Thursday, November 3, 2011

Paper Reading #27: Sensing Cognitive Multitasking

Sensing Cognitive Multitasking for a Brain-based Adaptive User Interface

by: Erin Treacy Solovey, Francine Lalooses, Krysta Chauncey, Douglas Weaver, Margarita Parasi, Matthias Scheutz, Angelo Sassaroli, Sergio Fantini, Paul Schermerhorn, Audrey Girouard, and Robert J.K. Jacob


Authors
Researchers!
Solovey, Lalooses, Chauncey, Weaver, Parasi, Scheutz, Sassaroli, Fantini, and Jacob - Tufts Univeristy in Massachusetts.
Schermerhorn - Indiana University in Indiana. (surprise surprise)
Girouard - Queen's University in Ontario.


Presentation Venue
"CHI '11 Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2011. (::insert snippy comment here::)

Summary
Hypothesis
There are three "sort of" hypotheses listed by the paper.  The first one is an actual hypothesis while the other two are more of contributions from the paper.
1.  Specific cognitive multitasking states can be detected automatically with fNIRS.
2.  Elicit similar states from HCI-related tasks instead of letter-based tasks
3.  Demonstrated a proof-of-concept human-robot platform

Methods
Users were observed in different settings for ability to multitask in the three scenarios, branching, delay, and dual tasking.  First, the fNIRS was tested to be sure that it could be used in place of fMRI.  Subsequent testing involved interaction with robots.


Results


Discussion

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Paper Reading #24: Gesture Avatar

Gesture Avatar

by: Hao Lü and Yang Li


Authors
Researchers!
Lü does research at the University of Washington while Li (still) does research for Google Research.

Presentation Venue
"CHI '11 Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2011. (Yippee..)

Summary
Hypothesis
Lü hypothesized that their application, Gesture Avatar, would perform slower than competitor Shift on large targets, but faster on small targets.  Gesture Avatar would have fewer errors than Shift.  Walking vs. Sitting would not have much affect on Gesture Avatar.  It is basically a "look at these reasons why we're better than that guy" paper.

Methods
The application was developed for the Android and uses some relatively simple bounding box mathematics of proximity to determine what is a likely target for the intended avatar being created.  Users could then either use the target as desired, modify the avatar to the correct target, or dismiss it altogether.  To study the application in comparison with Shift, a study was conducted where half of the participants learned to use Shift, then Gesture Avatar, and the other half learned in the reverse order.  Their task was to select and manipulate targets in a small app based on different levels of ambiguity both while sitting and while walking.  Comparisons in variance were tested using ANOVA with p < 0.001.

Results
Each of Lü's three hypotheses were supported by the test's data.  Gesture Avatar was able to successfully manipulate targets after being selected, and did perform better than Shift on smaller targets with less errors, whether sitting or walking.



Discussion
I am glad to see that they were able to successfully approach a problem with a solution.  Making small targets larger seems like such an obvious thing, but apparently a study needed to be conducted to decide what to do about it.  There are still obvious issues with this approach, though.  The main thing is the need to switch into a gesture mode to perform the desired task.  The other thing that bothers me is its applicability to a situation.  To turn on the application, draw an avatar, and then ensure that it's connected to the correct target, I could probably have fumbled with my fat fingers and managed the control already before I found it with the gesture.  This is particularly true for something like a hyperlink on a website.  In a browser, all I have to do is make a quick flick of my fingers to zoom in, and the hyperlink is suddenly very easy to touch.  Additionally, Gesture Avatars maintained that the avatars could be completely arbitrary... meaning if I have some gesture I want to make, I have to tell it which target to bind to.  Not only this, but the avatar is not remembered.  I have to draw it again if I need it again after clicking a hyperlink and moving to a new page with the same widgets to control.  With some more study, this could lead in the right direction for eliminating ambiguity of fat fingers, though.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Paper Reading #22: Mid-air Pan-and-Zoom on Wall-sized Displays

Mid-air Pan-and-Zoom on Wall-sized Displays

by: Mathieu Nancel, Julie Wagner, Emmanuel Pietriga, Olivier Chapuis, and Wendy Mackay


Authors
Researchers!
All research was performed at the University of Paris for INRIA (taglined as Inventors for the digital world).

Presentation Venue
"CHI '11 Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2011. (Again...The UIST has been repalced..)

Summary
Hypothesis
Nancel proposed several hypotheses which were really just interpretations from many previous studies, such as user preference for linear gestures over circular gestures, and two handed over one handed gestures.  Nancel also hypothesized that too many degrees of freedom would prove too tiresome.

Methods
Participants were presented with a large system which they were required to stand different distances from and attempt to perform the gestures asked of them.  The sessions were split up to prevent fatigue and boredom because the process was long and required some potentially unnatural interactions.  The different actions were compared using standard ANOVA tests.

Results
Nancel found support for his hypotheses quantitatively as well as qualitatively.  Participants suggested that two handed gestures were easier because they did not require the random jumbled hand gestures that come about because of single hand gestures.  Linear panning and zooming was preferred by the participants as well.



Discussion
I read this paper with an eyebrow raised and a constant question in the back of my mind: "So, what?"  They took a whole bunch of previous research and combined it.  Sure, that's what almost every research endeavor is, but this didn't even feel like it had an innovative twist.  It was more like it was simply confirming what everyone else said in a single place with one final confirmation experiment.  On top of that, how often do we really use wall sized displays?  This might be more meaningful in the future when I'm walking down the street and the entire wall of the building next to me is a streamline of advertisements that zoom in when I get closer and actually try to take a look at them.  But, that means it's more important for marketing and sales.  To me, as a consumer, it's a nuisance.  Kudos for successfully proving your hypotheses though, Nancel.

Paper Reading #23: User-defined motion gestures

User-defined Motion Gestures for Mobile Interactions

by: Jaime Ruiz, Yang Li, and Edward Lank


Authors
Researchers!
Ruiz and Lank do research at the University of Waterloo, while Li researches with Google Research.

Presentation Venue
"CHI '11 Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2011. (Again...The UIST has been repalced..)

Summary
Hypothesis
Ruiz hypothesized that there are a set of common motion gestures that users would find the most natural and consistent mappings to interactions with a mobile device.

Methods
Ruiz put custom software on an Android so that it would record accelerometer data and lock the screen to prevent any feedback to the user.  Twenty participants were chosen and asked to create several gestures for a set of tasks that needed to be performed on the phone, such as answering a call.  Data about the gesture itself was actually sequentially recorded on a computer connected to the smartphone.  Participants were then interviewed to analyze some of their decisions in creating gestures for the phone.

Results
Ruiz found that there were indeed several common gestures that people found.  The most common gesture was lifting the phone to the ear in order to answer the phone because it felt the most natural.  It was also very common for them to mimic replacing the phone on an old receiver in order to end a call.  Most participants expressed a desire to have the same gesture available for multiple analogous behaviors (next, previous in different applications).


