Reading #8 : Interaction Design in the University: Designing Disciplinary Interactions

Reference

Interaction Design in the University: Designing Disciplinary Interactions

Gale Moore,Danielle Lottridge

CHI10 - Atlanta

Summary

This paper asks whether the traditional university can accommodate those who are in the relatively new 3rd paradigm of HCI, sometimes called the phenomenological matrix. The paper presents the three categories of multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work and explains their differences. It then highlights the trouble that transdisciplinary work has being recognized in the common university setting. While disciplines are often encouraged to collaborate, they are all usually expected to produce or “take home” some contribution to their respective fields. This is not always the case in fields like interaction design. This paper calls for adjustments in the typical system of reward and recognition in the university in order to better support this new way of producing knowledge. The paper cites two examples, highlighting the more interpretive and new style of collaborative efforts. Overall the paper encourages a dialog within the community on the topic.

Analysis

This paper was an interesting read, which encouraged me to think of the systematic way the university operates. I agree with the authors, that in today’s setting scholars are often judged based on their publications in the most highly regarded journals of their fields. The new style of “transdisciplinary” work doesn’t lend itself to always yielding something publishable in one’s own traditional journal. This could pose a problem for those interested in working in this manner. While I do see the merit in the arguments, I also question if we should still require some contribution back to an original field. At the time of writing, it isn’t popular to focus solely on transdisciplinary studies. Usually they emerge as a result of many individual’s specialized knowledge in specific fields. Maybe our journals and academic departments just need to be a little more open to accepting non-traditional work.

Ethnography Results - Week #2

Ethnography Results Week #2
Over the past week we have acquired a better approach to our ethnography, diversifying the people and events we will be attempting to capture. Originally, we were primarily interested in the interactions of educators with the technical equipment and their abilities about using it for conveying their subject matter. We have now expanded our study to include those who are in the classroom watching (students) and those who assist professors with troublesome technology (technicians).

We conducted some usual remote observations during the week, finding a few technically interesting issues. We also finalized our access to technicians and set up a schedule for working with them. Our plans for integrating into their work life were also setup.

Finally, we conducted a couple of in classroom observations during this week. One of particular interest involved a professor teaching a large class (~200) in one of the more highly equipped classrooms. To maintain the integrity of the study, the specific technology the professor was interacting with cannot be posted at this time. However it was interesting to see the Professor cope with the continuous failure of the system. The professor appeared to be using the system correctly, with the malfunction likely due to low battery in one of the components. The professor first joked about the situation, and then after about the tenth failure resorted to an older technology to finish conveying his information. This professor is very intent on using the latest technology and often arrives 20 minutes early to class to setup. Additionally, a tech was onsite prior to class, helping the professor with the technology. It was overall a very frustrating experience for the professor, and students, who became verbally annoyed with the failures.

Reading #7: Experience in Social Affective Applications: Methodologies and Case Study

Comments

Jimmy Ho

Shena Hoffman

Reference

Experience in Social Affective Applications: Methodologies and Case Study

Paul Andre, Alan Dix, m.c. schraefel, Ryen W. White

CHI10 - Atlanta

Summary

As new forms of social affective applications become more important so do the techniques used to evaluate them. The authors create a socially affective application and then engage in a novel process to evaluate their tool. Several comparisons to other methodologies and arguments are given. The paper serves as an aid in studying and learning about socially affective applications. A test group of ten people was formed, completing the study over a five week period. The application created allowed users to encode their emotional state into a numerical form and share it with the group. The tool was integrated into Facebook and Twitter. The group met each week to discuss the tool, and modified the tool as needed. Overall the authors aim to generate discussion about evaluation styles.

Discussion

The paper seemed to reference a lot of current debates in the HCI community, of which I am unfamiliar, and choose a side-- or a different direction. The application created was not very novel or very interesting. The study only had ten people, researchers’ friends, try the system and the whole process seemed very casual (though this may be a good thing). There is no compelling data from the “studies” provided or any compelling evidence to support the proposed methodology of evaluation over another. The reviewers are directly addressed in the paper. It seemed overall to me, like a not so interesting piece of work. Maybe great to spark debate about methodologies of evaluation, but not particularly interesting to me. I do admire the authors’ quest for a solid evaluation methodology, but wasn’t convinced to choose one based on this paper.

Ethnography: Report #1

Our group ethnography is centered around observing professors teaching class on campus. We are observing their integrations and use of technology available to them in their classrooms. We hope to gain insight into the role the technology plays in their efforts to communicate concepts. To date we have:

• Established permission and control of classroom remote access systems for observations

• Briefly observed portions of several classes in which technology was being used.

• Formulated the following questions to be asked while observing:

1. Is the technology a pivotal element of the lecture or is it an after thought?
2. Does the user go out of his or her way to avoid certain pieces of equipment?
3. Does the user go out of his or her way to incorporate certain technologies?
4. How does the technology broaden the ability of the learner?
5. How do users typically address the classroom technology?
6. Which technical missteps are common among users?
7. How can we best describe the common teaching style of the user?
8. How does the user further his or her lecture without technology?

In addition to these questions, we also collect practical quantitative data.

