what-when-how
In Depth Tutorials and Information
attribute, “average number of clicks per use case,” was also added by us for the
objective “require little navigation to locate content” to measure this.
If an objective does not have any means objectives or any attributes that are
naturally used to interpret the objective (also called natural attributes below), an
attribute “support vs. opposition” was added by the researcher.
In this work, additive weighting function (a.k.a. weighted average) was used to
measure the arguments, i.e., the proposals were measured based on the attribute
values and the “importance” of the attributes. herefore, the stakeholders had to
give the relative importance of each objective in a 1-to-10 scale as follows:
10 = Very important
8 = Somewhat more important
6 = Important
4 = Somewhat less important
2 = Very less important
To get more accurate results, these “importance” value were collected for each fun-
damental and means objectives. After then the importance of each means objective
was calculated as the average value of its importance and the importance of its cor-
responding fundamental objective. he importance of an attribute was the same as
that of its objective.
Table 3 shows the relative importance of several objectives and attributes in the
task “Build Communication Protocol.”
d. Stakeholders declared their perspectives.
When the task proposals were being evaluated, each attribute of each objective was
assigned a value. Following our approach, the stakeholders' preferences for each
argument regarding how well it achieves each objective are shown in Figure 8.11
and these perspectives are represented by values for attributes of the objective.
e. Stakeholders generated and exchanged arguments.
Up to this step, stakeholders had prepared task proposals, objectives, and per-
spectives. hey used this information to generate the arguments. Based on the
Toulmin's deinition of structure, the claim was the design task proposal. he data
consist of the initial state of the task—the joint agreement achieved by the design
team before they work on this task. he warrant was the set of the objectives that
the team wanted to achieve from this task based on the initial state. Backing was
the attributes of each objective that further explained the objectives by describ-
ing their measurement criteria and then validated the relationship amongst the
objectives, the proposal, and the current state of agreement. Qualifier and rebuttal
were actually the measurement results regarding how well the proposal achieved
her own objectives and the objectives proposed by the team, so that the measure-
ment result for own objectives (qualifier) could indicate the degree of desire of