Discussion
I find myself asking why this sort of research was not performed sooner.  Obviously, something like answering a phone by bringing it to your ear is how many of us grew up answering a phone.  It is far more natural than pressing a button (Flip phones are better in this regard, in my opinion).  With this in mind, I am not particularly impressed with the research discovery because it is semi obvious. But, I am relieved that SOMEONE did it, so maybe the data can be incorporated.  However, there are still developing methods of handling data on smartphones.  Just because we CAN perform motion gestures, that does not necessarily mean that we need to.  I personally feel that moving my phone to the left or right in order to proceed to the next or previous is far less natural that swiping the application with my own finger.  This is particularly true with images.  If I am interacting with many real photos, I am not likely to pick up the table and shake it to look at the next image.  I am much more likely to touch the picture, move it, and bring the next one into focus.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Paper Reading #16: Classroom-based Assistive Technology

Classroom-based Assistive Technology: Collective Use of Interactive Visual Schedules by Students with Autism

by: Meg Cramer,Sen H. Hirano, Monica Tentori, Michael T. Yeganyan and Gillian R. Hayes


Authors
Researchers!
Cramer, Hirano, Tentori, Yeganyan, and Hayes all do research at the University of California.

Presentation Venue
"CHI '11 Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2011. (Hurray for leaving the UIST!)

Summary


vSked is an assistive technology for educating children with autism.  The paper focuses on a case study of the technology used over a year in autistic classrooms.

Hypothesis
Cramer hypothesizes that vSked can be used to create new community learning opportunities and facilitate streamlined teacher systems for aiding the children.

Methods
vSked has a large monitor that is placed at the front of a classroom which keeps track of the schedule of activities for the day.  It also displays the progress of each child within the current activities.  Children each had a touch device with their information, an image reminding them of their incentive for completing tasks, and options to choose from in their activities.  The technology was used for one year in a classroom and observed for over 200 hours plus a few interviews with the teachers and children.

Results
Teachers commented that the system made their jobs much easier.  They felt like they could spend more time with each of the students.  Some students appeared to be more motivated to accomplish tasks.  Students did not require as much prompting from teachers to complete their tasks.  When students earned the fireworks display for earning their incentives, a new community opportunity was observed as students cheered at their success.



Discussion
I have extremely mixed feelings about this research.  On the one hand, it is very cool that we are getting more technology to help teach autistic children.  I have serious reservations about the use of the technology, though.  Firstly, this paper says it focuses on the classroom as a whole community and takes emphasis off of the individual children.  The students are given computers which they must interact with instead of one another.  I have a friend with an autistic child, and I talked to her about her insights on technology assistance.  Before hearing her opinions though, I suggested that the technology might take the student's focus away from the community and their social interactions.  Specifically, I wanted to know if the student being more motivated was ACTUALLY more motivated, or if he was just more comfortable working with a computer than he was comfortable interacting with people.  My friend echoed my thoughts by informing that her son would be perfectly happy if he could just play on the computer all day instead of play with other kids.  Additionally, she pointed out that perceived progress in the class due to the technology's streamlining effort for teachers would actually just result in the school administration giving them more to do because on paper they appear to be progressing - regardless of actual progress made.  The technology is awesome, and I like the idea of helping, but I fear that relying on technology to help TEACH them ignores the still persistent problem (and perhaps impairs) of no social skills.  Specifically, she mentioned things we take for granted have to be actively considered by an autistic child.  Thus, when we detect sarcasm, an autistic child must think about it or it is unperceived.  Text on a computer cannot convey something such as sarcasm at all.

Paper Reading #17: Privacy Risks in Wearable Sensors

Privacy risks emerging from the adoption of innocuous wearable sensors in the mobile environment

by: Andrew Raij, Animikh Ghosh, Santosh Kumar, Mani Srivastava


Authors
Researchers!
Raij - University of South Florida
Ghosh - SETLabs
Kumar - University of Memphis
Srivastava - University of California

Presentation Venue
"CHI '11 Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2011. (Finally! A new venue!)

Summary


Study was conducted using sensor data in mobile devices to determine what level of risk users perceived about the information which could be gleaned from these sensors about themselves.

Hypothesis
Raij hypothesized that people would have a higher level of concern for information that could be released from a worn sensory study when they had observed a personal stake in the information to be released.  Raij also wished to see what manipulations of data would increase/decrease concern for information.

Methods
A user study was conducted with two groups, a control group that took an information privacy survey, and the experiment group which wore sensory capturing devices for three consecutive days, took the privacy survey, saw the results from their sensory data, and then took the privacy survey again.

Results
Participants who took the survey had similar levels of concern as did participants who wore the sensor devices in their first survey.  Concern rose drastically in the second survey when the participants saw what information about themselves could be derived from sensory information.  Physical location did not display an increase in concern.  It was suggested that this was because participants expected their location to be trackable by the very nature of the devices.  Emotional states (stress) and conversation had the highest levels of concern, especially when coincided with time stamps because that allowed one to determine things such as who one was talking to and when they had a seizure.


Discussion
This study demonstrated to me that people probably don't think deeply enough about situations which they enter into.  The participants with the sensory data were presented with disclosures before wearing the devices so they knew what could be obtained from the devices.  I acknowledge that they did not understand the extent to which this information could be accrued, but things such as time stamps should have been recognizable as problems.  The very good thing about this survey is that it allows us to now know for the future that such subtle cues can be used to gather information, and we as users should be more conscious of what information without abstractions we allow.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Paper Reading #15: Madgets

Madgets: Actuating Widgets on Interactive Tabletops

by: Malte Weiss, Florian Schwarz, Simon Jakubowski and Jan Borchers


Authors
Seeing as how I don't read German... I find it adequate to simply say that these authors performed their research in association with the RWTH Aachen University in Germany.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010.

Summary


Madgets explores a new approach to moving widgets on an interactive tabletop.  It creates widgets with magnets and manipulates several electromagnets to facilitate interaction with those widgets from the tabletop.

Hypothesis
Weiss hypothesis presents Madgets as a new approach to widgets on interactive tabletops.  Weiss suppose that variable electromagnets in conjunction with deterministic magnets on widgets can be used to simulate interactions with their algorithms.

Methods
Using a whole bunch of mathematics and fancy technology, Weiss constructed an interactive tabletop that has many electromagnets on the bottom and can interact with arbitrary magnetic widgets placed on it.  Users are able to perform some actions with the widgets, manipulate them, and have some 3D interactions with them as well.  Actually moving the widgets goes through yet more math and some physics.  There appears to lack user studies thus far.

Results
Obviously, the tabletop system was created.  Widgets can be moved around and interacted with on the tabletop.  Weiss reports that there is a great deal of time involved in setup and registration with the system, such as approximately two hours for making the system aware of the new widget, and an hour to actually create the new physical widget itself.



