Strange Aeons

Some of my more recent research has been into new, or at least improved, ways to make the web a more conversational place. In one sense it already is, we can link to stuff and we can comment on posts. This isn't always sufficient though. In reverse order, not all sites support commenting and even when they do comment support on websites can still be done better than it is right now as it can be difficult to mine, evaluate and analyse the insightful comments. I feel that a web conversation works better when it is a part of the Web, a strand of conversation that interleaves the various sites spread across the web leading a person, whether a spectator or part of the conversation, to engage in chance discovery. Linking is the primary structure of the web. Hyperlinks enable us to create uni-directional links between one site and another, so that when we wish to refer to another site, for example, when commenting in our own blog upon a claim made in another, we link to that originating source site. These links are only one way however, so I can refer to another site, but they have to respond to me if the conversation is to be reciprocal. This does not however stop any other web users from responding to my post in any way that they see fit. This gives us a very egalitarian system, with minimal structure, in which the web itself supports conversation - it is up to the conversation's participants to engage in it and make it happen. A nice example of this kind of web conversation occurred with the recent discussion between John Gruber of Daring Fireball and Joe Wilcox of Oddly Together. This spat basically boiled down to the suggestion by Joe that Daring Fireball should allow comments on posts because otherwise Joe has to respond to Daring Fireball posts on his own blog and John's response that "you write on your site; I write on mine". I think that that is exactly how it should be and that the web is a better place for it. I think that comments enable an immediacy of response but they don't guarantee that your response will stay in place. The only way to ensure that your response stays online is to post it in a place that you control with a link back to the original. Even better, if those two hadn't disagreed then I wouldn't have discovered this post about "Conversational Journalism" by Doreen Marchionni which to me echoes the argument that Alan Rusbridger made in his Hugh Cudlipp lecture (which I commented upon before). There are also many sites that are primarily designed to support conversation such as the Web 2.0 sites like Twitter but for the most part these lead us into a walled garden, with poor support for conversational threads and, due to the limitations of microblogging, the increased use of link shorteners which, whilst not breaking the links in the web, certainly weaken its structural integrity. From the perspective of the Twitter business this makes sense, the lock-in part anyway, you want to be the only game in town, but from the perspective of the web, this is a systemic weakness because a huge portion of web traffic, much of the web conversation, is occurring on a single site, a single point of failure. This is not to say that I am "against" Twitter, far from it, I like the idea of microblogging and to me it provides the basis, but not a complete solution, for enhanced distributed web conversation. It is just that I prefer open and distributed systems to closed and proprietary ones - mainly because when things break, and things always break, you can't fix them, you have to wait for someone else to do that. The next stages, as I see it, are twofold:

1. to provide aggregation mechanisms so that we can get different views on the conversations, for example, following it in whichever direction we like, instead of just following the uni-directional links, or exploring a particular sub-thread of the conversation.
2. to provide new tools to make it easier to engage in the conversation.

The first stage can be accomplished by building upon the Argument Interchange Format, at least in the guise offered by its second version which includes support for dynamic argumentation structures, including dialogues, rather than just static, monological argument. By utilising open, distributed, web-conversation repositories to store meta-information about the relationships between conversational utterances, much like trackbacks and pings enable a form of bi-directional linking, we can start to build new interfaces to engage with and track the web conversation. The second stage will be accomplished by the tool-builders, a process that is partly happening already with the advent of tools to enable Twitter users to tweet from wherever they want and with new and improved blogging and microblogging platforms such as Tumblr and Posterous making it easy to create short posts as a part of the web conversation.

Wow, where did the last month go? I am recently back from the second Argument Interchange Format (AIF) meeting which was held at the Dalmunzie Hotel in rural Scotland. The list of delegates to this meeting read like a who's who of online argumentation researchers - people who are developing argumentative tools which, in some way, communicate argumentative information between themselves and to their users. All in all the meeting went well. We achieved the aim of writing a first draft of a specification for the second AIF which includes fixes for many of the problems we have discovered since the original format was specified and introduces some new elements that many of us have noticed were glaringly omitted from the original. In terms of running and organising the event, there were some things that went really well such as:

• Ensuring that all delegates prepared a position statement beforehand so that rather than meeting and starting with "what are we going to talk about" we got straight to the job of discussing the next version of AIF.
• The first night over dinner we all wrote questions onto post it notes that framed the sorts of things that we were interested in. These were used to create a number of topic/discussion groups (which later became major organising elements of the paper draft) and whittle the 23 delegates into a manageable number of working groups with shared interests.

Other things of course worked less well, for example,

• 23 computer scientists using Google Docs to collaboratively edit documents is fine. Except when you are in rural Scotland where your internet feed is provided via two-way satellite communications which are very quickly saturated, and suffer from fairly high latency anyhow.

