Tuesday, April 26, 2011

FINAL PAPER READING: Estimating User’s Engagement from Eye-gaze Behaviors in Human-Agent Conversations

Estimating User’s Engagement from Eye-gaze Behaviors in Human-Agent Conversations
Yukiko, I. Nakano
Dept. of Computer and Information Science Seikei University
Ryo Ishii
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
Intelligent User Interfaces

In this paper the authors discuss their work with eye gaze behaviors and their role in human-agent conversations. They essentially set up an entire room that allows the user to interact with a computer and perform actions using their eye movements. They also use this research to see how engaged in a conversation someone is and they try different strategies to keep the user interested and their eye gaze fixed. They did a few different kinds of experiences of experiments starting with the wizard of oz experiment and use this to see what they can do to keep eye engagement up. Later they would then use this data to create probing questions that would allow the user to keep their engagement up and their attention focused. They found that this kind of responsive feedback did help the user stay more focused and their attention stayed more fixed the longer it went. They even found that users asked more questions during the probing when they were more stimulated by the questions asked. They say that in the future they want to work on the algorithms for selecting questions for the user to be asked and they want to make the algorithm for picking probing questions more robust. They think that there is also other experiments that will help track user eye engagement. Overall they found that their experiment was a success and they plan to add these kinds of methods to personal computers.


This seems like a good experiment if they can scale it down. The image they give makes it seem like the whole room is the only want to be able to run experiments like this and if that's the case then they are going to have a hard time using it on a large scale. The experiment is a really good one: keeping peoples attention by asking probing questions. I like the fact that they are trying to keep the user engaged and asking questions while tracking their eye movements to read bio feedback. I like the idea of the system working to try to keep the user engaged is also a really neat concept and actually sounds like something that could later translate into a video game. It would be like the system would try to see how long it can keep your attention before you need to walk away...or something like that. Anway despite the article I wanted to say that I had a really good time in class and if you actually read this I deserve a 10 for this one because I haven't missed a single paper yet, but I digress. Thanks for a really good class and I hope that you all continue my capstone work and I get to see a paper on it soon.

Hooray for TAMU CHI.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Book Reading #9: Living with Complexity

Living With Complexity
Donald Norman
2011 MIT Press Donald Norman

Chapter 1: Living With Complexity

This is a standard opening chapter for Donald Norman, it sets up the various kinds of things that he is going to talk about in the book, and in this case, that is various types of complexity that we face each day. He starts by talking about the kinds of complexity that we face each day. He also talks about various situations in which we have objects or events that will make us face something that will be complex for us. He then talks about the examples we see and read about everyday that are complex for no reason but we still use them. He talks about sports, calculators, coffee, and various other devices that are quite simple on paper but once are made are rather complex. He says it comes to down to an idea of how familiar we are with something and how much technology changes devices we are used to seeing.

This chapter was interesting in that Norman did provide A LOT of rather relevant examples. However in some cases I don't think he explained them all the way. In the baseball example he talked about the infield fly rule and why it is complex, but his explanation of how it worked and what it is used for was more complex than the rule actually is. He also didn't entirely explain why people would want to always drop the ball and how this catches players off base (couldn't they simply take one base and then pause?). The other examples were along a similar vein, and that is the strangest coffee maker that I have ever seen.

Chapter 2: Simplicity is in the Mind

In this chapter Norman suggests that  we only live with complexity because we choose to and because it is in various features we find all throughout our lives. He suggests that things like the water cycle and light switches are only complex because of the way that they are presented. If we can get a nice mental model of how something works in our minds then it is much more easy to understand it. He also says that mental models are a basic fundamental of being able to understand complexity and if we can find out how to make a better mental model of what we want a product to be we can make it better for users. He also talks about how more buttons does not necessarily make something better or more complex, and sometimes it does he gives a good example of how Apply found this with their mice.

I actually liked this chapter a bit, there was some good example and the chapter actually flowed quite nicely. I think however in this case he didn't really relate much of this back to computer science, and if he did I had a hard time finding it. I also like that in this book he is using a lot more pictures so that the reader can better understand things and gives us a good relational model as to what hes talking about and referring to. I think that this chapter had some good information and made a lot of sense in terms of CHI and GUI creation.

Chapter 3: How Simple Things can Complicate Our Lives

This chapter Norman talks about different things that we use that actually make our lives more complicated. He talks about idea of trying to use signs to make things easier to understand but in reality it might simply make your life more complicated. He talks about how he has tried systems that include using different colors of sticky tabs and various things but then after awhile he starts to associate things that have nothing to do with his reminder with them. He tries to argue a few things that will make your life less complex but really I don't see how many of these work.

Norman in this chapter seems to go back to his classical examples in all of his other books trying to show the similarities between them and why they apply to CHI. The problem with this is that none of his example seems to make a whole lot of sense. He talks a lot about security passwords and trying to see if even security experts will know how to make sure their password is secure and various things. It did not surprise me however, that they didn't do much better with their passwords than the average person.

Chapter 4: Social Signifier

In this chapter we learn about signifier, which are things that let us know how a device is supposed to be used. These are apparently in some way different than affordances, they talk about variations on objects that cannot be described using affordances. How he says these are different is that unlike affordances which just tell us how to do something signifier actually force us to do an action that restrain our choices and our complexity in this way. His most significant example is probably a salt and pepper shaker and how there is only really one way to use them and we are forced to use them in the way they are expected to.

This chapter was a bit more interesting but it did seem like another chapter on affordances really more than anything. I don't see how these two things are that much different that it requires its own chapter but when he explains it you do get two different definitions. I think that we could even argue that despite signifiers some things can still be quite complex. Just because we see something and have a decent mental model of how to use it doesn't mean that it is any more or less complex.

Full Blog:

The book did cover some really good points about things that are complex and why we perceive them as such. We as engineers sometimes are really unable to see things the way they are intended to be but as we understand and develop models we can see them easier for what they are. We can also use this knowledge to reduce complexity by introducing signs and signifiers to make them more useful. There is a few pictures that are used and the avid reader is able to see how the pictures help the examples and there are captions that go along with the pics that provide other information.

I was trying to be objective about the pictures but in Norman's books we don't get a lot of pictures so they really were helpful and I had been asking for them in blogs of his other books. I like that he was able to give examples and then relate them to the pics that were provided. In all I thought these chapters were rather good but I think that the signifier chapter was a bit much considering that he talks about affordances and how they are so much different. The book seems good but I think it was a basic Norman book.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Paper Reading #25: Usage Patterns and Latent Semantic Analyses for Task Goal Inference of Multimodal User Interactions

Comment 1: http://stuartjchi.blogspot.com/2011/04/paper-reading-23-aspect-level-news.html
Comment 2 :http://jip-tamuchi-spring2011.blogspot.com/2011/04/paper-reading-24-outline-wizard.html

Usage Patterns and Latent Semantic Analyses for Task Goal Inference of Multimodal User Interactions
Pui-Yu Hui, Wai-Kit Lo and Helen M. Meng
Human-Computer Communications Laboratory
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Intelligent User Interfaces

This paper talks about multimodal pen and voice applications and the applications of task goal interfaces between them. The system is developed to be a bridge between single modal and multimodal interfaces for pen and touch devices. The creators want the system to be able to bride commands from both pen and touch and be robust enough to measure task goals in the user interactions. There has been heavy research semantic prediction algorithms for each of the inputs individually but no one has yet tried to come them in a useable way. Their test consisted of users performing 66 different tasks using multimodal interface devices to see their outcomes and how the users responded to the feedback. The system they tested involved the user needing to look for different tasks on the bus such as location, arrival times, cost and route finding. They were for the most part able to narrow down the user input to one search relatively quickly and their algorithm seemed to be efficient enough. The reason I say seemed is that the data became a little unclear and the tests were made in Chinese and I was unable to read what the users responded. It did seem that they authors were quite happy with the results and they have plans to make the algorithms more robust in the future. They also want to program a way to use data that was previously found by a user and feed it back into the system making future searches more accurate. They plan to also make the searches more consistent and faster. The user wants to be able to narrow down their list of options for next steps on pen and voice quicker to make the whole application feel smoother.