Discussion
While this design space is interesting and might have potential in some future work scope, I presently do not see it and do not find it too interesting.  It's presently at too basic of a stage for me to be excited about what implications it might have on tomorrow's gadgets.  What use do I have for a 3D-able "check-box" that I have to spend 5+ hours making, and then it's the size of my hand anyways?  When and if these get scaled down and start having more realistic applications, I may be more interested - particularly in the mechanical sound feedback.  Synthesized audio is nice, but it always lacks that slight imperfection and personality of a natural sound.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Paper Reading #14: TeslaTouch

TeslaTouch: Electrovibration for Touch Surfaces

by: Olivier Bau, Ivan Poupyrev, Ali Israr, and Chris Harrison


Authors
All authors research at Disney Research Pittsburg, in Pittsburg, PA.  Bau received his PhD from a university in Paris.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010.

Summary


TeslaTouch introduces a technology that uses a phenomenon discovered in the 50's called electrovibration to provide tactile feedback for users on interfaces.  This paper introduces TeslaTouch, explains its studies, and analyzes pros and cons of electrovibration vs. mechanical vibrotactile feedback.

Hypothesis
As a new technology, Bau's main hypothesis is that electrovibration is a viable option for tactile feedback on interfaces and implements it as TeslaTouch.

Methods
TeslaTouch is set up with an understanding of a bunch of technical jargon that basically means small electric shocks are used to create a sensation similar to different surfaces that a finger might touch as it moves across the surface.  Users were tested using the surface to determine thresholds for voltage perception, and other things such as apparent smoothness/stickiness of the surface.

Results
TeslaTouch was successfully created and tests suggested that users were successfully able to distinguish between their criteria of sensations.  It was also discovered the users could feel quite low voltage which could serve for mobile device power conservation.  It was observed that electrovibration tactile feedback had many advantages over mechanical vibrotactile feedback - chiefly coming from the fact that electrovibbration feedback requires no moving components.


Discussion
I never even considered this type of interface coming out... but now that I've read about it, I'm intrigued, vaguely think "duh" and would like to test it out myself.  While I know that such feedback in my phone is not necessary by any means, I do believe it would have the "wow" factor that is missing from many new technologies and applications for my phone.  It would be pretty awesome to be able to send a text that says, "here, it felt something like this."  The limitation to a single moving finger is a bit of a let down, however.  I understand that it is based on friction-imitation, so movement is necessary, but restricting it to a single finger just seems harsh.  This certainly makes me wonder if we're going to start having more fake fruit that feels like real fruit in every way except perhaps weight (and maybe even in weight...).

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Paper Reading #13: Multiple Depth Cameras and Projectors

Combining multiple depth cameras and projectors for interactions on, above and between surfaces

by: Andrew D. Wilson and Hrvoje Benko


Authors
Wilson and Benko both do research with Microsoft Research in Washington.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010.

Summary


The title of this paper sums up the contents pretty well.  It's about creating a 3D space where users can interact with almost arbitrary surfaces as if they were computer interfaces.

Hypothesis
Wilson hypothesized that using multiple depth cameras combined with projectors was a viable environment for immersing users in an interaction environment that uses an entire room, rather than a single surface.

Methods
The system was set up using multiple depth cameras and projectors set up above the room.  In the room, defined points were used to calibrate each of the cameras and projectors so that all information was recorded on the same coordinate system and interchangeable.  The system was then able to capture data about the users and the surfaces and transfer data according to the users' interactions.

Results
The system was successfully created, and users were able to do things such as touch a "screen" on one surface, and then touch another surface to move the screen over to that surface.  Users were also successfully able to scoop screens onto their hand to carry and then move onto a new surface.  There were some difficulties, such as too many users lagging the system or confusing it by being too close together.  There were also issues with users' heads getting in the way of the cameras perceiving interactions, and thereby missing important gestures.


Discussion
This environment actually impressed me.  I have often thought about when we would successfully devise a system in which we enter an entire room and are able to interact with it as an environment - not unlike Star Trek's Holo-Deck, or Star Ocean's game center, or -insert more examples here.-  The unanticipated power of the system was cool, too.  I can imagine making a chain of people around a room, just to see if the system correctly transmitted the screen across all of the people to the end surface - and see what happens if someone in the middle of that chain also touches a surface.  Overall, I think this system was a major success, with only minor technical difficulties which were to be expected.

Monday, September 26, 2011

On Sudhir

Gang Leader For A Day struck me on several different layers.  The top layer is simple, I hated it.  If I had a desire to better understand the situations of people who I know are living at a considerably lower standard than myself, I would go try to interact with them myself.  I would start with an "in" though.  None of this random walking into a place where I can get shot and not considering the consequences.  That's pure nonsense.  I honestly wonder if this guy actually had the brains that his degree suggested he had.

Beneath that layer, I appreciated the work.  It is always encouraging to see people who take an interest in other peoples' lives and try to understand them, even if only superficially.  I enjoyed seeing him take a branch in life that would probably influence him in ways he could never have predicted for the rest of his life.

Beneath that layer, I hate it again.  He had the actions, but none of the reasons.  And, his small attempts at service might as well have never started for all the impact they had.  I acknowledge that he may have done all he could do in the situation, which only further deepens my dislike his decision to enter the projects in the first place.

As a book for a paid class, I detested it.  I do not need to do a full blown ethnography to learn how the end users think with my application.  I had no desire to actually be graded on reading a book that focuses on such vile behavior in society - and blatantly describes it no less!  The very idea that I spent money on this filth infuriates me.

In the end, whatever my small positives from the encounter, I am left with a very negative attitude towards Gang Leader For A Day - acknowledging that a good deal of that attitude comes from my own previous bias.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Paper Reading #10: Sensing Foot Gestures

Sensing Foot Gestures from the Pocket

by: Jeremy Scott, David Dearman, Koji Yatani, and Khai N. Truong


Authors
Scott did research for this project as an undergrad at the University of Toronto, and now attends MIT as a graduate student.  Dearman seems nonexistent but clearly has associations with the U of T like everyone else, possibly as a PhD candidate like Yatani, or another professor like Truong.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010. (They think they can, they think they can...)

Summary


The title of this paper mostly sums it up.  It is about using foot gestures to perform actions on a mobile device in a pocket or holster at the hip.

Hypothesis
Scott hypothesizes that gestures performed by a foot are viable modes of input for mobile devices, and that they save precious screen space in addition to not consuming the user's entire attention for performing those actions.

Methods
The study was performed using mobile devices with standard accelerometers, motion capture cameras, and a normalized foot model.  Users wore the normalized foot model to account for people with larger/smaller feet than other participants. Motion capture helped the researchers to monitor and measure their data, while the accelerometer in the mobile device did the actual work of sensing gestures performed to decide what action or selection is supposed to be performed.  Participants were instructed to make various types of selections with these gestures.