We are looking forward to observing more classrooms in the coming days. We have also obtained information about which classrooms submit the most trouble tickets, which will aid us in selecting rooms to observe on a regular basis. As we are interested in any disruptions that misuse or malfunction of the equipment can cause.

Reading #6: Tangible Interfaces for Download: Initial Observations from Users’ Everyday Environments

Comments

Steven Hennessy

Shena Hoffman

Reference

Tangible Interfaces for Download: Initial Observations from Users’ Everyday Environments

Enrico Costanza, Matteo Giaccone, Oliver Kung, Simon Shelly, Jeffry Haung

CHI 2010 - Atlanta

Summary

Tangible user interfaces have been discussed heavily in the past fifteen years in the HCI community. D-touch aims to bring tangible user interfaces to the masses, by using only a webcam, printer and computer. Users are first asked to print and cut out small blocks with symbols on them. Then, after mounting their webcam above their workspace, users are free to move the blocks around in order to produce audio results. The system was released online and usage data recorded. Only qualitative analysis was performed on the collected data. The authors claim the widespread use of their software to prove the normal nature of tangible user interfaces. There were some problems with poor lighting conditions causing recognition problems. Overall users enjoyed the system. Future work includes augmenting the hardware to include the LCD monitor as the workspace.

Discussion

Tangible user interfaces are not normal yet. While this idea is novel, and undoubtedly has sparked some interest in a small community of internet users, it is not widely accepted or widely of interest at this time. The scope of this project is a very focused creative task. Creative individuals (usually professionals) are already privy to the idea of uncommon and different interfaces-- but it is still not considered normal. The trouble with the lighting highlights another major problem: this system is an invasion. Until it can be better integrated into everyday life and hardware, it will remain a novelty used by few. The paper is an excellent testament to the creation of novel interfaces using everyday consumer hardware, but doesn't sufficiently prove its claim that tangible user interfaces are "normal".

Reading #5: Tangible Video Bubbles

Comments

Jessica Gonzales

Jimmy Ho

Reference

Tangible Video Bubbles

Kimiko Ryokai, Hayes Raffle, Hiroshi Horri, Yotam Mann

CHI 2010 - Atlanta

Summary

Between the ages of five and seven children enter a session of rapid increase in expressiveness. The authors propose a tangible video bubble, a device which supports capture and playback of video, as a creative medium for children which uses a friendly multimodal alternative to conventional GUI menu driven systems. The device contains a video camera and screen and is made of polyurethane foam with a 17 inch diameter. Pressing a button starts the capturing process, while pressing it again stops the process. The video can then be played back at various speeds and in various segments based on squeezing the bubble in different locations with different forces. The squeezes are determined by reading LED light levels from the camera image. Users can then transfer portions of their video to a communal screen, where the video can be played back and pictures can be drawn next to it. The system was evaluated with 18 children, ages 4 to 10 in pairs. Data collected was qualitative. Future work includes adding features to the shared screen and adding additional sensors to the bubble.

Discussion

While this project sounds like a ton of fun and is of great use for children, there are some aspects of the design that seem incomplete. On the positive side: an early design study was performed, 18 children were tested on the final design and the qualitative results seem encouraging. On the negative side: the shared screen was poorly described in the paper (how do the drawing activities fit in?), there weren’t any quantitative measures of data reported, and the technical info concerning the implementation was limited. That being said, I would love to play with one of these or at least see a video! The basic ideas of squeezing the toy at different positions and strengths to create new video was really interesting.... it makes me consider other possibilities! It would be great to see an ecosystem of these devices which had different abilities and could transfer between one another to perform more editing on their creations. The public screen space has so much potential too, think adding animation to the video, combining videos, etc. Overall this is a really enjoyable project, with a paper that could have done it much better justice by including a few more details.

Dr.Celine Latulipe Lecture

Summary

Dr. Latulipe visited Texas A&M and gave a talk over her current research on Wednesday. Throughout her graduate school career she focused mainly on two handed interactions, with equal consideration given to both hands. She developed a number of interesting pieces of software which naturally create the opportunity to use two handed motions for input. Currently, she works with a variety of artist on a variety of projects, using their feedback to improve human-computer interaction. She has created and hopes to standardize CSI, an index for determining the effectiveness of creative tools. Her most recent work has analyzed the physiological feedback of audience members watching an artistic performance. She hopes to expand this work, analyzing people in the process of being creative. Overall, her work focuses on interdisciplinary research enabling the discovery of novel concepts which can be useful in many fields.

Discussion

This talk was really enjoyable and a great survey of Dr.Latulipe’s work. I found her examples of photo editing with two hands to be of real intrigue. Without even trying her demo, I can confess that adjusting levels and curves would be much easier and more intuitive with both hands. However, I didn’t find the Ken Burns effect to be as desirable with two hands. (And I’ve done more than my fair share of editing work involving this effect). I am uncertain about her stance on multitouch displays, but I would like to see more of her two handed work, perhaps some incorporated with such displays. I admire her desire to find an effective evaluation method for creative tools. It is difficult to create such a metric and I feel as though she has done a thorough job in creating the CSI test. Her work with physiological sensors is captivating and I am anxious to see it tested with people creating, rather than just watching. Overall, this talk exposed me to a new area of Computer Science which I knew little about before--- which is always greatly appreciated.