Again I had a real hard time understanding this article because despite the number of times I read over some parts of it I am not understanding the technical jargon or the complex mathematical sequences taken to gather and display the data. It also does not help that a lot of the user questionnaires and feedback were displayed in mandarin so I could not see what the users were responding or what features they think did well. The graphs were also a bit unclear and in some cases did not make sense for what the authors were referring to. Essentially I limped through this paper the best I could and just did the best I could with it. To my actual feelings, I think that this is a really good idea combining these two mediums and any system that helps to recognize task goals is always a good idea. Any prediction algorithms that can be used and be written to be more and more robust are great advancements and help people to understand technology even better. It also speaks directly to HCI as people want to be able to use a new interface very fluidly and without having a steep learning curve assocaited with it. It also seems like despite the fact that I had a hard time interpreting the results, the tests they did with fidning these different tasks on a bus riding application is a good way to test their interface. The authors seem to really be on a good piece of software and I hope their research is allowed to continue,

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Paper Reading #24: Intelligent understanding of handwritten geometry theorem proving

Comment 1: http://gspotblogspotblogspotblogspotblogspot.blogspot.com/2011/04/paper-reading-24-usage-patterns-and.html
Comment 2: http://chi-jacob.blogspot.com/2011/04/paper-reading-23.html

Intelligent understanding of handwritten geometry theorem proving
Yingying Jiang, Feng Tian, Hongan Wang
Intelligence Engineering Lab,
Institute of Software,
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Xiaolong Zhang, Xugang Wang, Guozhong Dai
State Key Laboratory of Computer Science,
Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Intelligent User Interfaces

This paper focuses on a topic that is near to us at  Texas A&M, sketch recognition. This group tries to implement a system that provides dynamic and intelligent visual assistance in drawing and learning. The system wants to assist the user in drawing shapes on an interface and help the user to construct an answer to the geometric question they have provided. The system was originally designed to help users with geometric proofs and will assist in writing equations. There have been other computer based learning systems for geometry before but none have had all the features involved in identifying shapes and equations similar to this system, called PenProof. It also can assist the user in identifying potential mistakes that they have made while writing their answer. Essentially, as the user draws the figure they can identify that as their original question and then they can proceed to write equivalencies and other facts getting towards the proof of the figure. The system will then identify mistakes and other faults with the proof and identify them with red text or lines. The user can then systematically work towards their answer and will eventually have a proof that is completely correct. The users who tested the system were asked about their feelings when using the system such as enjoyment, comfort, and if the visual interaction was meaningful or not. They plan to extend their research and make a more robust algorithm for identifying mistakes and making a more meaningful recognition system for users. They did say that their original system was a success and they were happy with the testing and results made.



This paper was interesting enough and I like the idea of using systems like this in schools. I think that if we could incorporate these kinds of systems in the classroom that it would make subjects that are more difficult to understand (like geometry for some) easier to see and feel. The best part I like about this is that it shows you visually what is wrong with your picture or equation. I believe that math is a lot about finding patterns and recognizing how to identify how to respond to a problem so this system would help you learn how to visualize these kinds of things. I also like that the users want to improve this algorithm and make it expanded for more kinds of equations. I think that if this kind of software was going to be moved for public use that it needs to cover a very large amount of situations so that educators can effectively teach through the use of a sufficient amount of examples.I think that I would personally use this kind of system when studying for a test or trying to finish homework and I can think of a ton of uses for this kind of work. I want there to be more research and I also would like to know if I could be a tester if it is coming out soon.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Paper Reading #23: Media Equation

Media Equation Papers:
Computers Are Social Actors
Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R. Tauber
Department of Communication Stanford University
Can Computer Personalities be  Human Personalities?
Clifford Nass, Yongeme Moon, B J Fogg, Byron Reeves, D Christopher Dryer
Department of Communication Stanford University

These two articles essentially dealt with the same topic, that is, can computers have human personalities and be social actors? There have been a number of tests done to see if people will respond to computers acting like people and being able to interpret natural language and then respond to the person. The authors are not trying to make a touring test but simply seeing if people will talk to the computers as if they are people. They set up experiments where people interact with machines and see if they regard the machine as if its a person. They then ask the people to talk about and rate the machines on different aspects of personality such as intelligence, passion, knowledge and other aspects of personality. They use these to determine if people are actually regarding the machines as intelligent beings or if they are simply programed responses to different items. They also tried different experiments to see if people regarded male or female voices better and if their interaction with the different gender voice was more or less effective in convincing them it was a person. They tried to determine this by looking at what comprises a personality and what people are looking for when they refer to somethings personality. Again, they look at personalities by looking at a few different factors called dominance factors: able to give orders, talks to others, and takes responsibility. They also look for another set of factors called submissiveness factors which are: easily led, lets others make decisions, diffuses responsibility. They also talk about how, again, it is not simply enough to determine there is a personality but there is also the need to be able to make someone do something with that given personality. Both papers showed about the same results with one paper seeming to contradict the other only in very limited spots. The overall effect was that there was a bit of interaction that we could get out of computers and people did respond to them in some cases.



These articles were rather weird and in some cases misguided. While not directly saying that the other was wrong they did talk about different aspects in the two papers. One paper was focused more on the development of a personality while the other was talking about different aspects of interactions that are displayed. The thing I didn't understand about these papers is that these seem to have more to do with AI then they do with HCI. While this is a direct study of computer human interaction this is also more so a study of natural language processing which has been a study in AI for many years. There have been many programs that can accept natural human language and we have figured out ways for programs to learn and be able to respond to different queries. The best example of this can be seen recently in Watson IBM's new Jeopardy playing computer. He can take in answers from the game and produce the question when asked for my the host. These machines are becoming more and more complex and though progress is slow over the last 50 years there is more getting involved and we are getting closer. HCI from this viewpoint, in my opinion, needs to look at how the interaction takes place and less on what aspects of personality are involved in the interaction. We need to understand how the relationship develops and what makes a person essentially trust a computer actor. Once we do this we will better understand how people perceive computers and we will be able to see them 'evolve' and become more user friendly. This directly involves how we create graphic user interfaces and how people perceive a screen on the computer and better understanding of this will help us to better understand how to design programs.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Paper Reading #22: Usability Guided Key-Target Resizing for Soft Keyboards

Comment 1: http://chi-jacob.blogspot.com/2011/04/paper-reading-22-usability-guided-key.html
Comment 2: http://chiblog.sjmorrow.com/2011/04/paper-reading-22-usability-guided-key.html

Usability Guided Key-Target Resizing for Soft Keyboards
Asela Gunawardana
Tim Paek
Microsoft Research
Redmond, WA 98052
Intelligent User Interfaces



In this paper we learn about a usability design by a group of workers at Microsoft research. With the advent of phone storming the market and being the computer that most people have closest to them at all times many people are starting to communicate with text and emails sent from phones more often. This requires the user to type into the phone more and more and phones are coming out with new phone-based keyboard or "soft keyboards". While there have been many improvements to soft keyboards none of them have ever considered making the keys larger as the user types to allow them to type more quickly and accurately. These users decided to implement this onto Android and iPhone devices and conduct user studies of speed and accuracy of typing. They implemented an algorithm that is called source-channel key-target resizing that uses Baye's law to predict what keys the user is near or likely to use and dynamically re-sizes them so the user can click them more easily. It then uses anchored dynamic key targets to help the user more accurately select the location on the keyboard and enter their character of choice. The user study showed that many people were at first rather taken with this but after getting more comfortable were actually rather satisfied with the dynamic resizing. They had the same set of users run tests on both regular soft keyboards for a control then had them type the same messages on phones that contained their dynamic resizing algorithm after they had become more comfortable with it. They found that users increased their typing speed and accuracy by nearly 18%. They used a Gaussian touch distribution for resizing the keys and for accuracy of touch and in their future work plan to look at other sorts of touch models and anchor sizes. They also plan to look at what they call 'finger touch points' to see if the keyboard can adapt to the users touch patterns. 