Results
Gesture search found that most gestures were accurate to within about 10 degrees, but of the four gestures, participants preferred only two, heel rotation, and lifting the heel.  The device seemed to be more accurate when placed in the side holster than when placed in the front or back pocket of the participant, and overall it seemed able to correctly determine the action about 80% of the time.



Discussion
First off, does this make anyone else think of the April Fools joke played by Google this year?  In theory, the idea has potential.  We save screen space, as they desired to accomplish.  The gestures do not require looking at the screen at all, and can be performed without even taking the device out of the pocket.  But, say you're walking down the street and you see someone pause and just slightly lift his leg...  All that needs to happen now is for said person to wave his hand behind him, and you know he just let loose a present for other passerby's noses.  But wait, that's just a gesture!  Or, that guy over there paused mid disco dance... wait! that's a gesture, too!  I think these gestures are unnatural because they do not take into account whether or not people would actually feel comfortable making such body language in public settings.  It also does not account for the tendency for people to move along not wanting to be noticed, rather than acting rather animated wherever they happen to be standing.  Hence, my comment on Gmail actions.  As a slightly more serious question, do we all have to wear foot normalizers for this to work?

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Ethnography Proposal

(It's a bit silly to have the Proposal after two updates, isn't it? :D)


Ethnography Topic Proposal

Group: Daniel Aninag, Xandrix Baluyot, Will Hausman, Jonathan Wiese

Target Group: Quidditch Players

We propose a study of students who play Quidditch.  Quidditch is a game played on broomsticks in a field with three types of balls and hoops at either end.  Points are scored by throwing one of the balls through a hoop on the opposing team’s side.  Three balls are used to send players running back to their team’s hoops before returning.  The last ball is attached to a neutral runner and upon its capture, the game is ended.

We hypothesize that people who play Quidditch have unique, specific strategies they follow when playing and are not merely imitating a sport in a popular fictional book.  We also hypothesize that people who fulfill the individual roles will play based on prior experience with games (e.g. Seekers and Snitch Runners are associated more with individual running games/sports while Chasers are associated more with full contact sports).  Furthermore, we hypothesize that the coherent team as a unit will have some element that ties them all together and helps them to function as a team rather than a scattered set of individuals.

By studying the Quidditch team, we will be able to see how actively becoming engaged in a team that already functions autonomously.  Becoming engaged in a new team will always mean getting to know the roles required of everyone inside the team, understanding the scope of the team’s responsibilities and fostering a relationship with the team members as individuals that is conducive to productive work.  Another element of engaging with a team is the unique element.  There is always something specific to the circumstances that requires some adjustment to normal practices in order to smoothly make progress.  This means that studying the Quidditch team with all of its eccentricities and successfully being able to design a project that suits their needs will teach us how to understand a demographic or audience and be able to deliver a piece of technology that suits their needs.  Because Quidditch is a silly looking sport, we get to obtain this experience with a rather entertaining example.  

The Quidditch team practices three times a week for 1-1.5 hours and have weekly scrimmages on Sundays for A&M.  Intercollegiate games and scrimmages are also held on some Saturdays, so there is more than enough time available to spend observing the team and playing the game to understand the individual aspects within it.  It will be relatively simple to observe consistent behavioral tactics of players by observing and learning the roles.  Learning players’ prior gaming experiences can come from informal interviews during practice, team dinners, or just hang-out time.  The vague element of team cohesiveness will have to be monitored from many angles during practice when captains give instructions, players decide whether or not to obey, an especially during scrimmages and tournaments against other Quidditch teams.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Ethnography: Muggle Quidditch! #1

After spending another week with the Quidditch team, I have learned more about them, both inside and outside my area of focus.

"Inside" (AKA Snitch Related Things)
Through experience, I discovered that one of the best tactics a Snitch Runner has at his disposal is the rest of the game itself.  There are a lot of players running around on the field that get in the Seekers' way and make it easier for the Snitch to escape.  Additionally, the other team generally does not want the opposing Seeker to catch the Snitch, so they will employ their Beaters to target the Seekers with the Bludgers.  Just like other players, if a Seeker is hit by a Bludger, they are affected by the "Knockout Effect" which requires them to stop what they're doing and run back to their team's goal hoop before continuing.  This can be more than invaluable because it pulls the Snitch out of the situation where it must keep an eye on both Seekers at the same time.

There were other little details that were explained to me by other players and the team's usual Snitch, but many of these things did not fully sink in until I read the official Rules which spelled out interactions between players.  The Snitch is not held to the same rules as the other players by any means.  The players have rules against body contact tackles/grabs, etc. from outside of view (mostly behind), but these sorts of rules do not apply to the Snitch.  Additionally, the Snitch does not have to hold onto a broom, so both of his hands are free.  The Snitch is allowed and even encouraged to "be inventive" in getting away from the Seekers.  As a Snitch, it would be perfectly legal for me to catch the arm of an oncoming Seeker, pull him past me, and trip him to the ground with a foot while I run off in the other direction.  This element of open-ended attack makes the Snitch have the clear upper hand in the game.  With this in mind, I have to wonder if good Seekers don't follow some amount of working together to snare the Snitch Runner before turning on one another when the time comes to actually seize the Snitch itself (the little ball in a sock).  That is something I will look into with other Seekers when I next have the opportunity to play as one and talk to others.

All of these elements combine to say that the Snitch Runner is most often an extremely agile person who can continue to run and avoid capture for extended periods of time and who enjoys being somewhat aggressive towards his would-be captors.  For the core purpose of defending the Snitch, I do wonder if a stockier person COULD do it well, though.  Rather than run away swiftly, he could be very good at throwing the Seekers to the side and then going a short distance away. Most likely, he would quickly be out maneuvered by the existence of two Seekers, though.  Still, it's a possibility I shall entertain until proven otherwise.

I witnessed two different techniques employed on the Snitch Runner by Seekers.  One Seeker has extremely long arms and goes for the "obvious" attack of just trying to get close and wrap his arm around the Snitch Runner to grab the Snitch.  The other Seeker was smaller, and Snitch Runners tended to grab him and push him aside, so he will actually turn into the Snitch with his back to him where he appears weaker.  From there, he whips his hand around from behind and snatches the Snitch.  Both techniques proved effective for the player.

"Outside"
It may seem like an obvious note that doesn't matter, but I did learn that the Beaters cannot touch the Quaffle, and the Chasers/Keepers cannot touch the Bludgers.  I am not yet sure how/if this affects their strategies very much, or if it is simply the rule of the game which they follow and otherwise ignore.

Because I was focusing on the Snitch Runner, it took me some time to recognize that players practice their throws and catches with one hand.  The presence of the broom is a unique element that almost requires actions be done with only a single hand.  Several Chasers wear a single glove on their throwing hand for increased grip of the Quaffle.  I have not noticed any such gear on the Beaters for assistance with gripping the Bludgers.  I am currently guessing that this has something to do with the different texture of the balls used as Bludgers, or because the Chasers maintain an active grip on the Quaffle while trying to prevent other Chasers from stealing it, whereas Beaters can more or less grab one of the three Bludgers at their leisure as needed.  I did not even realize it until I saw it, but this is different from what I initially expected where the Beaters were getting in the "rougher" sections of the sport.  The Chasers and Keepers with the Quaffle are where the real action is happening.

