CS295J/Class 10 - Revision history

David Laidlaw at 16:44, 3 April 2009

2009-04-03T16:44:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 3 April 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:
	* let's figure out some things to execute		* let's figure out some things to execute
	** this should become the assignment		** this should become the assignment
			** list what's there and what's missing/broken (dhl hypotheses here)
			*** ok: intro (see below -- mix of 2)
			*** ??: contributions (some more impact on science areas -- applications)
			*** not ok: bg/signicance needs to be tighter and focused only on contributions
			*** not ok: preliminary work need to be better related to proposed work
	* intro evals		* intro evals
	** metrics		** metrics

David Laidlaw at 16:39, 3 April 2009

2009-04-03T16:39:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 3 April 2009
Line 37:		Line 37:
	* preliminary results		* preliminary results
	* pick out proposal-relevant aspects of new readings		* pick out proposal-relevant aspects of new readings
	* readings
	** neuropsychological assessement. interesting organized around computational themes; very structured around pathology, may need to consider high-functioning differences; not a single score; can we correlate preferences for interfaces or performance with interfaces to strength on cognitive testing measures?		** neuropsychological assessement. interesting organized around computational themes; very structured around pathology, may need to consider high-functioning differences; not a single score; can we correlate preferences for interfaces or performance with interfaces to strength on cognitive testing measures?
	** interaction costs. norman "gulf of execution" "gulf of evaluation"; add "gulf of formation" (which seems like gulf of execution, at some level, but maybe is just the hard part of deciding what to do next); (is there a "gulf of distraction/interruption" -- or is distraction a feature?		** interaction costs. norman "gulf of execution" "gulf of evaluation"; add "gulf of formation" (which seems like gulf of execution, at some level, but maybe is just the hard part of deciding what to do next); (is there a "gulf of distraction/interruption" -- or is distraction a feature?

David Laidlaw at 16:39, 3 April 2009

2009-04-03T16:39:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 3 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			* muse on process
			** we have a "gulf of execution"
			*** goal is "good collaborative proposal"
			*** we have N people; what should we do to achieve this goal?
			** why do we have this gulf?
			** harder than I anticipated
			** not enough room to {de,}select best ideas (muse on doing this before submission rather than after)
			** experience level of collaborators (muse on dhl collaborative efforts from the past)
			** no single voice/vision (past collabs again)
			* let's figure out some things to execute
			** this should become the assignment
	* intro evals		* intro evals
	** metrics		** metrics
Line 6:		Line 17:
	*** N: innovation		*** N: innovation
	*** A: analytical domain (supports hard thinking)		*** A: analytical domain (supports hard thinking)
			** concrete global comments
	** global comments
	*** more explicit what/how		*** more explicit what/how
	*** "We propose" at start and "five years ... $2.5M" by Gideon and Jon excellent -- emulate!		*** "We propose" at start and "five years ... $2.5M" by Gideon and Jon excellent -- emulate!
Line 14:		Line 24:
	*** steven + (adam, trevor, gideon \| gideon and jon) would capture everything		*** steven + (adam, trevor, gideon \| gideon and jon) would capture everything
	** Meta-work and Task-Interruption Support Interfaces (andrew)		** Meta-work and Task-Interruption Support Interfaces (andrew)
	*** (100) C=20, S=20, I=40%, N=20% (too focused on CS domain, scope too small, needs to appear to move outside HCI more, innovation unclear, good balance between rhetoric and specifics)		**; (100) C=20, S=20, I=40%, N=20% (too focused on CS domain, scope too small, needs to appear to move outside HCI more, innovation unclear, good balance between rhetoric and specifics)
	** Collaborative 2 (need better title) (adam, trevor, gideon)		** Collaborative 2 (need better title) (adam, trevor, gideon)
	*** (220) C=60%, S=40, I=60%, N=60% ("computational models" too vague, good goal for connection to psych, probably need more specifics and tighter language to make them fit, hard to scope)		**; (220) C=60%, S=40, I=60%, N=60% ("computational models" too vague, good goal for connection to psych, probably need more specifics and tighter language to make them fit, hard to scope)
	** alternative collaborative (still need better title) (adam, trevor, gideon)		** alternative collaborative (still need better title) (adam, trevor, gideon)
	*** (270) C=70%, S=60, I=70%, N=70% (nice 1st para, 2nd para a little mushy, 3rd para needs work)		**; (270) C=70%, S=60, I=70%, N=70% (nice 1st para, 2nd para a little mushy, 3rd para needs work)
	** A Distributed Cognition Model of Human-Computer Interaction (gideon and jon)		** A Distributed Cognition Model of Human-Computer Interaction (gideon and jon)
	*** (270) C=70%, S=70, I=70%, N=60% (a bit abstract, nice connection between areas, explicit scope good, question strange, focus on distributed cognition intriguing although it may be risky, "gaps" bit sounds too much like fishing)		**; (270) C=70%, S=70, I=70%, N=60% (a bit abstract, nice connection between areas, explicit scope good, question strange, focus on distributed cognition intriguing although it may be risky, "gaps" bit sounds too much like fishing)
	** EJ (need a better title) (ej)		** EJ (need a better title) (ej)
	*** (200) C=60%, S=40, I=50%, N=50% (too rambling at start: more solution less problem, hidden "we propose", scope hard to eval)		**; (200) C=60%, S=40, I=50%, N=50% (too rambling at start: more solution less problem, hidden "we propose", scope hard to eval)
	** A Behavioral/Cognitive Model of Human-Computer Interaction (steven)		** A Behavioral/Cognitive Model of Human-Computer Interaction (steven)
	*** (190) iC=40%, S=50, I=40%, N=60% (good concrete goals and activities, "doomed to antiquation" great, not enough application)		**; (190) iC=40%, S=50, I=40%, N=60% (good concrete goals and activities, "doomed to antiquation" great, not enough application)
			* preliminary results
	* pick out proposal-relevant aspects of new readings		* pick out proposal-relevant aspects of new readings
	**		* readings
	** ~~finish preliminary results section you have been working~~ on ~~(it will have been 30 hours!)~~		** neuropsychological assessement. interesting organized around computational themes; very structured around pathology, may need to consider high-functioning differences; not a single score; can we correlate preferences for interfaces or performance with interfaces to strength on cognitive testing measures?
	* assignment		** interaction costs. norman "gulf of execution" "gulf of evaluation"; add "gulf of formation" (which seems like gulf of execution, at some level, but maybe is just the hard part of deciding what to do next); (is there a "gulf of distraction/interruption" -- or is distraction a feature?
	** ~~finish preliminary results section you have been working on~~ (~~it will have been 30 hours!~~)
	** critical enough?
	** are we getting rid of ~~non~~-~~contributions~~?
	** list of cost/benefits for contributions