I think that this is a rather interesting approach to this kind of problem. We have been using dynamically re-sizing algorithms on our computers for a long time to try and save desktop space or to help navigate buttons and panels for a long time. While I do think that like any new typing method this will take people awhile to get used to it has some good aspects that can make it very usable by the average person. Typing on soft keyboard is a large source of frustration for many people and being able to have a system like this is perfect to help them overcome this. The idea of having the keys you want to press dynamically resizing themselves is a really good idea however I don't know if the users would like this if the phone was trying to predict what they were going to type, was wrong, and could not hit the key they wanted to hit. Despite this, I do think that this would have great integration with swype typing where the user would be able to roll over the key they want to press and the phone would re-size the keys near their finger so that they can more accurately hit the one in question. I think they did the user study well and even for the short time the users were able to use the keyboard they did see a significant improvement and I would like to see if their speeds and accuracy's go up even more if the users were left with the system for a number of days or weeks.  In all I thought this was a good article and study and I think that if my phone came with this I would be interested in trying it.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Paper Reading #20: Rush: Repeated Recommendations on Mobile Devices

 Rush: Repeated Recommendations on Mobile Devices
Dominikus Baur
Sebastian Boring
Andreas Butz
Intelligent User Interfaces

Comment 1: http://chi-jacob.blogspot.com/2011/04/paper-reading-20-rush-repeated.html?showComment
Comment 2: http://jip-tamuchi-spring2011.blogspot.com/2011/04/paper-reading-20-lowering-barriers-to.html

In this paper we find another application written for mobile phones that allows the user to brows different purchasing options and weigh and compare them to choose the correct one. This application is known as Rush and it allows the user to search through multiple devices with a simply flick motion on the phone. Essentially you try to find a product on your phone and then search through similar items until you find one or more that you enjoy and then you can choose one or more of them. The app is designed as an informative user study that allows the shopper to select their items and then get more intuitive results for similar product or products that allow the user to find out more information about what they are shopping for. Essentially the user starts with one recommendation and then can swipe through multiple other selections 3-5 at a time looking for more information or the product that they want to find. Tests were done with usability and the accuracy involved with the user being able to select the correct item. The tests were largely successful but the algorightm for selecting similar items need the authors feel needs to be more robust and needs to be able to select more items and be able to get the user to the item they are looking for faster. The participants who used this were mostly younger people average age of 27 and they are going to see if the application appeals to older people as well.

I think this paper was fairly interesting, it seems like a good enough application for people to use. The problem I have with this application is they didn't talk much about how the app worked or the kinds of information that it can give you and mostly about the technical specs of the app. I thought it was interesting that they only used younger people as well in their initial tests and would have liked to see a wider range of people testing the application. I thought that it was good in what it was trying to do get you to your item faster but I wonder how many people really just go browsing for different items online anymore. It seems like a lot of people I know if they want to just go shopping in general they will typically go to the mall or some other kind of shopping establishment. That or what I do is I know the item I want to get and I go directly to it and order it. I really cant see a lot of people wanting to swipe through various items on their phone and then find out more about them or take the time to try and guess and navigate to the item they want to find. I also sort of feel like this has already been done as most shopping websites provide links to similar items that are a bit less interactive but still have the same general idea. I think it is a good idea but I question how many people would use something like this.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Paper Reading #19: Tell Me More, not just “More of the Same”

Tell Me More, not just “More of the Same”
Francisco Iacobelli, Larry Birnbaum, Kristian J. Hammond
Intelligent User Interfaces

This article the authors are making a new internet news feed system called "Tell me more" a system that looks at new articles and then scans similar articles looking for more. Essentially, when the user is reading a news article the interface looks on the web for more information about the subject and then brings it in for the user. It does this through a system of internet searches that are formatted and then entered into the UI for the user. What the system does is find other related topics and runs them through a series of difference metrics that have been defined by the user, it then can determine if the article in question (the article that will tell the user more) is different enough from the story but still within the same vein so as to provide more information. The system is then run through a series of text analytics that run hueristic algorithms on the text to determine the amount of difference between the two articles and if it should be displayed or not. Upon release of the system the users found that the system was very useful but it was not completely finished. They said they were  not satisfied with the results and wanted to make the system more robust so that they can get more kinds of articles searched and hopefully be able to choose from a large list of similar articles on the web for each news story. They also talked about generating a better hueristic that will be able to search articles better and more effectively. The system worked how they wanted it to but they want to make sure that it is more robust and has better searches in the future.


I think this is actually one of the better systems I have gotten to read about. While the system does not have a whole lot of fancy features the ones that they have implemented seem very solid and simple enough that the interface is not overwhelming the user. I would actually be interested in trying it myself to see if the articles that were found were indeed not along the vein of information I was looking for or they were actually relevant. My only problem with this interface is that in the picture of how the UI looks in the article, they make the related articles look like advertisements that are placed on websites and unless I specifically knew they were related articles I might just skip over them. The strange thing is despite rather good user responses from their test they still seemed to think that the system did not work entirely as intended but from my reading of the paper it seems like the system works really well .I would actually be interested in being one of the test subjects for this and seeing if it works and giving feedback. I hope there are more systems like this in the future and I hope that we will be able to test them soon.

Book Reading #8: Things that Make Us Smart

Things that Make Us Smart
Donald Norman
Designed and Edited by Donald A. Norman

Chapter 1: Human-Centered Technology

In these chapters Norman discusses the idea of how technology is essentially geared for humans. In fact most of the things we make are for our comport or ease of use, but does this really make us smarter? Does it in fact just make us lazy or make us unaware of how things are changing? He talks about a few of these idea and the different stories he has about how technology has made his colleges smarter...or was it less smart? He talks about two models of human cognition with regards to technology experiential cognition and reflective cognition. Experiential is how we percieve and act to things around us and reflective is how we compare different items and think about objects.

I think that this chapter was quite a bit different for Norman. While he did go back to this stories with different collegues and things he did talk about some examples that were a little outside the box for him. He talked about different models of cognition and the many different sides there is to technology. However it did seem that there was that nagging tone that Norman sometimes get, where he is not only saying about how he dislikes the technology but also how it is bothesome and really irks him.

Chapter 2: Experiencing the World

In this chapter Norman talks about the ideas from the first chapter and how they can be applied. Again he does his standard model of setting up what he is going to be talking about and then going strait into examples and explaining why they apply. It is the idea that the more situations that a person is in the more they are to understand how experiential cognition and reflective cognition play a role in our understanding of technology. Norman even offers examples that normal people would understand such as the Sylvester and Tweety metaphor talking about how their relationship at first is seen one way and then after reflecting in another. The chapter goes further into more specific examples and more analysis of the kinds of cognition.


Again this was a different kind of chapter by Norman. While he did do his standard model he did talk about items that are not spherically technology and made the chapter rather familiar. I also liked the example he gave where he was talking about the pilot and flight crew who need or make a decision about how long the plane can stay in the air and what they need to do in the event of turbulence. The strange thing is that the ways in which he talked about these it actually reminded me of old StarTrek Episodes in which the crew has a problem and then has steps to go through to solve it, first experiential and then reflective.

Monday, April 4, 2011

Ethnography Results Week 8:

For my final week I decided to join my roomates and sit in on another session of the game.

It was a continuation of the game we had the week before and I played the same pre-generated character as before as well.

This time I really tried to use the things I had learned most importantly I tried to get as involved as I could and really pay attention to what everyone was saying as well as try to play as if I was unaware of the meta-conversations that my character would not have been a part of.

I tried role playing with everyone (which is not my strong point) and I tried to honestly think in terms of actions and dialouge that would make sense to my character.

The session didn't last long but I was able to get some things noted that I really felt were important to being in this kind of community.

1. Treat other people like people, while you are playing a game you only get the tru experince if you have fun with the game. I tried to treat everyone like we were playing a game and I took them very seriouesly and every move they made I considered in the context of the game this helped to enrich the experince not only for me but for everyone

2. Listen to the DM - for the most part this person is running the game and wants to make it fun for all, but you need to know him/her and have a relationship. Thils will make the game more fun for everyone.