"Outside the Outside"
I have been investigating the Quidditch team as an insider, but had the chance to talk with another about Quidditch who believed the game to essentially be Live Action Role Play.  This actually astounded me because I have played the game before and found it to be its own entity with only its roots coming from a fictional story.  Thinking more objectively, I can see how someone might suspect such a relationship, even if I do not endorse such a belief.

Paper Reading #9: Jogging over a Distance

Jogging over a Distance between Europe and Australia

by: Florian 'Floyd' Mueller, Frank Vetere, Martin R. Gibbs, Darren Edge, Stefan Agamanolis, Jennifer G. Sheridan


Authors
Mueller has affiliations with each of the institutions the other authors are affiliated with.  Vetere and Gibbs (Mr. Gibbs! He got off Jack's ship!) both do research with the Interaction Design Group at the University of Melbourne in Australia.  Edge is a Microsoft researcher in Beijing.  Agamanolis did his research at the Institute of Technology in Massachusetts and now does research at the Distance Lab in the UK.  Sheridan does research at the London Knowledge Lab in London.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010. (Yay!)

Summary


As restated in this paper several, several, SEVERAL times, it is about the social experience shared between people engaged in similar physical exertion activities and how technological design can enhance this experience.

Hypothesis
Their hypothesis was basically that a system could be designed that enhanced the social experience between two people during physical activity involving technology.

Methods
The technology already existed, so Mueller just conducted research with 17 participants running different paths, and sometimes in different countries, and monitoring how they interacted with one another.  Afterwards, the participants were interviewed for qualitative research with open ended questions about their experience.

Results
Mueller recorded mostly positive results about the experience, albeit with a couple of hiccups.  The participants enjoyed feeling like they were running with one another and found that the exertion and social experience were nicely balanced because they were both running at their own pace. One participant pair noted that the exertion monitoring made a new way for them to look at competing with one another, but eventually decided that a standard "finish line" was still better for comparing competition.

Discussion


I cannot believe that I just read ten pages of the same thing.  The hypothesis and results were rather obvious to me.  It's cool that there are systems for people to jog together across the world.  And, it's cool that the said system allows for people of different fitness levels to exercise together at their own desired paces.  But, seriously.  OF COURSE systems can be designed to do this!  Asking if technology can solve the problem of people interacting while exercising is like asking of email will really change how people communicate with each other.  The obvious solution (given that you are ABLE to be co-located): treadmills right next to each other!  Need fresh air? Stick them outside!  Still... they set out to say it's possible, and they successfully did that... many MANY times.  Think this blog was redundant?  Go read the paper. THAT's redundant.  Stick a fork in my thigh while I'm running, why don't you...

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Ethnography: Muggle Quidditch! #0


My preliminary thoughts before visiting the Quidditch intramural gathering:
Going into this, I had only a vague idea of what to expect.  I imagined it would be silly to watch people running around with brooms between their legs.  A couple of Youtube videos confirmed this for me.  I considered that maybe there would be a lot of hardcore Harry Potter fans into the game, and maybe the few stragglers who came in because of their friends.  I was interested to know how they managed the rules to accommodate the lack of magical enchantments.   Beyond that, I expected it to be just like any other outdoor sports gathering – just with the slight nerdy twist.  I did not expect any sort of specific behavior from the people as individuals; just average college-age humans with a love for the wizarding world.

The Aftermath:
After going to visit one of their scrimmages to see how they operate, one thing caught my attention very quickly.  The people are VERY NICE!  I counted four different people get offered a broom and a chance to play when they paused to watch.  Oddly, this did not extend to me.  I got the impression it was because of my blue jeans which are clearly not suitable for running; or perhaps because I didn’t have a completely confused look on my face.  I took the time to speak with different players who had been on the team in years past.  I discovered that because the game is relatively new, the players are particularly fond of finding loopholes to make the game more fun (such as the Snitch riding off in the bed of a truck).  After the first fifteen minutes of relatively nonspecific chatter, I got my first reminder that essentially everyone around me was a Harry Potter fan.  A couple of people started talking about Rupert Grint, actor for Ron Weasley in the movies, showing up at a Quidditch game.  What struck me the most was the fact everyone present knew the actor by name as if he had turned up at their own practice.  This led to two comments that sent my mind reeling at the notion of just how deep this fan group went.  This was a retelling of a comment made by Daniel Radcliffe, actor for Harry Potter, when asked if he would go to any Quidditch games to which he responded (according to this speaker talking to me), “Do you have any idea what would happen to me if I did that?”  The other comment was along the lines of, “Just imagine if Emma Watson walked onto the field right now and how quickly she’d be dog piled by like 30 guys.”  This was such a brief exchange, but it so completely opened my eyes that I remembered I wasn’t simply at another athletic meet (albeit a slightly silly one).  I look forward to seeing how this common knowledge base among the players influences their behaviors, jokes, etc.

As curious as the Harry Potter culture underneath Quidditch is, I’m actually more interested in the game itself and the mentality of its players.  Specifically, I’m extremely interested in the mentality and relationship between the Snitch and Seekers in a game.  Much of the remainder of the game I can vaguely wave off as a combination of rugby and dodge ball.  Watching the Seekers try to catch the Snitch is more like watching a one vs. one vs. one capture the flag game where the flag is moving and pushing back.  To research this, I plan to join the Quidditch practices (and perhaps travel to some intercollegiate tournaments with the team) and train as a Seeker, then play as the Snitch in several games.  These are the “personal experience” approach, but I will also spend more time around Snitches and Seekers, investigating their thoughts on the interactions.  Since, being a full-contact sport, Quidditch requires a waiver to play, I contented myself with just talking to the charismatic Snitch who was on the field.  Multiple games were played, so he was taking a rest while new players took turns being the Snitch.  This taught me some of the most important things about the Snitch.  In Harry Potter, the Snitch is what ends the game.  It is all about finding that Snitch.  In real life, that’s not practical.  The players get tired running around in the heat while the Snitch is way out of the way minding its own business.  Having the Snitch on the field, where Seekers actively try to catch it, is when the most fun occurs because the excitement of the end of the game is near.  New Snitches tended to be gone for 20+ minutes with the game just rushing along at its fast pace, whereas the Snitch I was talking to would normally come back in around 10 or maybe 15 minutes.  I understood this Snitch to enjoy pushing the Seekers around when they tried to catch him (that is, the black sock with a tennis ball in it that hung from his waist).  He was a fit long distance runner and very agile, so he could continue to do so for extended periods of time.  Of course, being on the team will also lead me to the “insider’s” point of view for the ethnography, and I hope will provide me with additions “ins” to the team.  I greatly anticipate this research project.

