-linear response with small differences in some information elements resulting in very large differences in appropriate decisions.
- ■
- Open system. All of the factors that might influence the decision cannot be defined. There are too many and the information is dynamic, changing on time scales relevant to the decision situation.
- ■
- Complex information communicates concepts and ideas.
- ■
- Complex information communicates an understanding of a situation.
- ■
- Complex information communicates relationships and interactions.
Typically, the failure of these technical documents [used here in a generic sense for any information source] comes not from a lack of information; the text probably contains an excess of information. Post hoc studies of communication failures find many sources to blame: poor information architecture, poor organization, wrong grade level or writing style, or poor presentation. But instead of seeing these problems as a root cause, let’s consider them as symptoms of a more fundamental problem: a problem stemming from the underlying complexity of the situational context and a failure of the information presentation to match that complexity.([10], p. 110)
2.3. Information Relationships
Information integration lies, not in a text element itself, but in the relationships between those elements. A reader needs to figure out what information is relevant and how to connect it to the current problem. Without proper information relationships, the reader does not gain an integrated understanding of information, but instead gains a collection of facts. Without relationships, information exists as a bunch of interesting factoids which do not help a person form an adequate mental picture of the situation. Collections of facts are less than useful for understanding and working with the open-ended problems that people encounter in complex situations [12,13]. Without the relationships, a person learns about X and Y, but not how X and Y relate to each other or to Z in terms of their current problem or situation [14]. The text fails to communicate because the reader can’t form the necessary information relationships.([10], p. 111).
2.4. Contextual Awareness
3. HII is Information Interaction, not Data Interaction
Data | Raw numbers, facts, and figures. |
Information | Information is data in context. It relates to the situation and contains the relationships that connect the information to the situation. |
Knowledge | Interconnected web of the relevant information and the relationships linking the information within the situation. |
4. Communication of Simple and Complex Information
Multiple paths | People have multiple paths through the information. The order in which they move between the puzzle pieces cannot be predefined. Each HII with a piece can change how it interconnects; thus, different paths through the information change how people build the relationships and, consequently, how the pieces fit together. |
Open-ended | No clear point of enough information. The HII cannot move toward a predefined point of “now you have all the information.” With a goal of communicating concepts and ideas, how many pieces a person needs, cannot be defined. Of course, the issue of information needs versus information wants also comes into play. Coupled with this is the fact that information search and problem-solving are sufficing processing [26,27]. People stop once they are comfortable with their understanding of the found information. Unfortunately, people are poor judges of knowing they have found adequate information |
Cannot be predefined | How many pieces a person will interact with remains unknowable to a design team. Interestingly, the size (content) of individual pieces is dynamic; some people need smaller/larger pieces to effectively comprehend the overall situation and tend to make choices in terms of immediate, rather than long-term, efficiency and effort of the HII [28,29]. |
History | Past history of a situation affects how the pieces will evolve and the past history of the people interacting with the information affects how they interpret it. Two situations may appear to be the same but the past strongly influences how the piece will change. |
For example, six months ago sales in the southeast region were down by 30%. A set of decisions was made and sales have steadily increased since them. They are still 10% below desired levels, but are increasing at an acceptable rate. This situation is much different than if sales are 10% below the desired level and not conforming to predictions. | |
Non-linear | The relationships between pieces can show non-linear response to changes. Minor differences in past history or the HII path can result in widely different—but appropriate—end points. In individual piece can morph into very different final shapes, even though they started from similar initial conditions. |
Open system | As the system evolves, the overall content within the system changes. Some new information gets introduced and some information drops out. The number of pieces, their content, and their shape can change. |
5. HII for Decision-Making
This broader view is necessary to capture the following traits of complex tasks: paths of action that are unpredictable, paths that are never completely visible from any one vantage point, and nuance judgments and interpretations that involve multiple factors and that yield many solutions.([12], p. 14)
5.1. Decision-Making Strategies
5.1.1. Experience-Based
5.1.2. Knowledge-Based
6. Conclusions
- ■
- Define the situations that must be understood
- ■
- Determine the information people need to understand the situation
- ■
- Determine how that information is connected and how people see those connections as they build their contextual awareness
- ■
- Understand how the information and relationships change as the situation evolves
- ■
- Understand the biases, interaction expectations, and decision-making styles of the audience
- ■
- Determine the best HII for presenting the information to achieve the best information communication while allowing for those biases, interaction expectations, and decision-making styles
Conflict of Interests
References
- Albers, M. Communication of Complex Information: User Goals and Information Needs for Dynamic Web Information; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Albers, M. Human-Information Interaction and Technical Communication: Concepts and Frameworks; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mirel, B. Interaction Design for Complex Problem Solving: Developing Useful and Usable Software; Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Albers, M. Human-information interactions with complex software. In Proceedings of the HCI International, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–14 July 2011.
