CS295J/Proposal reviews from class 8 - Revision history

Ian Spector: /* Gaps */

2009-03-16T17:53:01Z

Gaps

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 16 March 2009
Line 136:		Line 136:
	=== Gaps ===		=== Gaps ===

	* ~~Your~~		* The link between cognition and HCI, and how the proposal intends to create that link, needs to be strengthened
	* ~~Bullet~~		* It would be good to perhaps begin listing specific experiments that may be useful in bolstering the validity of the proposal
	* List
	* Here

	== Trevor ==		== Trevor ==

Ian Spector: /* Intellectual merit */

2009-03-16T17:50:27Z

Intellectual merit

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 16 March 2009
Line 130:		Line 130:

	=== Intellectual merit ===		=== Intellectual merit ===
	~~We know that applications are able to automatically gauge user’s expertise with~~ the ~~program and automatically alter~~ the ~~experience to their skill level with continuous usage~~. ~~We have developed a list~~ of ~~criteria to be monitored with~~ the ~~intention~~ of ~~automatically determining a user’s level~~ of ~~expertise~~ and ~~correspondingly present an appropriate interface with which the user~~ is ~~presented.~~		While the intent of the project is noble, the proposal lacks enough specificity of direction. There has clearly been substantial effort put towards background theory, but the project is so wide-reaching in its aims at the expense of details on the actual integration of the disciplines of cognition, design, and human-computer interaction. Furthermore, what is being proposed has the appearance of a natural evolution of interaction design rather than the formal creation of a new multidisciplinary look at the intersection between cognition and HCI. In this respect it may be worthwhile to investigate the effectiveness of this approach through funding.

	~~Humans often are confounded by new and unfamiliar displays and interfaces when confronted with them for~~ the ~~first time. What we are proposing is a daemon which constantly will monitor user progress on~~ a ~~variety~~ of ~~measures (which we have also carefully selected) to be used by applications to then, based on principles~~ of ~~learning and memory, provide~~ the ~~user with a seamless~~ and ~~unobtrusive “live” interface with~~ the ~~intention~~ of ~~painlessly learning complicated tasks and interfaces~~.

			As far as the novelty of the proposal is concerned, there currently exists a small but significant body of knowledge regarding cognitively "enhanced" HCI that continues to grow. This body of work incorporates various aspects of the proposal with each study comprising a very narrow focus. There may be some merit to the proposal if its aim is to tie each of these smaller studies together and once completed, determine a unified theory. However, there is still an abundant amount of work yet to be completed.

	=== Gaps ===		=== Gaps ===

Trevor O'Brien at 15:58, 13 March 2009

2009-03-13T15:58:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:58, 13 March 2009
Line 141:		Line 141:
	* List		* List
	* Here		* Here

			== Trevor ==

			=== Summary ===
			This research proposal aims to bridge a series of gaps between research in cognitive/perceptual science and human-computer interaction. The proposed work plan, however, lacks specificity as to how this integration will be achieved and/or validated. Further, the proposal does little to truly distinguish itself from previous work. While the background section is extensive, the contributions section does not offer compelling evidence as to why this work would make novel contributions to the fields of cognition or HCI.

			In general, the proposal lacks realistic, tangible milestones. The main deliverables seem to be ideas and theories, and we at the Institute would prefer to see more quantifiable evidence.

			=== Intellectual Merit ===
			There is certainly intellectual merit in achieving the goals outlined in the project summary; however, the scattershot nature of the proposal and work plan make it very difficult to determine whether or not those goals are achievable.

			=== Broader Impact ===
			While the broader impact of this work is certainly implicit, there is no mention of how the contributions of this work extend to other areas. The proposal would greatly benefit from explicitly stating concrete applications of its results, and speaking to its overall impact.

			=== Gaps ===
			* Direct mapping between results and contributions.
			* Mapping between individual contributions and centralized theme of the proposal.