Paper Reading #8: Gesture Search

Gesture Search: A Tool for Fast Mobile Data Access

by: Yang Li


Authors
Yang Li is a senior research scientist working for Google, and used to do research in computer science and engineering at the University of Washington.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010. (Yep. Again)

Summary


Gesture Search uses gesture inputs to search data on mobile devices.  The idea stemmed from a desire to combine the convenience of a "Search All" option with the ease of gesture input on a mobile device.  The idea is that by using a learning algorithm and short gestures, it would be possible to greatly enhance the speed and experience of users interacting with their mobile devices.

Hypothesis
A couple of different hypotheses were investigated.  The obvious was that Li supposed he would be able to implement a design which allowed users to search the data in their phones with the ease of gestures.  He also had to determine if it was possible to distinguish with relatively high accuracy whether an input was intended as a GUI touch or a gesture.  He also hypothesized that the average length of queries a user would need to use would vary based on the volume and complexity of data on the mobile device.

Methods
The search was implemented on Android devices with decent success.  It was made available by download to a large audience for testing, and after a month, data was collected to determine the frequency of use, the accuracy of gestures, the average gestures required, and the types of information most frequently sought.

Results
After successfully implementing Gesture Search, the data from initial test users was collected and showed that 66% of all gesture searches were made for contacts, and average query length needed as time progressed stayed consistently rather small (less than 5 letters, 80% less than 2).  This was especially true as the optimization allowed frequent queries to be returned sooner so individual gestures were more closely associated with specific searches.

Discussion


I really liked this idea.  In the first couple of paragraphs where it was talking about gestures, I was already thinking: "Great. Another attempt to make us learn lots of vague gestures that somehow map to some application that I may or may not have on my phone.  Why doesn't someone just implement the ability to stroke out a letter by hand, so we don't have to click through lots of interfaces to find our contacts or applications?" A couple of paragraphs later, I was grinning broadly at the realization that the paper had read my mind and altered its content for me!  Even if this new application didn't receive any positive feedback from testing users, it'd still be a success in my mind due to my own conceptual bias for the idea.  I was worried about conflicts with ordinary GUI touch interactions, but the application addresses those - albeit I cannot be sure how robust it is.  I am curious to know how the gesture recognition can learn the user better. I understand that some machine learning could be applied, and that handwriting recognition software isn't all THAT bad, but do our mobile devices come equipped with the space and computation power to continuously learn from its users, or will this cause the phone to crash in 3 months of regular use?  That's the sort of thing that would have me waiting 6 months to see what others think about it.  I find the idea of using gestures that we already recognize ( i.e. letters of the alphabet and similar symbols ) severely more appetizing than mapping abstract gestures that people can create on their own.  Perhaps this will lead people to the desire to create their own gestures, and then later it'll be more feasible.  But, for now I feel like branching out into the new frontier should have some explicit ties back to home to help people get on board.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Paper Reading #7: Stroke-Based Text Entry

Performance Optimizations of Virtual Keyboards for Stroke-Based Text Entry on a Touch-Based Tabletop

by: Jochen Rick


Authors
Jochen Rick is a faculty at Saarland University where he does computer research in "new media" for learning purposes.  He completed his PhD in Comp Sci at Georgia Tech.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010. (Just like every single other paper thus far).

Summary


This paper with such a long-winded name is actually for increasing optimization (or shortening...terrible name) in text entry on surfaces where a standard keyboard is no longer preferred.  Standard "tapping" style virtual keyboards are compared by key arrangement and then compared to the stroke input with the same virtual keyboard layouts.

Hypothesis
Stroke-Based Text Entry with the proper virtual keyboard layout is a strong potential substitute for tapping keyboards and may increase typing speed.

Methods
A user study was conducted to compare virtual keyboards based on standard tap typing.  Measurements were made in WPM (actually just CPM/5).  The study was also conducted on the same virtual keyboards to compare stroke typing.  Finally, two new virtual keyboards were constructed with stroke typing optimization in mind, and the stroke typing results were compared to the tap typing results.

Results
Rick found that there was a definite increase in typing efficiency for stroke typing compared to tap typing, however novice users had a preference for the Qwerty keyboard due to familiarity, even though the fastest layout proved to be as much as 50% faster.  Rick did suggest that moving to a new design with a 50% increase in efficiency might be enough to persuade people to make the transition from Qwerty keyboards though.

Discussion


I am glad to see new approaches to keyboards, though I am skeptical about this stroke typing.  It was hard for me to understand all of the information presented in this paper, but as I understood it, creating these strokes would be similar to writing with a pen again.  I understand how it can be faster in a testing situation, but I still wonder if it would be more efficient than a method that allows us to make full use of our hands and fingers.  This similar to the fact that typing is considerably faster than writing by hand.  Of course, you're not actually WRITING by hand with stroke typing, but you're still moving basically your whole hand across a little screen to the letter you want to choose.  To me, this seems like it would be difficult to conceptualize where to move hands quickly for extended typing (and in my particular case, programming).  Accenting this problem is the issue of ambiguity.  What differentiates 'to' from 'too'?  That question is asked in the paper, so it wasn't left in the open, but I want to take the question one step further.  What extra cost is there to us as users to learn that typing 'o' is not always the same, because some words have 'o' in it more than one time?  The statistical analysis of this paper suggests that it was a success - which it is from an empirical data point of view.  It IS considered more efficient than typing on a Qwerty board (but so are most of the other keyboards listed).  But, I still don't think I can call the research a resounding success, HOWEVER! I do think its direction to lean away from the standard keyboard is the right idea.


Monday, September 12, 2011

Paper Reading #6: TurKit

TurKit

by: Greg Little, Lydia B. Chilton, Max Goldman, and Robert C. Miller


Authors
Greg Little and Max Goldman are both graduate students doing research at MIT in the CSAIL along with Robert Miller, an associate professor.  Lydia Chilton is a graduate student at the University of Washington.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010.

Summary


TurKit introduces a programming model called Crash-and-rerun for algorithms that require human computation.  It is intended to allow developers to avoid rerunning high cost operations when developing.  The technology for this already exists, but was developed as a wrapper to facilitate usability.

Hypothesis
Algorithms which require human computation are hard to fit into a standard algorithm.  TurKit was designed as a wrapper for MTurk that will store expensive operations so that the program can crash, be altered, and rerun without needing to redo things such as ask users for an answer to some problem.  In essence, this means their hypothesis was to make this system usable.

Methods
TurKit uses a database and a new primitive to store expensive operations.  This means that an expensive function is wrapped by the once primitive which stores the value to the database and simply uses that value in the future.  Then, when the program crashes, it automatically restarts and avoids recalculating the values by using their stored values in the database.  There were a couple of examples of people using TurKit in their applications with moderate success.

