05-771 hci process and theory scott hudson [email protected] ken koedinger [email protected]
TRANSCRIPT
The (no longer mythical) P&T course…
• Serves as intro to HCI research• New course• Experimental structure
– Broad / diverse subject matter– Intertwined with a practical project– A vehicle for exposure to diverse approaches
• Team taught (by much of the HCII faculty)– Scott is instructor of record– Ken is coordinating
Project orientation
• Theme project as organizing mechanism– Real project with a lot of details reflecting the
reality of academic research:• Finding a worthwhile problem / idea of interest• Forming a team and a project that works for it• Getting it funded• Doing the work
– Structuring vehicle for• HCI background (readings and discussion)• Viewpoints on doing research• Practical projects for you
You will propose a project
• Something…– Within the theme (broadly defined)– Interesting and worthwhile
• Maybe leads to publication and/or follow on work
– You can “sell” (to faculty and other students)– Doable this semester
• Short initial project proposal week 4
Course outline
• Introduction– Intro to the theme project
• HCI research– Finding problems / ideas– History of problems and approaches– Working in interdisciplinary teams
• “Seeds”– Personal and disciplinary views of problems
and directions of inquiry
Course outline (cont.)
• Project proposals– Designed to be analog to a typical grant
proposal• Need to sell to fellow students• Need to find a faculty mentor
• Projects– Will select about 1/3 to actually do– Work in small teams– Lots of discussions along the way– Final presentations
Administrative stuff…
Class meetings
• Scheduling was very difficult and result is not optimal
• Will meet for two 90 minute lectures a week but time slot will vary depending on the instructors for the week– No single pair of times worked for all
instructors– Possible times:
• Monday 4:30-6:00 & 6:00-7:30• Friday 12:00-1:30 & 1:30-3:00
Class meetings
• Conflicts?
• Strategy preference (vote for one)(1) Split Mon/Fri
(2) Long day
• Time Preferences (vote for two)(1) Mon 4:30-6:00
(2) Mon 6:00-7:30
(3) Fri 12:00-1:30
(4) Fri 1:30-3:00
Tentative grading criteria
• 15% class participation
• 25% project proposal
• 60% final project
Photos
• Not absolutely required, but we would really like to have a photo of you to create a name/face sheet to help various instructors– Shoot one today– Send me one– Email saying you don’t want a photo taken
Class communications
• If you are not an HCII PhD student (i.e., on the hcii-phd-students@cs mailing list) send me email indicating your preferred email address (today!)
http:/www.cs.cmu.edu/~hudson/teaching/05-771/
Questions?
The theme project: Situationally Appropriate Interaction
•Principal investigators (PI and co-PIs)Scott Hudson, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Chris
Atkeson, Jie Yang, Yoky Matsuoka
•Just funded (sort of) in NSF ITR program– Also have DARPA seed funds for 1yr
Proposal that describes this project assigned as reading for today: http:/www.cs.cmu.edu/~hudson/teaching/05-771/hudson_ITR_no_sal.pdf
Motivation
Exponential growth of technology offers wonderful promise, but…
“In an information rich world the scarce resource is human attention” [Simon ’67]
…We are going to loose a bunch of that benefit to the human costs
–Attention is a big cost, but also others
This project is about finding solutions for that
Motivation
• Currently interfaces are mostly blind to the human situation they sit in– They can’t tell the difference between
• working alone at home at 2am,• at work in a big meeting, • giving a talk, or• attending a funeral or a movie
– Blunder blindly through the human world
• Try to create systems that maneuver through the human (social) world – One view: rudimentary “manners”
Scenario
• “Lee” (AKA Scott) moves between situations– Public vs. private– Focused individual work vs. less
focused work vs. group work
• System acts appropriately– Attention demand for displays– Communications filtering– Privacy issues
Illustrates framework of: Sense, Model, Act Appropriately
• Sense– Gather basic useful information about what is
happening in the situation
• Model– Analyze and structure the basic information
into something usable
• Act appropriately– Do the right thing in the interface – Display and interaction
Goals for results
• Systems which can deal with some of the basics of the human (social) world, e.g., – know when not to interrupt,– demand the right amount of attention,– limit private information in public settings, etc.
Discussion
• Is the scenario possible/practical/doable?
• Other scenarios?– Other situations– Other task domains
Sensing
• Concentrate on non-invasive sensors– Vision based sensing (also spatial audio)– Expand later to other modalities
• Provide basic information such as:– Who is in a space– How many– Where are they looking– What objects are they touching– How much are they moving
Discussion
• Most predicative cues?
• Other sensor technologies?– Cheap and easy to exotic
Modeling
• This is a key piece
• Probably the hard part
• Advantages (“levers”) we have– Understanding social phenomena involved– Cognitive modeling expertise – Integration and tight feedback with other parts
Modeling
• Models of social situation– Social engagement
• Conversation detection• Meeting detection and classification
• Also individual work models– Multi-tasking levels– Task switching and stacking
• And task models– Probably task specific
Discussion
• What models?– What’s possible/promising to create?– What’s most useful?
Acting appropriately
• Given information from models“do the right thing”
• At least two parts:
Display
Interaction
Acting appropriately: Display
• Attention demand is again a key• Know how to create displays that demand
a lot of attention– Whole literature on alarm design
• Know a lot less about how to create displays that demand less attention– Much harder because they have to be able to
deliver information– Not even a lot in the way of design examples
• Ambient information displays
Acting appropriately: Display
• Goal for results– Library of display techniques graded/sorted by
salience (prominence or attention demand)– Mechanisms for composing displays at a
given level of salience
• Methods– Two bodies of knowledge to draw from:
• Sensory and perceptual psychology• Design
– Build and experiment
Discussion
• What experimental setup should be used to do the grading/sorting of salience?
Acting appropriately: Interaction
• Displays will be much more useful if they are not static, but can be interacted with
• Similar issues:– We know how to build interfaces we are fully
engaged with– We have few examples of systems which are
useful, but don’t require a lot of engagement
Sample interactions
Acknowledgement
Deferral
Delegation
Drill-down
Discussion
• Other interactions?
Observation and evaluation
• Background “formative evaluation”
• Wizard of OZ study
• Salience evaluations
• Technology trials
• Usability studies
Wizard of OZ study (ongoing)
• Which sensors/models are most useful for predicting interruptability?
• Simulate sensors– A/V recording– Human plays sensor
• Self report interruptability– “Experience sampling”– Randomly poll the user to rate interruptability
• Find correlations
Discussion
• What other observation and studies should be done?
Project overview wrap-up
• For this class we want to take a wide interpretation of this project– Many good problems in there in many areas
• Next, some discussion of where did this research direction come from
Readings
• “The Coming Age of Calm Technology”, Mark Weiser and John Seeley Brownhttp://nano.xerox.com/hypertext/weiser/acmfuture2endnote.htm
• “Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems”, Scott Hudson and Ian Smith, Proceedings of CSCW ’96.
http://www.acm.org/pubs/citations/proceedings/cscw/240080/p248-hudson/