3. Be willing to talk to others- othe players will help you with your gameplay and if you have questions they are usually more than happy to help you out and make sure you do what you want to do, you can do just about anything and if you have questions ask.

4. Make sure that you participate in other conversations if you only pay attention to the game, then you wolnt have as much fun, be ready to joke around as well. Again these are some of the nicest people you will meet and they love to keep everything compfortable for everyone so participate, its important.


5. Dont take things too seriously- some DnD systems are designed to make it challengeing but this will not stop you from getting a good story as well, be ready to accept challenge and go with the flow.

6. Bring your own dice- the game is essentially about rolling dice so if you plan to play a lot invest $10 and get some, if its your first time usually experienced players have extras.


I know this isn't exactly an ethnographic style but it is some of the things I will talk about in our final paper, and it is a basic breakdown of the new world we entered and some of the central cores to the culture surrounding it.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Paper Reading #18: An Adaptive Calendar Assistant Using Pattern Mining for User Preference Modelling

Comment 1: http://chiblog.sjmorrow.com/2011/03/paper-reading-18-adaptive-calendar.html
Comment 2: http://csce436-nabors.blogspot.com/2011/03/reading-18-adaptive-calendar-assistant.html

An Adaptive Calendar Assistant Using Pattern Mining for User Preference Modelling
Alfred Krzywicki, Wayne Wobcke and Anna Wong
Intelligent User Interfaces

This paper is about a new user interface for calendars that allows users to not only see their events but also helps intelligently organize them. The calendar application has a few features that other calendars do not, one being, suggestion of attributes for appointments such as date and time as well as location and other factors. This can help the user to have a more detailed glance view when they mouse over an event or look at a short version when clicking on it. It also has a feature named SmartCal that tracks patterns in user appointments and better helps to give suggestions on how to organize events and when an upcoming event might happen. The algorithm is both intelligent and minimally invasive and allows the user to ignore suggestions as well as change them over time. The design also helps to point out conflicting and overlapping conflicts and allows the user to either device a solution of their own or gives suggestions of how it could be handled. The authors even give the basic code and talk a lot more about the design of SmartCal and how it generates solutions to various problems that the user encounters while using the application. They perofrmed an experiment of users trying the application over a four week period and then collected results of how often the user used the new features and how many times they listened to the suggestions made as well as the frequency they used them to resolve conflicts. Users seemed relatively happy and commonly used the suggestions but not to the extent that the authors thought they might. They did get to see their appointment suggestion feature in action which had results ranging from 55% accuracy to 100% accuracy based on the user. The tests seemed to be rather successful and they want to improve the robustness and accuracy of their algorithm in the future.



I think this application looks really cool and the idea of the algorith that can predict when my appointments is going to be is really cool. However I am starting to notice a pattern of the various article I am reading and I am getting a lot of these kinds of applications recently. It seems like a lot of my articles are "applications that are built to serve a very particular set of people" and for the most part are things I don't REALLY see myself using. This makes it hard for me to really say anything overly helpful about the application, despite this there is some things that I will say about SmartCal. First, I do like the suggestion algorithm and think it is a good idea. If I was able to generate solutions to my various calendar problems and overlaps and have them pointed out to me before they become a problem. I didn't like that it will generate suggestions on how to make my events better or the strange organization system that the authors wanted where they have three kinds of events divided into categories. Again in all I think this is going to be a very good aplpication for people in the office place who have lots of appointments and need to make sense of them. I will not be in this stage for a while and I dont see me using this application any time soon so it makes it hard for me to judge it. I am curious to see what the authors do with it next and if they are able to improve the prediction algorithm at all.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Paper Reading # 17: Agent-Assisted Task Management that Reduces Email Overload

Agent-Assisted Task Management that Reduces Email Overload
Andrew Faulring, Brad Myers, Ken Mohnkern, Bradley Schmerl, Aaron Steinfeld, John Zimmerman, Asim Smailagic, Jeffery Hansen, and Daniel Siewiorek
School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In this article the authors introduce their new system called RADAR. Essentially what it is, is a email scanning system that helps a user to organize emails in the event of email overload. When a user has fifty plus emails sometimes it can be very hard to get through them all in a reasonable time and keep them organized and their system aims to assist with that. Essentially what the system does is use scanning algorithms and searches to identify characteristics that are similar in emails and then provide them with a tag that helps organize them. This is a simple overlay for an email that adds tags and tasks to the users email and then compares them and puts them into groups. The problem with this is that the user is essentially required to read the email twice to be able to check to make sure that the email is in the correct folder and has the correct tag. This is assisted by the RADAR task-creating function that helps the user organize the task and choose the correct tag for the email. The system also has a task scheduleing algorithm that allows the user to create a plan to go through the emails and put them into the correct catagories.Users who tested this system saw its original work as being very successful and it did indeed help them get through the organization and reading of emails faster. The authors claim that the biggest task they have now is making sure that the email program is robust enough to handle real world tasks. The users did find the AI really helpful but they didn't really understand the task scheduler and were unable to make great use of it. The users found that sometimes the task suggestion algorithm made them take MORE time reading emails and some people just found it faster to do without it. The study was called a success and the authors closed by saying they just want to make the AI more robust.


This article for me was rather dry. It seems like a really good system but it seemed like something that was really excessive and in some cases I wouldn't actually find much use for it. In fact, a lot of times I am checking emails on my phone and not at my computer so even if I had this program I really question how much I would use it. It does seem like a really nice system if you are working and checking your email at work all the time and you constantly have fifty emails in your box unchecked but I think that is a very small subset of users. I think all the excess features that they added beyond the AI that "proofreads" the email and assigns a tag also seem very excessive. The idea of having an algorithm that suggests when to look at what email and gives you a schedule to read emails seems like something that I might get rather frustrated with for getting in the way and constantly providing input. Despite this I do think that this work was a big success and the authors did do a really good job with their functionality. I am very curious as to how they plan to improve the algorithm and wanted to know more about that. Also, if this is going to be marketed as a product I don't think I will be picking it up anytime soon.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Ethnography Results Week 7:

This week I was unable to attend another Dnd session but I still have more to talk about from previous times. I did talk with my roommates about some of this and they were able to help fill in the details.

I had touched a few times on the idea of performing a character action in Dnd and how this is handled. I would like to look into this more from both a players perspective and a DM's perspective.

A character action is based on one of two things: a list of predefined actions done by a character or a list of skills that character has. The basic actions are run, attack, move, speak, etc... while character skills are things like: listen, spot (find), jump, swim, reference knowledge, use rope etc...

During the playtime these actions are used in two ways. The most general way is that a character chooses to use a skill as a means of chaning the status of an interaction. This can be everything from asking someone questions and being able to interrogate them, to stealing something from their person, to being able to sense if the person is being truthful or not. There are different skills for all of these and the player rolls a d20 + their skill modifier (on the players character sheet) to determine the total skill and then the DM 'chooses' whether or not they passed. I say chooses because it is seemingly random whether the DM has a value in mind or if the value is simply made up at the time of the roll and based on the person doing it. When this is passed or failed it changes, or doesn't change, the game state.

The other way it is used is as a way to determine how a character would act as part of the story. For instance, the PC's are all in a cave and rocks fall, if they had been careful they might have been able to 'detect trap' and see if it was a setup, either way they all are able to make a 'reflex' save to see if they dodge it, or perhaps, one character may be able to use 'escape artist' or 'jump' to avoid it. Similar situations could be the DM will ask players for a 'listen' check to see if any of them notice that something bad happened and the players are left to decide on their own if they want to inform the party or not.

The most interesting thing about this is that the players are essentially 'instructed' to ignore what they know outside the game (ie: the DM just asked for a listen check so something is going to happen), and play their character as if its in game (so each person determines whether or not they heard something based on their roll). It is an abstraction the player needs to be able to make when playing and though tempting to ignore the rules and use this meta-information it is much more entertaining and adventurous if the player does not.

The interesting thing is the amount of rolling this can add to a situation and even more interesting how actions and skills can divert from the DM's plan greatly. Instead of killing the three guards on the corner the players can possibly 'intimidate' the guards and ignore the combat altogether.