Results
There is little indication concerning preference for TurKit and its Crash-and-rerun model over some other model, and there was indication of confusion with using TurKit.  They were successful in creating a wrapper system that could store expensive items, however at some scalability costs.  TurKit sacrificed scalability for program usability.

Discussion


I have mixed feelings about this toolkit and programming model.  On the one hand, I really love the idea of being able to save pieces of a program but allow debug printing and altering along the way for on-the-fly iterative development.  But, up until the end of the report I was wondering what sort of performance TurKit would actually be able to handle since size was limited.  I was skeptical at best, and their declaration that it was done for usability didn't really smooth my ruffled feathers.  Their testing numbers of "1000 HITs" suggested to me that it would be feasible only for relatively small individual research programs, but would not be usable for larger projects at all.  Since I consider most worthwhile projects, aside from small apps and games, that require user input to be quite large and complex, I don't think it's useful for that.  I hope that it's a leap board for similar programming models in the future - although I do still acknowledge that storing individual expensive operations does not solve asymptotically expensive algorithms.


Monday, September 5, 2011

Paper Reading #3: Pen + Touch = New Tools

Pen + Touch = New Tools

by: Ken Hinckley, Koji Yatani, Michel Pahud, Nicole Coddington, Jenny Rodenhouse, Andy Wilson, Hrvoje Benko, and Bill Buxton


Authors
Due to the sheer quantity of individuals involved in this project, I can only assume that they were all Microsoft research employees at the time of this research, and perhaps are all still working with Microsoft.  Perhaps some have moved on to new research areas of graphics while others specialized in multi-touch surfaces.  Maybe one retired and spends his days reading the newspaper to his Cocker Spaniel by the fireplace and playing croquet. Use your imagination (it's what I did!).

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010.

Summary


Pen + Touch = New Tools is exactly that: a research endeavor to discover natural interactions involving a pen, touch, and combinations of the two for new input methods in systems.  The study was more or less localized to working with images and text in a notebook to create some sort of timeline for a short film or commercial.

Hypothesis
Hinckley and crew (fortunate his name is not Motley!) tried to realize a set of gestures and interactions based on preliminary research that mimicked the most natural course of action for people to assume when handling systems that involve multi-touch and stylus pens.

Methods
The research began with a user study to observe people creating a storyboard using "standard" items - a notebook, pen, scissors, glue, etc.  After categorizing the observed behaviors and designing features to account for these behaviors, their system was created with a basic emphasis on the pen for writing, and the hand for manipulation, while some combination of the two allowed for new types of interaction.  The new system was then tested with users.

Results
Some of the basic functionality was immediately obvious to the users, and the lack of a need for switching input modes created an opportunity for fluidity between actions.  This acquired their desired "same as with the notebook" sense on the computer screen.

Discussion


Alright, I thought this presentation was going to be exactly  like the Hands-on Math approach.  GREAT!  Another attempt at this?  Well, I was pleasantly surprised.  The in depth observations and studies made before designing the project really caught my attention.  They attempted to see what users wanted to do before trying to implement what they deemed "the best way for users to do something."  When one is trying to create a system to meet the needs of a user, where else should one look than to that user - preferably before one has some preconceived notions about how to "best" implement the idea.  I believe performing this background research before diving into the project enabled them to succeed in creating a system that smoothly transitioned as if users were actually just using a notebook and magazines.  They even addressed known pitfalls such as the user's palm touching the screen while writing with the pen.   This project is still on a somewhat narrow scope, so I'm not positive it will be very useful by itself.  I am eager to see if it creates a stepping stone for future interactions that mimic common human gestures.


+


=



Paper Reading #2: Hands-on Math

Hands-on Math

by: Robert Zeleznik, Andrew Bragdon, Ferdi Adeputra, and Hsu-Sheng Ko


Authors
The authors conducted this application research at Brown University as Ph. D. students, and are all still attending Brown University today.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org. The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010.

Summary


The Hands-on Math research strove to combine free form pen and paper techniques with the power of Computer Algebra Systems (CAS).  By combining muti-touch capabilities with a stylus pen, some core mathematics functionality was implemented to create a more flexible, powerful system without the pitfalls of simply "hitting the solve button" nor working out trivial math by hand (and consequent possible errors).

Hypothesis
Zeleznik sought to combine free form pen and paper techniques with the power of Computer Algebra Systems (CAS).  The project was intended as a technique for students and mathematicians to be more readily equipped to "see" the problem without making small mistakes.

Methods
The Hands-on Math project used multi-touch capabilities combined with a stylus pen to achieve a variety of gestures on a Microsoft Surface.  The stylus could do basic things such as write expressions, while the hand was reserved for manipulation purposes such as factoring expressions and creating new work space.  A study using students from the Brown University had the users attempting to use the system.  The users' experiences with the system were split up by page interaction, mathematics, and gestures.

Results
The observations from the user studies revealed that some of the gestures were not natural, such as the different finger poses.  It was reported that users tried to adopt awkward arm positions and exaggerated finger positions to obtain functionality that was intended to be simple.  However, once these were demonstrated, better grace did ensue.

Discussion


At first, I believed this approach could reap some real benefits.  I still believe that it succeeded in combining the elementary portions of pen-and-paper and CAS, however I am less certain about the execution.  The paper does mention that the users were asked to ignore minor glitches because the implementation was not their main concern, but I am inclined to believe that the proper implementation will make all the difference in the final deliverable.  With some more studying, perhaps more testing (and the outside input incurred therein), I believe the team would have been more successful in their findings.  Awkward positions when trying to execute basic actions is a red flag for re-design attention in my mind.  I did really enjoy the non-dominant hand used as a menu bar where ever it was positioned on the screen, however I am very concerned about how maintainable such a position is during heavy use.  Nevertheless, in as far as basic mathematics are concerned, I think this would be an amazing device to be able to carry around (not that you could right now. I can wish, aye?) and whip out when that overzealous math-friend tries to best you in a contest of differentials.  Let the contests BEGIN!

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Paper Reading #1: Imaginary Interfaces


Imaginary Interfaces

by: Sean Gustafson, Daniel Bierwirth and Patrick Baudisch



Authors
These three researches are part of the Hasso Plattner Institute in Potsdam, Germany, and are still doing research there today.

Presentation Venue
"UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology" as per the document specs from the ACM digital library, dl.acm.org.  The presentation took place in New York City, NY, 2010.


Summary


The general synopsis about this paper is that a movement to an imaginary interface would allow further miniaturization of mobile devices and one feasible starting place to begin work is creating a set of axes at any point using the user's non-dominant hand.


Hypothesis
Gustafson's work actually contained four hypotheses for different case studies which all led to his overall question about how far the human mind can be pushed to interact with an imaginary interface.  He hypothesized that people with the imaginary interfaces would have fewer graffiti errors than reported by Ni and Baudisch, who provided earlier work of influence in the field.  He also hypothesized that people would have an easier time using the same interface when they stand still between interactions as compared to when they turn around in between interactions.  Coupled with this hypothesis was the hypothesis that users would have an easier time using the same interface when they use a hand to create the virtual space, versus not using a hand.  The last hypothesis was that user error would increase as one moved further away from the coordinate axes provided by the non-dominant hand.


