CS295J/Week 3.11 - Revision history

David Laidlaw: /* tuesday class notes */

2011-09-27T16:08:36Z

tuesday class notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:08, 27 September 2011
Line 44:		Line 44:
	**** try not to make other changes that are not essential and that don't directly address reviewer criticisms		**** try not to make other changes that are not essential and that don't directly address reviewer criticisms
	**** the exception to this is for new reviewer criticisms that you are reasonably confident you can anticipate		**** the exception to this is for new reviewer criticisms that you are reasonably confident you can anticipate

			=== thursday class notes ===

			* dhl notes on papers (where would we cite these in the proposal)
			** small world graph layout: Jenna
			*** method for graph layout -- use it in an application
			*** how do you know what's important?
			** facial attractiveness: Chen
			*** assess user attractiveness and somehow use in interface? (?)
			*** create attractive faces for on-screen people or avatars?
			** attention, habituation, conditioning...: Nathan
			*** "almost as appeared" :-)
			*** title cool -- could we test these model(s)?
			*** model(s) may not be computational enough -- principles rather than mathematical
			*** no conclusions
			*** fig 7 is a nice brain diagram
			*** near end they question whether a model at this level can make quantitative predictions
			** On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action: Caroline
			*** tetris-rotating paper -- a really hard test case to model, I bet...
			*** an interesting addition to a cognitive model
			*** users replace one cognitively difficult task with two that are easier
			*** "epistemic" -- knoweldge-collecting tasks, not just NOOP's
			*** built expert system with cognitive/perceptual/motor components
			*** I wonder what order the epistemic discovery happened
			** design of mobile art guide: Clara
			*** not sure what to take from this
			** challenge of infovis eval: Diem
			*** position paper -- value evaluation
			*** what is AVI conf?
			** synchronous interaction among hundreds: Wenjun
			*** how to spend one's time is toughest decision...
			*** demands of "first life"
			*** maybe we can leverage some concepts to make more engaging apps?
			*** not clear where to cite this
			** now, where was I? steve
			*** great title!
			*** interesting idea to help keep track of where users are in a process
			*** there is some literature on when to interrupt users least disruptively
			*** should we leverage GSR? another kind of data, used as part of interaction
			** data visualization optimization: Hua
			*** good followup to Ware paper from last week that proposed the flow part of this work
			*** nice contrast between evaluation and theory-based work
			*** I wish there were a conclusion
			** BrainFrame: a knowledge vis system for neurosciences: Michael
			*** (please link to pdf's, if at all possible)
			*** something we could build on for brain researchers to play with
			** knowledge visualizaiton: towards a new discipline and its fields of applications

David Laidlaw at 11:26, 22 September 2011

2011-09-22T11:26:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 22 September 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:

	* for Thursday: read reviews of proposal, identify some significant criticism, and say how it will be addressed in the revision		* for Thursday: read reviews of proposal, identify some significant criticism, and say how it will be addressed in the revision

	** examples:		** examples:
	*** criticism: literature on XXX is not represented, here are 3 citations		*** criticism: literature on XXX is not represented, here are 3 citations
Line 25:		Line 24:
	*** response: we have rewritten portions of the project summary and significance sections to clarify the intellectual merit of the work. Changed portions are in blue.		*** response: we have rewritten portions of the project summary and significance sections to clarify the intellectual merit of the work. Changed portions are in blue.
	*** other examples? do one from the actual reviews?		*** other examples? do one from the actual reviews?

	** let's put on the reviewer's hat to understand some guidelines for writing responses		** let's put on the reviewer's hat to understand some guidelines for writing responses
	*** 18 months ago read 10 proposals and wrote up evaluations of them, including yours		*** 18 months ago read 10 proposals and wrote up evaluations of them, including yours

David Laidlaw: /* tuesday class notes */

2011-09-22T11:25:38Z

tuesday class notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:25, 22 September 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== tuesday class notes ===		=== tuesday class notes ===

			* discuss some of the most-discussable papers we presented thursday
			** Hua: Measuring effectiveness of graph visualizations: a cognitive load perspective Huang-2009-JIV
			** Caroline: Cognitive Strategies and Eye Movements for Searching Hierarchical Computer Displays
			** Steve: Toward a Perceptual Theory of Flow Visualization
			** Clara: Could I have the Menu Please? An Eye Tracking Study of Design Conventions

			* what should we be doing with what we are discussing/learning? why are we doing this?
			** understanding area, understand what qualifies as research contributions, understand the lacey web of human knowledge
			*** connection to other things we're reading
			*** putting into wiki: very short summary,
			** relationship to proposal
			*** hmm, maybe we need to go back and think about revision
			*** what do we need to do for that?

			* for Thursday: read reviews of proposal, identify some significant criticism, and say how it will be addressed in the revision

			** examples:
			*** criticism: literature on XXX is not represented, here are 3 citations
			*** response: we have reviewed the literature in this area and added a paragraph to the significance section relating our proposed work to that done in this area
			*** criticism: the proposed approach won't work
			*** response: we have 1) added a new section summarizing risks of the approach and contingencies if parts of the approach are not successful; 2) we have included preliminary results from 2 new experiments that show that YYY and ZZZ are likely to be feasible;
			*** criticism: the intellectual merit of the proposed work is not clear
			*** response: we have rewritten portions of the project summary and significance sections to clarify the intellectual merit of the work. Changed portions are in blue.
			*** other examples? do one from the actual reviews?

			** let's put on the reviewer's hat to understand some guidelines for writing responses
			*** 18 months ago read 10 proposals and wrote up evaluations of them, including yours
			*** OR never read yours
			*** now has your revised proposal and maybe the reviews from it
			*** does NOT have the original version
			*** needs to evaluate the revision
			*** how?
			**** A: find old one, read both in parallel, absorb everything, look through reviews, write up informed evaluation
			**** B: go through points in review and check that they have been addressed
			*** so write responses to make that as easy for the reviewer as possible
			**** a checklist for them to use
			**** annotate the review with responses interleaved
			**** describe how a change to the proposal addresses the criticism
			**** point to where the proposal was changed
			**** don't repeat what's in the proposal in the response
			**** try to address every criticism with a change
			**** only argue in the response for the most important battles
			**** make it easy for the reviewer to write "The revised proposal completely addresses all the concerns of the reviewers"
			**** try not to make other changes that are not essential and that don't directly address reviewer criticisms
			**** the exception to this is for new reviewer criticisms that you are reasonably confident you can anticipate

David Laidlaw at 16:53, 18 September 2011

2011-09-18T16:53:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, 18 September 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== ~~notes for~~ tuesday class ==		=== tuesday class notes ===

David Laidlaw: New page: == notes for tuesday class ==

2011-09-18T16:52:52Z

New page: == notes for tuesday class ==

New page

== notes for tuesday class ==