This is a study of innovative hypertext usage for authoring stories. Patterns and paradigms are described, and uses are articulated and analyzed. The paper shows clear expertise and is well written. However, while the discussion and analysis are well done, I call into question the research technique used.

Techniques and tools are presented for stories written especially for hypertext. This means that the story “changes” depending upon a reader’s choice of paths. The story has a plot with blocks of optional text (no computation, other than the path), which the reader chooses by clicking on words in the text. This part of the discussion is well done. The paper then proceeds to describe an experiment performed with four subjects, describes and discusses results of this experiment, and draws conclusions.

The paper is well presented and easy to read; moreover, after reading it, I felt the urge to try my hand at writing such a story myself. There is one difficulty. The research technique used is “qualitative research,” which is certainly quite legitimate. However, qualitative research techniques are primarily to present evidence, not draw conclusions. One needs to be careful, in case use becomes misuse. With a sample of only four subjects, no control, and an untold number of variables, it is misleading to draw conclusions and state them strongly. While as a person with poor eyesight, I can sympathize with a statement like “Have options for changing font sizes: one user expressed a desire…,” this is insufficient basis for a recommendation. This is my one minor criticism of this delightful paper, which is well worth reading for anyone interested in the field.