I’ve been working on user experience for All Angles and I really want to use Red and Green as indicators. The main problem is I heard of a a common Red-Green Colorblindness and many people can’t tell the difference. If it’s used as an indicator then they loose that information. I believed that if I use enough contrast then most anyone can tell the difference even in black and white but how can I be reasonably sure that all the information I share is understandable. I found a great color blindness simulator that I used. They didn’t have a red/green colorblindness but checked out all the options and only the Monochrmacy was hard to distinguish. I guess I need to darken the Red and Lighten the Green. Here is the original followed by the other pictures.
In the last week I have been receiving some great feedback on Truth Scale. I have also received some feedback that is hard to swallow. I have encountered it before. Many people have very strong feelings about the word “truth”. I can understand why. When you talk about truth it brings up arguments about absolute and personal truth. Some people are offended by the idea that truth can be anything but absolute so Truth Scale just feels wrong. Even when I explain which meaning of the word truth I am using by them the damage is done and the experiment is dismissed. I have the feeling that although other people do not mention it the implied absoluteness of the name causes hesitation. So it is with a sad heart that I realized that I need to stop using the Truth Scale name. I love the Logo but it also needs to go. :(
What is the new name?
I am reticent to choose a new name until I get more solid feedback so I think I am just going to call it my experiment for now.
I will host it at Experiment.BentleyDavis.com and point TruthScale.org there.
How would you describe this experiment?
I trying out “A tool to build consensus by encouraging a deeper understanding of the reasons behind a belief.”
What do you honestly think about the name Truth Scale?
What would it take to really spend some time in the experiment?
I appreciate you participation.
TruthMapping.com lists several ways it makes debate more productive in their about page that I summarize here:
- Manage context to keep discussion on topic
- Encourages more content than noise by showing the latest version of an iterated discussion.
- Reduces digressions by breaking the discussion into it’s component parts.
- Removes the time limitations which keeps discussions focused
- Exposes Assumptions because you have to state your assumptions to defend your points
These are fantastic goals that are implemented in this website.
The TruthMapping.com Process
The process on TruthMapping.com can be seen in the video above and I summarize here. A creator creates a topic. The creator can add other single statements or concepts that support the statement. If those statements have supports then they are called conclusions. If not, they are called premises. This is shown in a tree diagram with the topic at the bottom with the conclusions and premises forming a triangle up ad to the right. The creator then publishes the map to the site. Others can comment on individual premises or conclusions and indicate if they agree or not.
Similarities to the Statement Graph (what became Truth Scale)
- Main topic with supporting statements in a tree structure
- Statement without supports are considered assumptions (premises)
Differences from the Statement Graph
- Premises are similar to assumptions but have a slightly different connotation
- A premise implies that it is intentionally not able to be broken down further. An assumption implies that more information can be added inviting others to participate.
- The tree is represented in reverse to the statement graph
- The statement graph starts with the main statement(topic) so the the person reading it can choose if they want to expand it further. If they agree with a statement there is no reason to expand it. If they disagree then they can open it up and find out what they did not know or add what is missing. You can then follow the path to only read what you are interested in and skip over things you already agree with.
- Interactions is through a comment system
- A comment systems appears to work well in TruthMapping.com. For the statement graph we considered and may still add a comment system but the original intent is for others to directly change and add statements. We do not yet have a way for the feedback to the original creator which is a gap in the minimal initial deployment. In the future we believe we will have a way for others send suggested changes to the creator. Comments would only be used if the reader identified a problem but had no suggested solution.
- No Cons
- TruthMapping.com suggests only using supporting statements. The Statement Graph hopes to contain all facts (all angles) on a topic so it has both pros and cons.
- Rating System
- TruthMapping.com has built in ratings and an easy display of the ratings. This in on the potential list for Statement Graph at a later version but I would prefer people to add a statement than to rate one. Rating is a great feature on TruthMapping.com
- No Calculations
- The Statement graph takes all the weighted pros and cons and calculates how truthful a statement is based on it’s children. It is not perfect and may not be of value but it is a features TruthMapping.com does not have.
- TruthMapping.com allows for hyperlinks in the graph to external documents. We have not yet implemented hyperlinks in the Statement Graph site.
TruthMapping.com is a great website for mapping out arguments and reasons. I suggest that you try it out to see how it can benefit your arguments.
TruthMapping.com was initially created in 2006 which was a long time ago in internet years. I was able to chat with the founder and they are working on some enhancements but can’t say yet when they will be available. He agreed to let me know when they are ready to speak about them. I ‘m looking forward to it.
Update: I was working on an organization called All Angles but before I got too far I found out that there were many organizations already out there working on productive debate, The world did not need a new organization. The world needs more cooperation. I have joined the
- clear and direct communication
- understanding over winning
- other people’s perspectives, knowledge and experience
- discovering new ways to debate productively
- increasing the frequency of productive debates
- tools to encourage productive debates
- documentation organized for quick and accurate understanding
- improving our values through productive debate
What are we missing? Is there a better way to say it? Improve our values by commenting below.