E J Kalafarski: /* EJ */

2009-03-13T15:28:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:28, 13 March 2009
Line 52:		Line 52:

	=== Intellectual merit ===		=== Intellectual merit ===
	~~asdf~~

	~~=== Intellectual merit (old) ===~~
	While attempts have been made in the past to apply cognitive theory to the task of developing human-computer interfaces, there remains much work to be done. No standard and widespread model for the cognitive interaction with a computer exists. The roles of perception and cognition, while examined and studied independently, are often at odds with empirical and successful design guidelines in practice. Methods of study and evaluation, such as eye-tracking and workflow analysis, are still governed primarily by the needs at the end of the development process, with no quantitative model capable of influencing efficiency and consistency in the field.		While attempts have been made in the past to apply cognitive theory to the task of developing human-computer interfaces, there remains much work to be done. No standard and widespread model for the cognitive interaction with a computer exists. The roles of perception and cognition, while examined and studied independently, are often at odds with empirical and successful design guidelines in practice. Methods of study and evaluation, such as eye-tracking and workflow analysis, are still governed primarily by the needs at the end of the development process, with no quantitative model capable of influencing efficiency and consistency in the field.

Andrew Bragdon: /* Andrew Bragdon */

2009-03-13T14:53:30Z

Andrew Bragdon

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 13 March 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:
	* Project summary is out of date		* Project summary is out of date
	* Should have supporting diagrams and figures to clearly communicate the ideas in the project		* Should have supporting diagrams and figures to clearly communicate the ideas in the project

			=== Suggestion on Overall Theme ===

			I think that rather than a "grand unified theory of HCI" a more realistic, and frankly plausible, goal for the grant would be to propose a theory or empirical study of one specific area or two or more closely related areas. This will make the goal seem doable within 3 years and $1.5 million. It will also, hopefully, bring a sense of purpose to the proposal - a set of core goals.

			If we did scope down the proposal to a smaller subset of the current goals, then we should consider also making sure that we are "proposing enough"; that the money could not be spent more efficiently on a different project as well.

	== Gideon ==		== Gideon ==

Jon Ericson: /* Jon Ericson */

2009-03-13T03:47:18Z

Jon Ericson

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:47, 13 March 2009
Line 113:		Line 113:
	=== Intellectual merit ===		=== Intellectual merit ===

	(in ~~progress)~~		Overall, the proposal is strong in terms of its potential intellectual contribution to HCI; however, considered as a whole, it lacks the necessary coherence to be fundable. Many of the specific contributions are interesting and innovative, however, the relationship between them is unclear. How will the proposed model of user workflow be integrated with the model of human cognition? Are these intended to be subcomponents of a larger, more comprehensive HCI model or will they remain separate modules? Developing a reliable method for collecting comprehensive data on user performance would be useful in collecting the user data necessary to inform the cognitive model but might constitute its own research program -- an entire grant proposal could be devoted to this enterprise. The specific aims lack coherence; it is not clear how each of the specific aims contribute to the overarching goal of the project.

	How will the proposed model of user workflow be integrated with the model of human cognition? Are they intended to be subcomponents of a larger, more comprehensive HCI model or will they remain separate modules?		Despite these shortcomings, the proposal does have several unique strengths. Most current models of HCI do not explicitly incorporate many relevant facts of human ecology, and some of the utility of the original notion of "affordances" has been somewhat lost in translation; efforts to incorporate Gibsonian principles into the cognitive model would be fruitful if those principles could be sufficiently formalized. Reconciling this approach with information-processing approaches to perception would represent a significant advance in applying perceptual theory to HCI, however, the proposal does address how this reconciliation will be accomplished. The promise of a model component that incorporates the notion of working spheres, and the possiblity of automated user performance data capture methods are innovative, but their relationship to the overall goal of the project needs to be clarified. The proposal would benefit from explicit connections between the unifying theme and the steps necessary to realize the larger goal of the project.

	Despite these shortcomings, the proposal does have several unique strengths. Most current models of HCI do not explicitly incorporate many relevant facts of human ecology, and some of the utility of the original notion of "affordances" has been somewhat lost in translation; efforts to incorporate Gibsonian principles into the cognitive model would be fruitful if those principles could be sufficiently formalized.

	=== Gaps ===		=== Gaps ===

	* The section on Gibsonianism could be improved/expanded considerably.		* The section on Gibsonianism could be improved/expanded considerably.
			* Specific aims are not coherent.
	* There is a certain amount of overlap between some of the specific contributions and our user studies; perhaps some of them could be merged.		* There is a certain amount of overlap between some of the specific contributions and our user studies; perhaps some of them could be merged.
	* We need to run an experiment in which we use a rudimentary model of human cognitive abilities to predict some aspect of user interaction and compare those predictions to actual performance.		* We need to run an experiment in which we use a rudimentary model of human cognitive abilities to predict some aspect of user interaction and compare those predictions to actual performance.