It is really one of the most difficult to accept parts of the game and one of the most complicated to understand for one who has never experienced it. However understanding this and understanding why these rules are in place make the experience much more fun for everyone involved and a group that can greatly commit will find a much more exciting adventure in their game time.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Paper Reading #16: Tag Expression: Tagging with Feeling

Comment 1: http://chiblog.sjmorrow.com/2011/03/paper-reading-16-ir-ring-authenticating.html
Comment 2: http://csce436-nabors.blogspot.com/2011/03/reading-15-enabling-beyond-surface.html

Tag Expression: Tagging with Feeling
Jesse Vig, Matthew Soukup, Shilad Sen, John Riedl


This paper was about a new form of tagging for online websites and reviews. Essentially the authors said that the old version of tagging was rather archaic and outdated and there is amny functional improvements that could be made to make this much easier to do and more interactive for the user. They also wanted to make it to where the users who partcipate would actually be able to express how they feel about it and not just put tags that refer to the content. What they found was that the current scheme allows users to tag about the item as whole but does not allow them to comment on particular aspects of the item or really tag about how it made them feel or how it was accepted by a group. In their new version they plan to make tag boxes that have a few different functions: first, they want to have a coloring scheme that allows the users to show that the tags are representing positive, negative, or neutral aspects of the item being tagged. Second, they want the users to be able to direct their tags at different aspects, for example, tagging "exciting" about the movie and "neutral" about the actors. Third, they want to tag box to be interactive so that the user can simply agree with another tag and simply drop the tag into their own tag box, thus making the item appear larger, or add their own unique tag. They performed these experiments over a period of six months and were able to generate nearly thirty two thousand tags about ninety seven different items. What they found was that people enjoyed using their system for its simplicity and were able to fully express things about each aspect as opposed to the item as a while and the rating system given made more sense than previous tagging. They also found that the users enjoyed being able to assocaite the feelings with each tag and were able to give the item an inherent rating based on the tags and the number of people who agree with them. They say that their next step is a generator algorithm that helps the user select what tag they want to add based on entering different words and then finding good associations or simply the users being given a list and they can systematically take out the ones that aren't headed in the correct direction of their feelings.


I thought this article was interesting for a few reasons, first off, I have seen these tag boxes on review sites and movie sites all over the net and never really knew what they meant. Second, I didn't think that there was any real way to read them, I thought it was just a random list of words or advertisements that might help lead you to the site. What I did like was  the idea that you would be able to associate each tag as positive, negative or neutral. I think that just putting a tag is kind of skewed because what one person finds funny another might not so that kind of tag might be misleading. However this is also one of the services that I find might not be something that I am comming back to over and over. I don't really bother with making posts on blogs about movies or even posting on sites talking about what I think the writers and director were trying to say, so this is likely something I would not participate in. I also wonder about the extensibility and after awhile if people would feel the same in that they would eventually stop contributing and that eventually the tags would be a select group of people who enjoy tagging all the time. I think one positive thing is that this might be useful for items like books and websites. If someone were able to look and see what kinds of things the website does and how people respond to them then that might be a major help in finding what you are looking for. I think the idea is really good and solid but it is likely not something I would participate in.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Book Reading #7: Why We Make Mistakes

Why We Make Mistakes
Joseph T. Hallinan
Random House Digital, Inc

Chapter 0: Introduction: Why do we Make Mistakes?

The short answer is, because there is all kinds of mistakes to make. In fact we have more different kinds of mistakes that one might think of, in fact there are a lot of different kinds of mistakes that people never really ever consider. People make them everyday and in some cases these simple mistakes could have huge consequences. Even something as simple as forgetting a password can be a rather dangerous mistake but the fact that the password is protected is some good so we need to learn to accept both. Probably the biggest factor we need to remember is that when we learn something we need to be in the same state that we were in when we learned it. They even refer to the famous e=MCHammered experiment where drunk people were taught facts and then asked to recall them and only could while intoxicated.


This chapter was good for an introductory chapter. It made me think and had a few really good examples. Probably the best thing it did was give a really good account of what kinds of things the book is going to cover and entice the reader to keep going. I linked the examples especially about how fast people forget their passwords and how we have to remember too many things sometimes. It makes me wonder if there is a good way to just have one number for your whole life and easier to remember. Maybe not but it still stands that despite us making mistakes we don't exactly live a world where it is easy to NOT make them, again about how there is too many different kinds.

Chapter 1: We Look but Don't Always See

This chapter we are introduced to the many different kinds of mistakes and how they occur. There is clearly a number of different mistakes someone can make and we are introduced to a few and given an example. The author even gives a famous case of some researchers who asked a group of student to identify a few characteristics of the penny and tracked to see how many of them could remember details about it. Interestingly enough most people couldn't even remember three facts about the penny. Further he talks about how medical lab workers and people who work x-ray security at the airport commonly miss things. It is really rather scary to think about this and if these are missed enough there is going to be a problem. Despite this we are coming up with more ways to avoid error and need to be careful and understand what kinds of errors are common for what we are trying to do.

I think I have made a mistake in this blog as I can no longer see the bar that represents where I am at in my typing. While this is most likely not my fault it is still a mistake that was made and there was literally nothing I could do to prevent it. I am sure there is a simple fix but for some of these ideas that are being expressed there is not really anything that can be done and that is the inherent problem. Maybe we will eventually start designing items with the idea of mistake-proof or idiot-proof in mind but human error is as we've learned 90% of all mistakes so that is a hard task to tackle. I hope that eventually people will learn from their mistakes but that too might be a waste of a wish.

Chapter 2: We all Search for Meaning

In this chapter we are shown how memory works and get a few examples of how people remember certain things but not others. In fact it is a phenomena they author talks about seeing how many people remember features of pennies and what they remember about peoples names and faces. There are even a few tips given as how to remember a face or a name better and how these have been used historically to help identify criminals and other forms of identification. The biggest thing covered is the idea of the TOT or tip of tongue slip where the person replaces one familiarity with another. The example given of crossing Albert Einstein and Joe Thiesman.

This chapter to me was surprising but altogether rather intuitive. It makes sense that any memory can only contain so many things and the remembering certain information is nothing more than techniques and tricks to remember things. I did enjoy the examples of how people cant recognize pennies and cross names of people with similar traits or occupations. The story about the lady and the criminal really kind of made me sad and I could have done without it. Despite this these observations and studies were rather interesting and I didn't hate this chapter.

Chapter 3: We Connect the Dots

In this chapter we find out about how people connect the dots in certain situations. In fact many times people only forget things because they are unable to make a connection to the even or fact they wish to remember. We all know that some mistakes are more memorable than others but we might not all know that there is situations where changing your mind might be the best thing for you. In fact more people would do better on tests if they would change their answers. We also get to learn about how color counts in advertising and how color can change someones perception of an event or time. I think the most interesting part of this chapter was that even just a photo can contribute to the victory or loss of a political pundit and people draw these connections based on the smallest things.

I liked this chapter a lot, the ways that people connect certain features with good and bad or serious and not serious are rather interesting. It was neat to see how the smallest thing could skew ones judgment and then adjust their viewpoint all together. The part that really freaked me out is that somehow men can 'sense' when a topless dancer is in the period of reproduction and subsequently give them more money. It as if they can sense the pheromones that women give off and want to make them their mate and support them more. I think that this chapter was really interesting and I wanted to find more examples of these kinds of dot connecting exercises.

Chapter 4: We Wear Rose Colored Glasses

In this chapter we are introduced to the idea that people only see what they want to see, and when they do they tend to see things that they want to see better. They talked a lot about how when someone does something wrong their view of what they did changes based on how they feel about the person and what side they want to take. They also showed experiments where people were able to pick a picture of themselves out of a group that was more beautiful than they actually are. This even is extended to picking people out of a lineup as they pick the person who looks like that might have been the closest because of the fit of the person or what they do. Essentially that we see things as if we are looking at flowers and we want what we see to fit the situation.