Methods
To test these hypotheses, Gustafson and company conducted a series of tests wherein different groups of people were chosen from their campus and given a set of tasks to perform with the imaginary interfaces.  The cameras for the interfaces were not sufficient to capture the users' gesture data, so they had to do some adjusting to analyze their results.  They reported this to be simple because most people paused between their interactions with the imaginary interface.  The users had to draw various graffiti, draw and then turn to find the same point drawn, and find points in an imaginary grid extending from their non-dominant hand.  Each of these three tests coincide with the four hypotheses in order, with the second and third hypotheses both belonging to the second test.


Results
In general, they believed their hypotheses to be somewhat true, but their studies lacked sufficient numbers to perform true statistical analyses.  The users were able to draw simple objects, but increased strokes reduced accuracy.  Rotation between interactions also reduced accuracy.  However the third case showed some people better at finding coordinates and others worse.


Discussion


This is one of the few papers I've read that was actually interesting early on.  It was like there was a little ink demon living in the pages waiting to throw out new blots of 'Oooh!' just when it looked like the Big Bad Reader was getting bored.  In the context of the paper, the fact that they failed to capture the individual gestures with their cameras does not bother me.  I still think the capture of hand maneuverability and accuracy holds the heart of their project - those beautiful electric signals spurting all over the human brain as it attempts to recreate what it has produced in subconscious memory upon a physical realm.  Obviously, there needs to be more progress, but the starting point is profound in my opinion.  If computers began with rigid lines and places to move your cursor before branching into a GUI with "windows" where the same basic principles apply but are expanded to a more generic use, then it is reasonable for me to assume that allowing a user to create their interface is the proper step towards eliminating the strict interface completely (which is the big step into the future that I look forward to).  The lack of sufficient numbers to produce significant statistical findings takes some credibility away from the research, but I'm still inclined to enjoy the potential prospects from such a small sample space.  On that same note, I do wonder what sort of skew the data will host for the fact that the test users were all in their twenties at a university.  What happens to the grid test with someone who does not organize things in rectangles, but rather... dot categorization (akin to a dot population intensity map)?  Still, the potential movement away from this glaring white screen I'm typing at is a prospect that moves me almost to tears (that might be the onion peels...).

Paper Reading #0: On Computers

Howdy Blog Follower!

Lucky am I because I do not have to follow any sort of real format for discussing my thoughts on this first bit of reading.  For those of you who have no idea what I'm blabbing about, I just read something called On Plants, which may or may not have been by Aristotle.  In theory, I would have been able to read this article and have something to say about how I can reapply it as a modern approach to computers, perhaps coupled with some information about the Chinese Room.

Unfortunately, I do not believe I can adequately do such a thing in a serious manner.  Fortunately, I can attempt to draw some allusions in a completely ridiculous manner!  Let me just start off by explaining that computers, whether they have a soul or not, are imperfect entities, with humans acting as the perfect entity pitted against them.  In this sense, humans take on a sort of almighty Creator role that governs over the computers.  Assuming this to be the case, I may begin to ask questions about the nature of a computer, and why it exists.

Suppose we have a computer of moderate intelligence (what?! how do we even gauge that?! processor speed? disk space? version of ram? number of crashes on a daily basis? version of the os? who produced it?).  Suppose we give said moderately intelligent computer some input, a web search for instance.  What will the computer do with it?  What CAN it do with this input?  I suppose it could try to run the input as a command, but if your command prompt (yeah, I'm Windows not Mac.  I get enough bad news about Terminals while I'm at the airport without hearing about it on my computer too!) is anything like mine, then it probably would just tell you to "Try Again Stupi-I mean Master" if you gave it a command such as "high priced caviar in mexico slums."  Without giving the proper input to the correct program, everything fails.  But wait, doesn't that mean the computer is nothing but a container and the REAL workhorses are the programs themselves?  They're the ones that are able to act when given something they know how to handle - which is reasonable.  Why ask a farrier how to construct a multi-tiered security network for protecting magazine stands from being invaded by thugs with lead pipes and pez dispensers?  Said programs have a purpose and can act and react.  If you've ever seen the Google Chrome browser crash before, you know it lets you know with a cute 'Aw, snap!' catchphrase.  Apparently it felt bad for letting you down in your epic online hunt for new denizens of the night to fight with your suped up skateboard.  Knowing this, then clearly the programs, or at least their processes, are the true hearts of a computer, and individually at that!  Now our precious computers are actually miniature earths with little info-bits crawling around inside, occasionally communicating with their brethren in alternate dimensions via that rad new thing the hip kids are calling the "inter-webs."



Confused yet?  Me too.  That's about the level of insanity I drew from On Plants and how it might be considered in a modern age.  It had some microcosms of truth that it pulled on, then quickly veered off into the abyss of too-much-time-on-an-old-person's-hands.

Happy Process Hunting.

Brief Introduction

With the advent of a new semester, I have stumbled upon yet another odd conglomerate of ways to keep up with the students!  Enter blogging and discussion forums.  Now, I am as eager to make heavy use of modern tools as the next computer science undergrad, but the transition itself is always a little unsettling for reasons I won't bother going into right now.

With the niceties out of the way, I can turn my attention to actual introductions.  I am a Senior of Computer Science with two years of software consulting experience with Improving Enterprises, Inc.  I am most interested in game design, so I decided to take a course on Human-Computer Interaction with the hopes of gaining more insight into the connection between humans and the entertainment they seek through and from a computer.  I'll most likely continue doing consulting work for clients the next several years, but hopefully I'll be able to branch off with my own game design ideas before long.  That having been said, I look forward to the next big break in technology that allows for wide access to systems that obtain input without requiring any sort of physical touching of a screen, keyboard, mouse, etc. to take place.

Interesting side note:  If I could go back in time and meet someone, I'd want to go see my own father.  This is because I wouldn't want to go so far back that there wasn't even plumbing, and because I'd like to see what sort of antics my scatterbrained father got up to in his younger days.

Strangely enough, my favorite shoes are those euro-style sketchers.  I've purchased several pairs in a row because they're extremely comfortable, last a long time, and they have a more formal look than tennis shoes but still maintain casualness.

I've always been interested in learning German, Japanese, and Latin.  German and Japanese just have this feel to them.  When I hear them spoken, it feels like a message is being conveyed, rather than just some jibberish that I don't understand.  Latin just fulfills my ego's desire to know what most do not know.

If all of these tid bits are not interesting enough for you, I'm also LDS (a Mormon, for those of you who don't know).

Miscellaneous other information about myself, including a contact email, can be discovered in my profile, should you be so inclined.