Rules Input/Explanation Interface Prototype

Interested in your feedback on this rough prototype of an interface for asking questions, giving answers, and explaining those answers in an interactive way:

The idea is that the nodes are facts, legal conclusions, or conditions. Green nodes are supported, red are not, yellow are unknown. The edges are dependencies, and each node is labeled as having either conjunctive or disjunctive dependencies. Leaf nodes (or maybe any of them?) could be used as input boxes, and the colours could change in response to changes in the value.

Anyone seen anything like this? Think it would work? Any ideas for how to deal with the problem of how large the graph gets as you add nodes? Interface-wise, complicated explanations would take a lot of screen real-estate.

1 Like

The idea of using nodes to convey hierarchy and dependencies makes sense.

I don’t think it’s a perfect interface, but I do think it’s a useful view and quite doable, given law as code/data.

I personally like the node interface. I think it is a useful perspective that can reinforce structure (sorta like linting does for code). I do see challenges as the primary interface for editing, as opposed to a derivative view/report.

The functional node interface reminds me of Grasshopper or Blender. Example

I’m curious how this would do with referential links. Example

And finally, the concept kinda feels like IBIS as well.

1 Like

I wasn’t familiar with IBIS, but the idea was inspired in part by Carneades, which is also an argumentation theory approach. Thanks for the links.