NOT.7:11 - SoTA-Echoing
| Source and contribution | Adoption and limit |
|---|---|
| Blackwell and Green, Notational Systems: The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations Framework, 2003, §§2 and 4 | Historical foundation for activity-relative trade-offs among notation, editing environment and medium. Use it to diagnose burdens in :4.2–.3, not as a universal score or evidence of a particular reader effect. |
| Kruchten, McNutt and McGuffin, Metrics-Based Evaluation and Comparison of Visualization Notations, 2023, §§1–4 | Adopt matched examples and computed measures as aids to close comparison in :4.5 when several reusable alternatives warrant that work. The measures do not replace interpretation or establish usability by themselves. |
| Brazauskas and colleagues, PUX Explorer and PUX Matrix study, 2024, §§5–7 | Adapt problem/solution co-development into :4.3 and retain existing benefits during repair. Six specialist music-notation researchers supplied bounded, mixed feedback; the study does not establish universal effectiveness or empirical quality coefficients. |
Choice of repair method. A local walkthrough can settle an explicit lost dependency or burdensome edit. Activity-based diagnosis helps discover the trade-off when the trouble is less obvious. Matched galleries become useful for recurring comparisons across a family, but add construction and interpretation cost. Reader trials answer a remaining recoverability question when their outcomes can alter the choice. None of these methods replaces subject correctness.
The synthesis connects those notation-design methods with C.2.8’s qualified structural comparison and the existing marginal-choice methods. Keep design estimates, measured responses and formal preservation arguments at their own scopes. Reopen when observed use defeats the proposed mechanism, a newly important operation changes the trade-off, or stronger evidence changes a claimed benefit.