I have read about this phenomena before and I think it is rather interesting. I also think it is inherently obvious that yes of course people are going to see what they want to see more so than anything else. Essentially this is like the idea of quitting threshold, you can hide an elephant as long as you tell people to look for something that's not an elephant. Some people will look so hard that unless they have some kind of special fervor for elephants or an affinity to large gray creatures then they will not remember. I could branch this over and say that you could hide a dancing bear in the same way. This was a fun chapter none the less and the examples were great.

Chapter 5: We Can Walk and Chew Bubble Gum, but Not Much Else

In this chapter we look at the idea that people can multitask just not that well. It is essentially the idea that when people multitask they might be able to do it but the quality to which they can do each activity suffers. It is the idea that in order to do more than one thing we need to focus on both and trying to do both makes both suffer. They look at examples involved with texting and driving and even nearly scorn Microsoft for trying to make things to use in the car while driving. They even show examples of how age, gender, religion and experience can affect multi-tasking skills and how people differ in their abilities to do these.

I do agree with this chapter, people really cant multitask well and when they try to it just leads to poor results. I also am amazed of the number of things that are made for the car to make driving more interesting. To me driving isn't supposed to be inherently interesting it is just something that needs to happen. I also think it is a good idea to cut down on distractions in the car as while people may be bored they are paying more attention to the road and what is going on. Some people tell me that this can then lead to sleepyness but that is entirely a different blog post.

Chapters 6: We are in the Wrong Frame of Mind

In this chapter we find out about how people frame different items and what this causes to happen. When people look at things in a certain light and how they frame different settings. Essentially it is the idea that when people see things in a certain way they tend to be able to block out other information and this can cause them to make mistakes. The examples given were similar to framing issues discussed in earlier literature of the class and there was discussion of why people do them. One of the best examples are at the supermarket when they try to sell things in groups of 4 instead of 1 or they say there is a limit on the number of items you are allowed to buy at a certain time. Simply because people think about these ideas they tend to subconsciously do them.

I think one of my favorite examples of this is to tell people to say the word silk three times and then ask them what cows drink. It is because they get into the frame of mind of thinking about silk and then choose words that associate with them. I think it is rather inherently interesting that humans try to group things into parts rather than simply thinking of ideas as stand alone units. I believe that a lot of this has to do with how memory works and how people store thoughts but traditional psychology has only proven this to some extent.


Chapter 7: We Skim

In these chapters we find out about how people make a different kind of mistake simply by grazing over a section of information rather than actually paying attention to it. This is known as skimming and leads to many kinds of mistakes with people. Essentially people who dont entirely understand something simply glance over it and accept it for what it is. The best example is when a music student plays music as it is and the instructor finds a printed mistake in all of them. We also are able to see that when people do something more than once the first time they simply skim and usually the second time they remember it better. It is simply a process of memory conversion and paying attention.

I think this chapter was also interesting and really had more to do with listening and paying attention more so than skimming. I want to do experiments all the time and see if I can improve my memory simply by trying to do tricks and see if I could do better the first time I look at a set of information. Even as I sit here now I am having to refer back to the book because I skimmed this chapter more than anything. I normally do fine with picking it up but I still need to look at things in the morning to remind myself of what I read the night before. I simply just want to focus more but sometimes I just get distracted. Like I am while I am writing this. The point is the chapter does have really good examples but in general is was things I had read before.

Chapter 8: We Like Things Tidy


In this chapter we see examples of how people like things organized rather than disorganized. There is a tendency for people to be able to not see something very obvious when there is a level of chaos or distraction to something. We tend to lump things together into categories to try to remember what they are and when we go back later to try to make sense of it we only retain the information if the information was organized in a logical way. We tend to want to try to keep the world in order and some experiments are shown of people wanting to organize items into groups and the processes they use to try and do this.

This chapter didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seemed rather slow and the examples didn't seem to make much sense as to what they were trying to study. I know there is a propensity of people to try and clean things or make them in a viewable manner but I don't see how running experiments is going to try and quantify that data or make it into a form that is presentable in a way that people don't already know. The chapter had good information just seemed a little, ironically, muddled.

Chapter 9: Men Shoot First


This chapter talks about how men are more trigger happy than women at taking a chance and more willing to shoot first. They even talk about why the military was originally all male because men have more of a propensity to shoot now and ask later. They even frame this in the context of making decisions where men are more likely to go with their gut and make a decision. Women tend to look at the big picture and will generally not take an opportunity when one presents itself. It was not a commentary on which was better just an observation on the fact that men will jump at an opportunity much faster than women and the differences of the thinking between the two.

This chapter I really liked because it is very true in what it is saying. While I don't know if there is a way to determine if men always will fire guns faster than women I do think it is true that they jump when there is a window without looking. It seems like every time an opportunity comes up that favors me I find myself going for it and when I ask female friends about it they disagree with my decision saying I should have gotten more information about it first. I don't know if they are saying that men are more risk takers than women are but there definitely seems to be pattern that men will shoot first and women will try to analyze the situation more.

Chapter 10: We All Think We're Above Average

In this chapter we are introduced to the idea that people make mistakes simply because they think they are better at doing a task then they really are. It is this idea that everyone will believe that they are above average at any given task when they likely have no experience or have any idea how well they would do at a task. They looked at experts and why they are better than the average person and even ran tests that showed when the task was harder that people predicted that they would do even better. They also talk about examples where this isn't entirely our fault, it is partially based on lack of feedback.

I think this is a universal truth, people will always believe they are above average at any given task. Unless the person has had some  kind of experience with the topic they will blindly believe that they are in the top of something. In fact it is true that depressed people will actually be more accurate in their predictions of how well they will do in something. Again this is not entirely our fault we should also realize that there is things that can be done to improve design of some things, but in general with predictions there is not a whole lot we can do.

Chapter 11: We'd Rather Wing it:

In this chapter we learn about how people despite the fact that they have no experience at a task would rather try and learn how to do something than go through the process of understanding the task. We look at people who are experts at different tasks and in different fields and realize that they are only that way because they practice a lot every day. Most people however simply want to just be able to do something well enough to get by so that it looks like they understand and this can cause a lot of mistakes to be made.

I think it is true that people in general hate planning and for the most part people are unable to understand a task before they do it. Even in college we want to be able to completely understand how to do a homework before we do it but if we were to do this then we wouldn't have time for much else such as eating or sleeping. Even right now I don't entirely understand all of this chapter but I can wing my understanding well enough to get past this blog and the quiz.

Chapter 12: We Don't Constrain Ourselves

This chapter tells us about how we make mistakes simply because we are unable to constrain the design choices we make. We have too many choices to make in any given scenario and if we were simply to place a few constraints on these there would be a lot less mistakes. In fact we see a lot of examples of how there are numberous different options on many different decides and that causes a lot of mistakes to be needed. If we were to constrain these so that they could only be used one way then it would work a lot better.

I think this information has been presented to us before but in different ways. We know that the best example of this is to look at legos because there is only a few ways they can be put together at any given time so it puts a large constraint that helps us to know how to use them .We also got to see a bit about affordances which are a huge deal in computer science. We know these are essentially different constraints placed on items that let us know how they are used, if an item has enough affordances then we know how to use it instinctively.

Chapter 13: The Grass Does Look Greener

This lets us know that there is always something that looks better, more shiny and newer than what we have. However, shiny things are a bit part of what causes us to make mistakes. We follow the story of a young couple who moves to Hollywood to be more of a part of modern life and be close to the beach and in nice warm weather. However, once they have a child this changes and they start pining for their old home town where everything was a little bit simpler and people were not as stuck up. While it may seem that the good life makes things better it is also know that people are not always happy just because they live in California.

