Appropriateness of different kinds of conceptual models
This report will compare models in personal paper based calendar versus digital diary, and shared paper based wall planner versus shared web based calendar. An analysis of the listed models will also be carried out.
Paper based calendar versus digital calendar
In distinguishing the two calendars, the metaphors and concepts that have been used in designing the models include objects, properties, representation, access methods (Rovers, Sharp, & Preece, 2011). In the case of paper based calendar, the objects, which are appointments are not described but can be marked by highlighting dates. Digital calendars are different where appointments are described. Time, a property, is conceptualized differently in the two calendars. Time slot in paper calendar is empty while in a digital calendar it contains an appointment (Johnson & Henderson 21). Accessing existing appointment in digital calendars is by navigation through views, while in paper one just looks at a calendar for marked dates.
Paper based artifact has informed the digital calendar in aspects such as conceptual representation and identification of objects. Conceptual representation is by Month, Week, and Day, while objects identified by appointments (Helander, 1997). However, the new functionality in digital calendars are representation of the time slot, ease of accessing existing appointments, and incorporation of alarm and notifications.
Aspects of the conceptual model that are confusing for first timers are accessing objects—appointments—and carrying out operations such as using icons or acting on notifications.
Shared paper based wall planner versus web-based calendar
The concepts and metaphors used when designing the planners include operations, representation of objects, and properties. Shared paper based planner has operations on a plain paper with times and dates where everyone in a setting can view. However, in the web-based calendar, operations are in a menu and have buttons and icons all aimed at promoting interactions. Time is conceptualized differently in both planners. In wall planner it is fixed on a certain date, while in web-based it varies with the time zone of the viewer (Helander, 1997). Properties such as notifications and descriptions are lacking in wall planner, but present in web-based calendar.
Therefore, since web-based calendars have advanced features such as more properties like alarms and notifications, and have more interactive features, I use web based calendars. Furthermore, web-based calendars can be created in multiple forms and even combined. Customizing of the desired language and suitable time zone is another advantage (LUCID STAGE 3). The cons that I can only highlight are two; complex to new users, and not suitable for simple tasks such as just keeping appointments.
References
Helander, M. G. (1997). Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Pp. 448-452
Johnson, J, & Henderson, A. (2012). Conceptual Models: Core to Good Design. New Jersey: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Pp. 20-29
LUCID STAGE 3: DESIGN. Available at:
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3724/spring99/notes/LUCID-stage-3.PDF
Rovers, R., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 35-86