Some lessons learned:

• Google Docs works quite well for collaboratively editing documents. Who knew? It even works well if you are using it to collaboratively edit LaTeX source, although obviously you don't get to compile it to anything useful or check source errors within Google Docs.
• Make sure that people aren't editing offline then copy-pasting into the Google Doc, as each time they do this they reintroduce the same errors that you just got finished fixing. (This one caused both myself and John to swear quite a bit)
• If you are working with LaTeX then don't forget to install it onto your laptop before you go as you then have to shell into a remote server which has a working LaTeX environment in order to compile the aforementioned LaTeX source into a PDF.
• Set up a local network using a small wireless access point and make some shared directories available on a small server such as a mac mini so that you are not transmitting all that data over the hotel's network all the time. We caused the Hotel to have to reset their router several times over the course of the meeting.
• Investigate collaborative software, such as Gobby, or a versioning system such as Mercurial that can run on the local server to keep track of the collaborative edits rather than relying on Google Docs. Although Google worked reasonable well I still had to go through the following steps to get a PDF generated:

1. Download the document from Google Docs as a txt file & save it as .tex file
2. Run the tex file through dos2unix
3. Get rid of any final non-printable ascii characters using the following:

   $ tr -cd '\11\12\15\40-\176' < file-with-binary-chars > clean-file

4. Compile as usual.

My favourite element of the new specification is the inclusion of support for dynamic argumentation. I had attended the meeting with a clear personal plan to ensure that the AIF2.0 include support for dialogue and I was assigned to the working group on dialogue with Bart Verheij, Raquel Mochales , and David Glasspool. One of the things that quickly became apparent was that thinking of the AIF in terms of monologic and dialogic argument was quite limiting and that other researchers had quite clear needs which wouldn't covered by an AIF which accounted for just arguments and dialogues. Instead what we developed was a model that saw the core AIF, version 1.0, as a model of static arguments and AIF2.0 as including both this as well as dynamic extensions that enable us to model not just dialogue but also other aspects of dynamic argument such as representing the order of argument elements for when analysing rhetorical and presentational aspects of an argument (thanks Raquel) and the history of the construction of an argument (thanks David).

I found this blog run by the Future of Persuasion: Future as Persuasion project at the Institute for the Future (IFTF). Persuading others is just one way that we make use of argumentation in order to achieve specific goals in the real world. This IFTF project proposes the following core research questions:

• What are the new directions of change in persuasive tech? In particular, we will track RT data/activity streams, modeling/simulation, augmented reality, video, haptic interfaces, mobile supercomputing with the cloud, and the cognitive web.
•  What are the new directions of change in the science and art of persuasion?  We’ll look at behavioral psychology and economics, social networking, design thinking, neuroscience, and game theory.
• How is what we are persuading for changing? What new values and norms will emerge over the next decade that could change what we want to be persuaded about, or how others want to persuade us?  These could be as large as the concept of sustainability, or more narrow, such as the emergence of new parenting norms in the U.S.
• How are the agents of persuasion changing? The crowd and the individual are both agents gaining the power to persuade.  How will this change over the next decade and what will the new agents be?
• How is persuasive power being redistributed? Who is likely to gain more persuasive power, and who to lose it, over next decade?
• What might be new obstacles to persuasion?
• What are the implications of these changes for 5 important domains of persuasion in the next decade?
  
  • Learning,
  • Marketing/Advertising,
  • Working/Belonging to an organization,
  • Health, and,
  • Governance/Politics.

As software developers & technologists we can also look to how persuasive elements of interfaces can be designed in order to influence behaviour.

For example, visual feedback to the driver of a car indicating their fuel consumption can persuade the driver to modify their driving technique, influencing their behaviour for the better (the picture above illustrates the Ford Fusion dashboard in which a vine, on the right hand side, withers or thrives depending upon how economically the car is driven).

Similarly, visual interfaces that give feedback on home energy consumption can be made to make user feel worse about consuming more energy, and better about reducing our energy consumption, again influencing our behaviour as researchers at the Eindhoven Institute for Technology have done using the Phillips iCat:

One place to find out more about this is the AISB symposium’s on persuasive technology [2008, 2009] that have run over the last couple of years which have drawn together interface designers, interaction designers, and, persuasion, dialogue, and argumentation researchers to present work and discuss both how to build persuasive systems, and how to use them responsibly. I presented papers at both of these symposium’s, the first on MAgtALO, an agent-based dialogue system used to perform knowledge elicitation about the opinions held by real people on real subjects, and a paper on mapping the outputs from dialogue software, like InterLoc, onto argument structures represented in the Argument Interchange Format (AIF).