David Laidlaw: New page: * intro evals metrics * C: bring cognitive and perceptual modeling to bear in principled way on HCI design * S: scoped to 5 people over 5 years * I: high impact *** N: innovation ...

2009-04-02T18:17:26Z

New page: * intro evals ** metrics *** C: bring cognitive and perceptual modeling to bear in principled way on HCI design *** S: scoped to 5 people over 5 years *** I: high impact *** N: innovation ...

New page

* intro evals
** metrics
*** C: bring cognitive and perceptual modeling to bear in principled way on HCI design
*** S: scoped to 5 people over 5 years
*** I: high impact
*** N: innovation
*** A: analytical domain (supports hard thinking)

** global comments
*** more explicit what/how
*** "We propose" at start and "five years ... $2.5M" by Gideon and Jon excellent -- emulate!
*** terser
*** a concrete thing for the $2.5M would be good; what will they get as opposed to what will we do? a theoretical foundation? better UI's? a system for automatically evaluating UI's? new knowledge about cognition?
*** steven + (adam, trevor, gideon | gideon and jon) would capture everything
** Meta-work and Task-Interruption Support Interfaces (andrew)
*** (100) C=20, S=20, I=40%, N=20% (too focused on CS domain, scope too small, needs to appear to move outside HCI more, innovation unclear, good balance between rhetoric and specifics)
** Collaborative 2 (need better title) (adam, trevor, gideon)
*** (220) C=60%, S=40, I=60%, N=60% ("computational models" too vague, good goal for connection to psych, probably need more specifics and tighter language to make them fit, hard to scope)
** alternative collaborative (still need better title) (adam, trevor, gideon)
*** (270) C=70%, S=60, I=70%, N=70% (nice 1st para, 2nd para a little mushy, 3rd para needs work)
** A Distributed Cognition Model of Human-Computer Interaction (gideon and jon)
*** (270) C=70%, S=70, I=70%, N=60% (a bit abstract, nice connection between areas, explicit scope good, question strange, focus on distributed cognition intriguing although it may be risky, "gaps" bit sounds too much like fishing)
** EJ (need a better title) (ej)
*** (200) C=60%, S=40, I=50%, N=50% (too rambling at start: more solution less problem, hidden "we propose", scope hard to eval)
** A Behavioral/Cognitive Model of Human-Computer Interaction (steven)
*** (190) iC=40%, S=50, I=40%, N=60% (good concrete goals and activities, "doomed to antiquation" great, not enough application)
* pick out proposal-relevant aspects of new readings
**
** finish preliminary results section you have been working on (it will have been 30 hours!)
* assignment
** finish preliminary results section you have been working on (it will have been 30 hours!)
** critical enough?
** are we getting rid of non-contributions?
** list of cost/benefits for contributions

CS295J/Class 10 - Revision history

David Laidlaw at 16:44, 3 April 2009

David Laidlaw at 16:39, 3 April 2009

David Laidlaw at 16:39, 3 April 2009

David Laidlaw: New page: * intro evals ** metrics *** C: bring cognitive and perceptual modeling to bear in principled way on HCI design *** S: scoped to 5 people over 5 years *** I: high impact *** N: innovation ...

David Laidlaw: New page: * intro evals metrics * C: bring cognitive and perceptual modeling to bear in principled way on HCI design * S: scoped to 5 people over 5 years * I: high impact *** N: innovation ...