Jon Ericson: /* Jon Ericson */

2009-03-13T02:20:51Z

Jon Ericson

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:20, 13 March 2009
Line 113:		Line 113:
	=== Intellectual merit ===		=== Intellectual merit ===

	Most existing theories of human-computer interaction have failed to integrate design principles with research on human cognition. This much-needed integration would facilitate the development and testing of a predictive model of human-computer interaction that would decrease reliance on individual user studies when evaluating candidate interfaces, and thereby aid convergence on optimal interfaces for a given task. This would result in ~~a significant reduction in the amount of time and money invested in conducting individual user studies.~~		(in progress)

	~~We demonstrate that a computational~~ model ~~based on partial integration~~ of ~~design and cognitive principles successfully predicts~~ the ~~(relative) amount~~ of ~~time required~~ to ~~perform~~ a ~~scientific visualization task when using various alternative interfaces~~. ~~In order for~~ the ~~predictive ability~~ of ~~this model to generalize to a wide variety~~ of ~~other tasks it will be necessary~~ to incorporate ~~more cognitive and design~~ principles ~~and test~~ the model on a number of other tasks. The proposed research will also focus on developing a model component capable of suggesting improvements to candidate interfaces that will further streamline user interactions.		How will the proposed model of user workflow be integrated with the model of human cognition? Are they intended to be subcomponents of a larger, more comprehensive HCI model or will they remain separate modules?

			Despite these shortcomings, the proposal does have several unique strengths. Most current models of HCI do not explicitly incorporate many relevant facts of human ecology, and some of the utility of the original notion of "affordances" has been somewhat lost in translation; efforts to incorporate Gibsonian principles into the cognitive model would be fruitful if those principles could be sufficiently formalized.

	=== Gaps ===		=== Gaps ===

E J Kalafarski: /* EJ */

2009-03-13T00:24:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:24, 13 March 2009
Line 46:		Line 46:

	=== Intellectual merit ===		=== Intellectual merit ===
			asdf

			=== Intellectual merit (old) ===
	While attempts have been made in the past to apply cognitive theory to the task of developing human-computer interfaces, there remains much work to be done. No standard and widespread model for the cognitive interaction with a computer exists. The roles of perception and cognition, while examined and studied independently, are often at odds with empirical and successful design guidelines in practice. Methods of study and evaluation, such as eye-tracking and workflow analysis, are still governed primarily by the needs at the end of the development process, with no quantitative model capable of influencing efficiency and consistency in the field.		While attempts have been made in the past to apply cognitive theory to the task of developing human-computer interfaces, there remains much work to be done. No standard and widespread model for the cognitive interaction with a computer exists. The roles of perception and cognition, while examined and studied independently, are often at odds with empirical and successful design guidelines in practice. Methods of study and evaluation, such as eye-tracking and workflow analysis, are still governed primarily by the needs at the end of the development process, with no quantitative model capable of influencing efficiency and consistency in the field.

E J Kalafarski: /* EJ */

2009-03-13T00:23:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:23, 13 March 2009
Line 55:		Line 55:
	* Is "Significance" supposed to be significantly (ha) different from a projection of the influence and effects of the study? Perhaps these estimates should be parsed out of contributions and placed here.		* Is "Significance" supposed to be significantly (ha) different from a projection of the influence and effects of the study? Perhaps these estimates should be parsed out of contributions and placed here.
	* Need stronger distinction/clarification between "Aims" and "Contributions."		* Need stronger distinction/clarification between "Aims" and "Contributions."


	== Eric ==		== Eric ==

Gideon Goldin at 21:54, 12 March 2009

2009-03-12T21:54:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 12 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	These are reviews and intellectual contributions for the [[CS295J/Research proposal\|research proposal]], as specified in [[CS295J/Assignments#Part_A.2C_due_Tuesday_noon\|assignment 7, part A]].		These are reviews and intellectual contributions for the [[CS295J/Research proposal\|research proposal]], as specified in [[CS295J/Assignments#Part_A.2C_due_Tuesday_noon\|assignment 7, part A]].


	~~== Name ==~~

	~~=== Intellectual merit ===~~

	~~(your paragraph here)~~

	~~=== Gaps ===~~

	* Your
	* Bullet
	* List
	* Here

	== Andrew Bragdon ==		== Andrew Bragdon ==