As I continue to develop argument blogging software to support online argumentation, I believe that persuasion will take a more central theme. At the surface level of the argument web, users will primarily attempt to persuade each other to accept the other’s standpoint, but there will come a time when we have sufficiently good corpora of structured argument and opinion that we also start to reuse argument oriented software to influence people to make the correct decisions.

To give you a little bit more of an idea of why argumentation is important, I found this blog run by the Future of Persuasion: Future as Persuasion project at the Institute for the Future. Persuading others is just one way that we make use of argumentation in order to achieve specific goals in the real world. As computer software developers we can also look to how persuasive elements of interfaces can be designed in order to influence behaviour. For example, visual feedback to the driver of a car indicating their fuel consumption can persuade the driver to modify their driving technique, influencing their behaviour for the better (the picture above illustrates the Ford Fusion dashboard in which a vine, on the right hand side, withers or thrives depending upon how economically the car is driven). Similarly, visual interfaces that give feedback on home energy consumption can be made to make use feel worse about consuming more energy, and better about reducing our energy consumption, again influencing our behaviour. One place to find out more about this is the AISB symposium's on persuasive technology [2008, 2009] that have run over the last couple of years which have drawn together interface designers, interaction designers, and, persuasion, dialogue, and argumentation researchers to present work and discuss both how to build persuasive systems, and how to use them responsibly.

The Dialogue Academy is a Wellcome Trust supported training scheme that deals with dialogue and debate in science communication. It has been running since September 2009 and provides free training to help professional science communicators to develop ideas, tools, skills, and techniques for using dialogue and debate as a way to engage audiences in contemporary science issues.

The following topics are covered:

• Why engage audiences with dialogue
• Facilitation skills
• A dialogue activity marketplace
• Dialogue with different audiences
• Dialogue and fundraising
• What makes a good dialogue topic
• Planning your own dialogue activity
• Embedding dialogue in everyday practice

The idea is that participants plan a science communication small scale event and use the first two day workshop to learn about dialogue and debate and how to integrate these into their event. They then trial their event and give feedback to the other participants at a final workshop.

The definition of dialogue being used by the dialogue academy is as follows:

“A process of communication in which two or more participants engage in an open exploration of issues and relationships on an equitable basis. Dialogue is the exchange of ideas, opinions, beliefs, and feelings between participants – both speakers and audience. It is listening with respect to others and being able to express one’s own views with confidence. Dialogue is not silence, chaos or one person or faction monopolising the session.”

Which unsurprisingly is pretty much identical to the basic definition that I use in my argumentation and critical thinking classes on dialogue at Dundee University. Although I have to be a little more careful about using more loaded words such as beliefs which have a specific philosophical meaning as used in computer science, the basic idea of multiple speakers exchanging ideas, opinions, and establishing positions is what dialogue is all about. My Ph.D thesis was all about how to formalise these interactions into protocols that computer software, called intelligent agents, can use, the intuition being that real world dialogue enables us to interact with each other in a flexible, efficient, and robust manner and that there are two core benefits to enabling computer software to do the same:

1. Firstly, that those same benefits that humans enjoy, flexibility, efficiency, and robustness, should also be core factors in the development of computer communications, and
2. Secondly, that computer software should have available to it models of human computer interaction that are closer to those that we use in human to human interaction.

I raised a titter (excuse the pun) at the AISB symposium on Persuasive Technology when I suggested that after the nipple, one of the next most natural interfaces that humans use, and in one sense use quite well, is dialogue and argument. We take positions, argue the toss, and in an everyday sense, we get things done. We might not necessarily argue well, and we might not always manage to resolve those big arguments, but the day to day stuff gets achieved. It is this aspect of argumentative dialogue that is intriguing to me as a model for how people could better interact with computers, and how computers could better interact with each other.

This article about David Cope starts off talking about generative music but takes an interesting turn about halfway through when it introduces the interface to Emily Howell, a virtual composer. From the description, the interface basically enables a composer to collaborate with the software composer by letting them engage in a dialogue about the piece of music that they want to create.

    “This program would write music in an odd sort of way. Instead of spitting out a full score, it converses with Cope through the keyboard and mouse. He asks it a musical question, feeding in some compositions or a musical phrase. The program responds with its own musical statement. He says “yes” or “no,” and he’ll send it more information and then look at the output. The program builds what’s called an association network — certain musical statements and relationships between notes are weighted as “good,” others as “bad.” Eventually, the exchange produces a score, either in sections or as one long piece.”

I wonder how such a dialogue protocol could be tailored to support this kind of interaction. Could we develop protocols that support collaboration and yield well formed pieces of music? What would happen if we had two or more of these virtual composers conversing to produce music?