曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
The completely model-based approach of DiDoLog and
DRAFTER, though, meant that authors faced a choice between
hand-tuning of text or losing any guarantees of consistency. In
52
other words, the text of any part of the documentation had to
be completely regenerated from the model, so any changes
made in the text itself would necessarily be lost. Moreover,
model-based specifications can be difficult for authors to
interpret and modify [9]. A contrasting approach to would be to
use a structure editor, where the author enters text that has,
within it, known relations among the text entities. The
structure-editor approach would enable hand-entry and handtuning
of text, and could preserve semantic relations to the
extent that these were representable in the sn-uctures of the
grammar used. Moreover, coherence of reference could be
produced through entry of references to objects rather than
through entry of the text itself. In other words, the object
would generate its own referring expression-and thus
guarantee consistency, in a manner similar to that employed in
DRAFTER-while surrounded by non-object-based text.
Indeed, this approach could produce coherence of reference even
if the text (other that the objects themselves) were entirely freeform.
3. INTERFACE PROTOTYPES
The main question we faced was how to develop an authoring
system that would embody the maxims in the informationsharing
organizational context of FCOM development. Indeed
the eventual system would have to meet the consistency
criteria and support sharing and revision across organizations.
Early design choices included an object-oriented architecture as
a basis for generating consistent language, and hypertext
capabilities for both the editing and revision process as well as
possible future deployment of electronic FCOMs on board
aircraft. Accordingly, we named our system the Common
Object-oriented Hypertext Editing and Revision Environment
(COHERE). The word “common” can be understood in two
complementary senses: as common across organizations and as
common between text and graphics, which typically were
produced separately for current-generation FCOMs.
Using the results of (a) an extensive analysis of key sections of
the Airbus, Air France and Lufthansa FCOMs and (b) the
interviews, we created two generations of prototype interfaces,
the first conceptual and the second functional [2]. The
prototypes demonstrated how the consistency maxims could be
embodied in an authoring system intended for distributed use.
The conceptual prototype explored the design space of the
authoring system; the functional prototype indicated the
technological possibilities and constraints of realizing key
points of the conceptual prototype in an operational setting.
Together, they suggest some of the possibilities and
limitations encountered in developing tools for supporting
authors of documentation in ways that preserve meaning across
the document and through revision.
3.1. Conceptual Prototype
The conceptual prototype was developed in HyperCard. The
prototype presents a small part of the contents of the A340
FCOM as a user might see the documentation if it were
presented in hard-copy form. The concept prototype can be
considered as a partial structure editor, as it encompasses some
basic concepts such as (a) central, common definition and
reference of key terms and (b) grammar-based definition of
documentation structures. The prototype contains lexica for
domain objects (like “flight level”), actions (like “select”) and
relational expressions (like “and”). Each lexicon has buttons
that enable access to the specific definition of a term or
instances of a term in the text. Figure 1 shows a page of the
prototype manual, in “use” (as opposed to “authoring”) mode,
with hyperlinks highlighted due to presence of the cursor in the
text field. In the conceptual prototype, we attempted to
reproduce as much as possible the look of the actual Airbus
FCOM in order to connect the new concepts to something
familiar to the technical support staff.
The prototype demonstrated authoring techniques, including the
ability to refer to domain terms as objects rather than flat text,
the ability systematically to characterize formatting of pieces
of the documentation that play different roles (such as “notes”),
and the ability to define and use formal languages to describe
and control the structure of the document (e.g., a “procedure”
consists of one or more “checklists”). Document structures
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料8(12)