I know things look glamorous and people always think that they are going to get a better life and time when they move to a new place or try something new, however it is not always the case. We tell people that the south things are simpler and its because it is, most activities in the south are a bit simpler because we are very hands off. We think that people should be able to do their own thing and if people are into something that is OK. We don't expect people to do things and we don't have crazy things to make people do to be accepted.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Book Reading #6: Obedience to Authority

Obedience  to Authority
Stanley Milgram
Harper Collins Publishers New York, NY

Chapters 1-8:

In these chapters we are introduced to the Milgram obedience experiments and we are given a lot of really in depth information on the design, setup and process of his experiment. We are given all the details as well as some of the variations on the study and how the study started and then was changed to test different factors such as location, actor, groups of people and relative closeness to the person who was the "learner". We are also shown lots of graphs that tracked peoples progress and quantitatively showed how many people proceed to each level of obedience. We also were introduced to various subjects and told about their lives and backgrounds and then were able to see their results as well as their reactions to what they did and their thoughts in the followup interviews. Milgram finishes each of these by explaining from a psychology standpoint what the user was doing and why they made the decision they did.

These chapters were very interesting and it was neat to get to see some of the pictures and the various devices used. Unfortunately for me I have seen videos of a lot of this before that were crudely shot and I have even seen a person performing the activity and heard the voice of the actor as he demands to be let out. I think the most interesting thing I got from this were the graphs. Being able to see it that clearly and drawing lines showing how someone did were very eye opening and you don't realize what percentage of people go all the way until it is in numbers in front of you. One thing I really didn't like was how Milgram seemed to give his view on how each person reacted the way they did. A lot of times it almost felt like he was trying to stick up for the user or make excuses for what they did when really they were no different from the average participant of the experiment. I suppose this comes from the fact that I have my own views on how they reacted and in some cases disagreed with him. Either way it was very interesting and this is one of my favorite books from class so far.

Chapters 9-14:

In these chapters Milgram goes over various aspects of the study in depth and tell us about the psycological factors assocaited with them. He dicusses things suhc as how the experiment is setup and why the design of the experiment leads to the reults that were attained. He talks about how in different places the results are the same and even across different cultures. He talks about how the fact that the person conducting the study was established to be a researcher helps the cause and makes it more believeable. He even discusses things that will make his results less such as having multiple confederates that act against the experimenter first or do all the steps for the person and how they drastically skew the results. It is simply him talking about all the variations on his tests and how the simplest things can change the results completely. He finishes by talking about the successes of the experiment and even other researchers who had doubled his experiments in different settings to see if the results were the same.

The most interesting part again were Milgrams personal views on these and in these cases he did give the Freudian approach which I appreciated. Again, in some cases he gave his rather partial views on how the people were reacting and WHY they reacted the ways they did. I think probably the most interesting of all of it was the last part where people actually duplicated the experiment and showed rather fascinating results. It is strange that the results would ever be higher and apparently this was a really new thing because it did not gather media attention and it was amazing to see how many people had never heard of this. I guess it seems like an experiment that is so known and cultural now that its hard to thing there were people who didnt know.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Ethnography Results Week 6:

I was unable to find a group over the week before spring break as many of the people I was viewing did not hold regular sessions due to tests as was I unable to really participate as I was dealing with three tests and a paper of my own to deal with.

Despite this the project must go on and I was able to find a group over spring break!

The group was slated to go for quite a few hours but the call of  St. Patrick's day cut it short, despite this I was able to get some good information.

I joined a group of friends at one of their houses and we sat down to play. This was the most basic version of DnD which is version 3.5. This is seen as the basis for all other system as this was the last system done by the original creators of DnD and they were able to use their experiences with the past versions to make this one the best and therefore it is considered the most inclusive and most played setting of all. The group was 5 people and I decided not to participate but simply just to observe and see if this being the most basic example gave it more or less interaction and if people treated it any differently. In fact there was a lot more preparation for this and to my surprise A LOT more books involved. In fact each player had their own books and in some cases books were passed around as each PC customized their character in nearly every way they wanted down to eye color and dress.

The system seemed very disorganized but again as with these groups the leader was able to keep things together by simply keeping the conversation on the correct track of character questions and stopping meta conversations that threatened to derail the session or slow it to a halt. Once everyone was settled the story was introduced in a similar manner but in this case with a less descriptive manner. I think this was a personal choice by the DM as these players were familiar with each other and wanted to get to the action more so than the story itself.

The story progressed and the DM told me he wanted to introduce each character to each other by giving them a good fight and seeing how strong they were and what kinds of characters each player had developed. Shortly after this combat there was a little more insignificant role playing by the PCs but nothing different than what was observed in the past so I will focus on combat here.

Combat in DnD is a huge part of the system and nearly changes the roles of each person but not necessarily changes the social interactions observed. Each person controls their characters actions and based on their race, class, and abilities chosen has a number of unique things they can do as well as a set of general abilities (movement, yelling, listening, blocking etc...). The first interesting aspect of this is what is known as initiative, this is a commonly understood action where the players all roll a d20 (twenty sided dice) and add this number to their characters initiative modifier (a character ability). This is an action that once stated "roll for imitative" is done quickly and without argument by anyone, the players are all ranked in order of their score and then this decides who chooses an action first, second and otherwise.

Once this is sorted then the first player can choose his action. The meta-conversations then resume here and the player is allowed to look at his options and then decides what to do. The DM normally remains silent and only speaks to help the player figure out exactly what he wants to do, in some cases the player was ready and had it figured out completely and other times it took awhile for the player and DM to determine the whole action. The interesting part of this is how the DM did not stop other conversations from derailing a players action but simply sat quietly and helped out the player, despite his wanted to be partially adversarial and against him. If a player also needed to look up something from one of the books he or another player would assist him in this and they were able to discuss the action and the other players while offering facts, were not allowed to offer advice as this would be seen as a game action. Also each player was ultimately left up to their own to decide on an action and even if the action was poor or not completely thought through the player took the consequences and the group was left to deal with it. In some cases the action almost seemed downright detrimental to the group, this might be because the player did the action wrong, did the wrong action, or their character intentionally wanted to sabotage the group.

Once an action was taken the group would get SILENT for the DM's reaction to the action and allowed him to figure out what to do next be it have something change in the environment or the monster the players were fighting against to take their own action.

The combat ends once the monsters are all dead, the players are all dead, or some kind of action subdues or convinces the monster to stop fighting with them. Once this is done the players have a set of actions that involve searching the monsters corpse for money and items or a treasure chest guarded by the monster. During this time the DM rolls a lot of dice and periodically says how much gold or what items were found and the group decides as whole who to give it to or to split it.

At the end of the session experience is awarded based on how many and what quality of monsters were fought as well as other player actions done. Experience is used for PC's to make their character stronger and "level up" which is a means of upgrading all of a characters abilities and strength in a formatted pre-defined way as specified by the DnD handbooks.

In all combat is the most unique experience of the entire session and can make a session a lot more or a lot less intense. It is definitely the time when there is the least meta-conversation and each person is focusing the most on what is going on. It to me seems like the most exciting part of DnD and I wished I had gotten o do more when I participated but it is definitely the time people enjoy the most and they do their best to help our their team during this time.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Paper Reading #15: Eddi: Interactive Topic-based Browsing of Social Status Streams

Comment 1: http://chiblog.sjmorrow.com/2011/03/paper-reading-14-combining-multiple.html
Comment 2: http://angel-at-chi.blogspot.com/2011/03/paper-reading-14.html

Eddi: Interactive Topic-based Browsing of Social Status Streams
Michael S. Bernstein, Bongwon Suh, Lichan Hong, Jilin Chen, Sanjay Kairam, Ed H. Chi
User Interface Software and Technology

This article focuses on some graduate students research into a way to organize the giant haze of messages that are social networks, in this case, a UI to help organize tweets. The group made a dashboard similar to Tweetdeck that organizes tweets into groups based on their topics and in some cases based on their hash tags. The group sees the need for this kind of work but no one had a good way of organizing all these. They found that using a search engine and treating each tweet similar to a search that there was a very easy way to organize them based on their keywords and subject matter. There was no state of art to go off of so this project was built from the ground up with all original ideas. They decided to name their system Eddi and the main component of it was the user interface that was associated with it that helped the user to organize tweets. The system then organizes them into groups for the user to easily navigate. They broke them into about thirty five different topics and the users can add different once based on a keyword or hash tag. The users actually found this system rather enjoyable. While they even mention in the paper that the search engine isn't entirely accurate users found the experience enjoyable and well designed. They said that they key to this is that it combines topics and allows the user to be able to see more than just organization by keywords.