- Sedig, K.; Parsons, P. Interaction design for complex cognitive activities with visual representations: A pattern-based approach. AIS Trans. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2013, 5, 84–133. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, C. Google, tear down this wall to exploratory search! Bull. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 40, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingwersen, P.; Jarvelin, K. The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Cole, C. Information Need: A Theory Connecting Information Search to Knowledge Formation; Information Today: Medford, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Parsons, P.; Sedig, K. Adjustable properties of visual representations: Improving the quality of human-information interaction. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2014, 65, 455–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albers, M. Usability and information relationships: Considering content relationships when testing complex information. In Usability of Complex Information Systems: Evaluation of User Interaction; Albers, M., Still, B., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; pp. 109–132. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, R.S. Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. Coll. Res. Libr. 1968, 29, 178–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirel, B. Applied constructivism for user documentation. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 1998, 12, 7–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirel, B. Dynamic usability: Designing usefulness into systems for complex tasks. In Content and Complexity: Information Design in Software Development and Documentation; Albers, M., Mazur, B., Eds.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 233–261. [Google Scholar]
- Woods, D.; Patterson, E.; Roth, E. Can we ever escape from data overload? A cognitive systems diagnosis. Cogn. Technol. Work 2002, 4, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albers, M. Information relationships: The source of useful and usable content. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 4–7 October 2009.
- Fidel, R. Human Information Interaction: An Ecological Approach to Information Behavior; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Saracevic, T. Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II. Nature and manifestations of relevance. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2007, 58, 1915–1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thuring, M.; Hannemann, J.; Haake, J. Hypermedia and cognition: Designing for comprehension. Commun. ACM 1995, 38, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Endsley, M. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 1995, 37, 32–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albers, M. Contextual awareness as measure of human-information interaction in usability and design. In Proceedings of the HCI International, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–14 July 2011.
- Kain, K.; de Jong, M.; Smith, C. Information Usability testing as audience and context analysis for risk communication. In Usability of Complex Information Systems: Evaluation of User Interaction; Albers, M., Still, B., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; pp. 305–332. [Google Scholar]
- Richards, D. Testing the waters: Local Users, sea level rise, and the productive usability of interactive geovisualizations. Commun. Des. Q. 2015, 3, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shannon, C. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redish, J. Expanding usability testing to evaluate complex systems. J. Usability Stud. 2007, 2, 102–111. [Google Scholar]
- Sommerville, O.; Cliff, D.; Calinescu, R.; Keen, J.; Kelly, T.; Kwiatkowska, M.; Mcdermid, J.; Paige, R. Large scale complex IT systems. Commun. ACM 2012, 55, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klein, G. Sources of Power: How People make Decisions; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Simon, H. Models of Thought; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Fennema, M.; Kleinmuntz, D. Anticipation of effort and accuracy in multi-attribute choice. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1995, 63, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, S.; Howes, A.; Reader, W. Adaptively distributing cognition: A decision making perspective on human-computer interaction. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2001, 20, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, R.; Mitroff, I. A program for research on management information systems. Manag. Sci. 1973, 19, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerlach, J.; Kuo, F. Understanding human-computer interaction for information system design. MIS Q. 1991, 15, 527–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, D.; Roth, E. Cognitive engineering: Human problem solving with tools. Hum. Factors 1988, 30, 415–430. [Google Scholar]
- Conklin, J. Wicked problems and fragmentation. Available online: http://www.cognexus.org/id26.htm (accessed on 24 April 2015).
- Ackoff, R. Management misinformation systems. Manag. Sci. 1967, 14, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Albers, M.J. Human–Information Interaction with Complex Information for Decision-Making. Informatics 2015, 2, 4-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics2020004
Albers MJ. Human–Information Interaction with Complex Information for Decision-Making. Informatics. 2015; 2(2):4-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics2020004
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlbers, Michael J. 2015. "Human–Information Interaction with Complex Information for Decision-Making" Informatics 2, no. 2: 4-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics2020004