DECISIONAL GUIDANCE - Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations - page 91

The second problem with the directivity dimension is that since most functional capabilities
(for instance, decision aids) provide their users with information as part of their capabilities, dis-
tinguishing informative guidance for using a given function from non-guiding information
offered by that function may be difficult. Indeed, guidance of any kind for using a functional capa-
bility is built into that function, so informative guidance is part of the function. The question
becomes whether or not to characterize part of what that function offers as informative guidance.
Note that this ambiguity is not an issue for guidance that supports choosing a capability, since
such guidance is outside any individual function.
Research and practice are best served by drawing the line liberally, including more rather than
less in the guidance category. The study of guidance is the study of how system features affect dis-
cretionary behavior. Defining what might otherwise be ambiguous cases as guidance ensures that
they are focused upon as features that affect behavior. So what are the minimum requirements for
a feature qualifying as deliberate decisional guidance? The feature must be focused at a point of
interaction between the person and the system, because these interaction points are where users
have the opportunity to exercise discretion. And the feature must offer information that is non-
essential to the basic operation of the functional capability. If the information in question is essen-
tial to the functionality—that is, if the function would not work, would not be meaningful, or
would be substantially different without the information—the feature should be viewed as part of
the functionality and not guidance. But any additional information provided beyond this basic
functionality should be characterized as guidance. This approach may tend to characterize as
guidance some features that have been taken for granted in the past, but doing so is beneficial, not
harmful. This approach views functions as containing basic features as well as, possibly, addi-
tional features that guide the interaction. To the extent that these added features enlighten, sway,
or direct users in their interaction with the function, then considering them as guidance will help
better understand the function's effect.
Formally, these revisions lead to the following definitions for the “directivity” dimension:
• Suggestive guidance : Deliberate decisional guidance that makes explicit recommendations
to the user on how to exercise his or her discretion. The recommendation need not identify a
single choice; suggestive guidance might endorse a set of alternative actions or might advise
against one or more actions.
• Quasi-suggestive guidance : Deliberate decisional guidance that does not explicitly make a
recommendation but from which one can directly infer a recommendation or direction.
• Informative guidance : Deliberate decisional guidance that provides pertinent information
that enlightens the user's choice without suggesting or implying how to act. In the case of
guidance within a specific functional capability, such information must be focused on a point
of interaction between the person and the system and must go beyond the basic information
essential to the function.
In all three cases, the discretion remains with the user. For instance, the user is free to accept
or reject any suggestions. The difficulty in formalizing and operationalizing this dimension high-
lights the difficulty in building a cumulative research base in this area.
Modes: Predefined, Dynamic, or Participative
The mode of guidance received limited attention in the empirical studies. Jiang and Klein's
(2000) informative guidance was predefined while their suggestive guidance was participative,