This paper was very interesting but I really cant see myself wanting to pay for something like this. It seems like a service that would be a free add on to my current twitter if I so choose. I also am not liking the idea of twitter as much anymore because of the ways in which it is currently being used. A lot of the people that I have followed have done nothing buy spam advertisements for things and updates telling me to visit a website than the users lifestream. If it would be possible touse the search engine to filter these kinds of tweets out then it would be really nice as well. I also am not sure but their claim that a user can have up to 1000 tweets a day seems rather high. I don't know if twitter is as followed as something like facebook and the extent to which this is used might be limited at best. I think it is a solid idea and if they can get the functionality out of it that they wish it will become a valuable tool. If the search algorithm works well at 40% and helps to break tweets down to combine topics in a meaningful way then I don't see it not being useful and as the algorithm is refined getting better and better.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Paper Reading #14: Madgets: Actuating Widgets on Interactive Tabletops

Note: I skipped the number between 12 and 14 out of superstition.

Comment 1: http://chiblog.sjmorrow.com/2011/03/paper-reading-13-teslatouch.html
Comment 2: http://csce436-nabors.blogspot.com/2011/02/reading-13-teslatouch-electrovibration.html

Madgets: Actuating Widgets on Interactive Tabletops
Malte Weiss, Florian Schwarz, Simon Jakubowski, Jan Borchers
User Interface Software and Technology

This paper covered the use of devices that the authors are calling Madgets. They are magnetic devices that interact with surface tabletop computers that allow the user to have further control. As tabletop computing is becoming more and more available and much more research is being done with it many people are being asked to use these devices without knowing how to use them or being able to easily use the multi-touch features to their fullest. These various devices will help in this and make the transition easier on users. The current state of art uses devices called SLAPWidgets that allow for objects like buttons, knobs, sliders and other simple manipulation tools but these again have limited use and are sometimes views as cumbersome. This group plans to use the known premise of under-table camera projection combined with a layer of electromagnets for positioning that will allow a wide variety of devices to be adapted to the table and assist in its production. There has also been work done with haptic feedback and tangible pucks that the user grabs with their whole hand and use them to perform the action (SO COOL!!). The authors then went into their lengthy discussion of the hardware involved and the algorithms used to detect where different objects were on the table and were placed and how they moved over the table. The authors did say that while their system requires a lot of user testing to see how people really take to it, the prototype was not quite finished as they were still working out some of the mechanics and they had yet to complete these. They were in this process and eager to get going so that they can get some of the valuable user feedback.

Again this is another fascinating system that has too many technical requirements that I don't overly understand and there is no prototype built and no study done that I can't do more research into it and see how users are ACTUALLY using it versus how the authors thought it would take. I really like the idea that if I was using a multi-touch tabletop I would be able to have a various number of devices that would allow this experience to be more modal and more natural feeling. I think that if tabletop computers become a real thing they will have lots of items set on them and for the most part be treated like tables. If it were the case that a system like this could be adapted to detect any kind of object then it would be neat to be able to use my bottle of water as a control and flick through news articles in the morning or be able to watch some internet tv while making my morning toast. In fact these services would possibly be the future of computing and even have uses in solving crimes or being able to identify who an object belongs to and what it has been used for. Imagine if we could place a murder weapon or a piece of one onto a table and the table tells us who it belongs to and when it was purchased. I think the project is a good start into this kind of technology and hope it gets more done with it in the future.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Ethnography Results Week 4:

The group that I was going to visit had to cancel due to a few of the members having schedule conflicts with the usual meet time. Again this speaks to the fact that while these people are very friendly they are at times rather unorganized and things do happen to get in the way of meetings. However I did receive a nice email from the group letting me know ahead of time so that I didn't show up and sit there for awhile and realize noone was showing.

So, I was talking with my roomates and I knew they played DnD but didn't know they had a group going. So I decided that I would actually participate in a small session that they ran Saturday nights. I am becomming more familiar with how the game works and was able to easily learn how to "play" the game but with much assistance. They started me with a pre-generated character and told me about its past, motivation, skills and other important information. They also explained that this system is, yet again, different not taking place in a world of magic but in the year 3000, where we are assuming the human race has explored the galaxy and space flight is an average encounter. The system is called GURPS and thankfully there was only one book so it was rather easy to do some quick research and learn the basics of the system and learn what everything meant on the character sheet.

My character was some sort of cat-race and I was a humanoid-tiger character that was able to speak (in common) and interact similar to a human. I guess we also assumed that in a thousand years of space travel the human race is rather used to different looking 'alien' races and they are accepted like any other race. I was a former military pilot and I was looking to be moved to a base to teach advanced combat maneuvers.

The system was also a bit different in that in DnD 3.5 (described in my earlier articles), the players want to use the different "ability scores" and roll a d20 + their score to try and try to perform whatever action they want to do. In this case, your ability score is derived from your characters base stats, and you want to try and roll below the characters score using 3 six-sided dice, so essentially the best role you can have is a 3 and the worst is an 18.

We started with the scenario and I was joined in, it was rather unusual the callous disregard for me the other players had as their characters would have acted disinterested to me so the players reacted the same way. Not until we had to steal a spaceship and they learned that I was quite the pilot and was able to navigate quite easily to the nearest "jump gate" to go between galaxies.

The DM for this had no notes whatsoever and did a rather good job of keeping the group organized. In fact while he had no system of apparent organization he did have a way to keep all the players involved and did a good job of being able to tell between meta-conversations and game play questions. He also had a very well defined story with lots of details that allowed me to understand what sorts of areas we were encountering and the intimate details of scenario pieces that allowed me to understand their significance to the campaign. It might have helped that our group was only 5 people but it was rather fun and we got to have a lot of good laughs. The DM was also great about keeping the story going and presenting challenges that we were not only able to figure out but we were able to use our characters skills to the fullest and really have to think what we could do in certain situations. The most interesting part was that each character has 'flaws' and even in social situation the DM was really good about remembering our flaws and playing to them to try to make the situation more difficult for us (or in this case, more interesting and fun).

The most interesting part of this system is that there isn't *really* an ordering scheme for when players do things until combat starts, then we just carry out the combat in turn based fasion. The other really nice thing about this is that combat didn't usually last but 4-5 minutes because we were simulating guns and each "round" only represented one second (ie: the amount of time it takes to fire a gun).

The other interesting part of this is while you would think that you would be involved in the campaign a lot each player really determines his/her own level of participation in meta conversations and game play activities. If there was an obvious avenue for me to use one of my skills (whether the players knew it or not) I was able to pick and choose my level of involvement and in some cases get away with things because the DM forgot to ask me about a flaw or some other skill. It goes to show that while these sessions look rather organized it is a lot for the DM to remember and sometimes things are skipped. I did ask about this and it was explained that rules sometimes are more of "guidelines" and that for the most part if one or two things are missed it won't affect the overall outcome of the game. I was also able to participate in what meta-conversations I wanted and was quickly accepted as one of the group when I was active and laughing along with the group. The interesting thing was that regardless of what my opinion on something was it was accepted and if it was a point of contention sometimes the meta-argument could turn into a brief discussion but no one ever got mad at another player for their beliefs(again speaking to how nice they are). I fact, the only time that the players did get somewhat upset was when I considered an action before doing it. Essentially, the more anyone slows the game play down for a silly action or a thought (that takes an excessive amount of time) is when the players show frustration. I have been told stories (because each player has them) of other players who do ridiculously silly things and the group ends up having to sort-of "send them away" because their personality doesn't fit in with their game play style. They don't mean this in a mean fashion but sometimes one player will ruin the game play for the others because of pointless actions.

In all my first experience playing was rather enjoyable. I felt like I was part of the community and learned that watching a session is not that much different from playing in one other than when I am playing there is a sense of companionship from everyone else that I should just jump in 100% and really participate and play my character rather than be the silent observer. Though even as an observer I was sometimes incorporated into the meta-conversation I didn't feel that sense that I should be participating and really enjoying my experience and as a player I did. I am not sure what I will do next week as far as participating/observing but more to come and maybe another new system!