#1 anne roudaut (extract from patrick baudisch lecture at hasso plattner institute) paper writing

#1 Anne Roudaut

(extract from patrick baudisch lecture at Hasso Plattner Institute)

paper writing

writing helps organize thoughts.is external cognitionprevents from going in circles.makes projects and goals clear

do it throughout the entire project

what is broken here:

“Our (proprietary) system XX has problem X…”

“We compared systems X and Y (which differ in many features)…”

research question:= an application-independent question

general problem

represent it solve it

implications(don’t overstate)1

2 3

4abstract

concrete

if your findings are only relevant to your project,why would anybody want to read (or publish) it?

no general problem

your problem solve it

no implications1

2 3

4abstract

concrete

what is broken here:

“Our (proprietary) system XX has problem X…”

Missing step 1

“We compared systems X and Y (which differ in many features)…”

confound, no implications (Missing step 4)

research questions are hard to tack-on later

start your project by brainstorming many possibleresearch questions

0. structure

abstract: summary of your findings

It is not an introduction!

figure 1: showseverything in one picture

figure 1: showseverything in one picture(very good figure 1)

(ideally you can give yourentire talk around this one)

title: summary of your findings

(this title is “ok”, not great. It has a bit of advertising line to it—does not tell me much about the device or the contribution of the paper)

name: summary of your findings

(this name is “ok”, not great. again—it does not tell me much about the device or the contribution of the paper)

device: what hardware, how would it work

device: what hardware, how would it work(excellent figure!)

main interface componentsand how they work

walkthrough of yourmain scenario

related work

conclusionsdeep insights into thedesign space ofyour system, such aswhat you have learnedabout input with feet

(not just rehashingof abstract)

1. sections

1. how more people will glance at it?

2. how many people will skim it?

3. how many people will read your paper?

to make sure every “reader” gets your pointtell the story multiple times at different levels of detail

very few

hopefully more

even more

system name (= 1 word) example: “earPod”, “halo”

title (= 1 sentence)“Fisheyes are good for large steering tasks” [Gutwin]

figure 1 on pg1 and self-contained caption (= 1 image)

abstract (= 1 paragraph)

walkthrough right after intro (= 1 section)

paper in all its gory detail (= 1 paper)

title

abstract

figure1

walk-through

#timesread

name

paper

It’s cheap: 5-fold redundancy costs only ½ page

figures = yet another level of summarization

allow visual people to get the paper based on figures alone

if something can be shown, show it as in figures

make figures stand on their ownuse self-contained captions

= embedded talk: try to give talk with these figure alone

never abbreviate.It prevents readersfrom jumping ahead.

reviewers come up with a rough rating in the first seconds reject 1/2/3 vs. accept 3/4/5. Hard to change their minds later.

Make sure(1) they get the contribution and(2) eliminate misunderstandings(unlike <previous work> our system <what’s new>) Goal: reviewer “I get it, of course, this is ingenious”(and it is not about impressive graphics here)

1.1 abstract

pick one

( ) We present a menu system for mobile phones based on marking menus. Users select a function by shaking the phone along one of four directions. In a pilot study, under eyes-free conditions, participants achieved 6% errors, compared to 22% with a linear menu control conditions.

( ) In this paper, we present a novel, easy to use design for a mobile phone that we think will revolutionize the way how we all interact on the road.

abstracts are not about making promisesearly in the paper, but about delivering early

abstract :=( ) summary of your findings( ) teaser to make people read your paper( ) motivation for your paper

abstract :=( ) summary of your findings( ) teaser to make people read your paper( ) motivation for your paper

abstract blueprint (technique paper)

<Users> trying to perform <task> fail, because the <bestKnownSolution> has <limitation>. In this paper, we present <proposedSolution>. It overcomes <limitation> by <newFeatureOrApproach>.

[If you have a user study add…In a user study, participants completed <task> <percentage> faster/more accurate when using <proposedSolution> than when using <bestKnownSolution>.]

1.2 name

project name :=( ) is the shortest summary of your project( ) conveys a picture( ) adding terms like “smart” get readers excited( ) explains the project( ) is memorable

<30 sec brainstorming>

project name :=( ) is the shortest summary of your project( ) conveys a picture( ) adding terms like( ) explains the project( ) is memorable

<30 sec brainstorming>

“smart” get readers excited

your project name will be used a lot!(throughout the paper + every time you talk about it +every time anyone talks about it)

Ideally, it pitches the entire projectallows people to guess what it does + benefits

1. “SmartNails” Terrible. Avoid meaningless fill and advertising words, such as “smart <whatever>”

1. “G.R.A.P.E.S.” Terrible. An acronym is typically the worst solution

2. “suggestive interfaces” bad, check connotation

3. “mad” bad: neither Google Unique nor Domain available

4. “Generalized Perceived Input Point Model” BadAvoid terms so long that you feel you need an acronym

5. Phlat. Bad. Avoid the need to spell—you are wasting elevator time. A dictionary word with a typo is bad. Avoid dashes in URLs

fame or shame

“play anywhere” for a mobile projector with touch

“Soap” for an input device users flip in their hand

“GroupLens” for a news recommender

“Skinput” for touch input on the user’s arm

you cannot come up with a good name until you have understood you project

right before you submit your work, give ita new name

1.3 intro

introduction :=:= the shortest path between a commonly believed factand the research question you are answering in your paper

1. to save time for retrieving the stylus, users operate PDAs using touch2. finger tip size and occlusion make acquisition of small targets hard33 zooming does not fix that occlusion (see section “user test paper”)33 offset cursor solves the problem, but has three drawbacks5. we propose Shift. It solves the problem while avoiding the 3

drawbacks

example (shift CHI’07)

Many pen-based devices, such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phone-PDA hybrids, and ultra mobile personal computers (UMPCs) utilize sensing technologies that can track not only a stylus, but also touch input. This makes touch input an option when pen input is not possible, such as one-handed operation [14]. Moreover, many users choose to use their finger to save the time required to retrieve the pen – especially for intermittent short interactions such as verifying a meeting time, navigating a map, or controlling a media player. However, pen-based user interfaces often contain small dense targets, making selection with a finger slow and error prone.

So what is it that users give up by not using the pen? While fingers are somewhat less accurate than pens in terms of fine control [2], accuracy is not the primary reason for the high error rate. In our observation, the main reason is the ambiguous selection point created by the finger’s contact area in combination with the occlusion of the target. When selecting targets smaller than the size of the finger contact area, users start having difficulty determining whether or not they have acquired the target. Unfortunately, targets smaller than the finger’s contact area are also occluded by the finger, preventing users from seeing visual feedback.

The purpose of the pen is to minimize occlusion by creating a vertical offset between the user’s hand and the screen and to clearly define the selection point. Consequently, applying a technique to enhance accuracy will not solve the problem. Manipulating control display (CD) ratio [1,5] or offering in-situ zooming [1,5,17] enhance accuracy, but they do not address occlusion directly or define a clear selection point.

Occlusion and selection point ambiguity can be addressed with the Offset Cursor [18,21] (Figure 3). The Offset Cursor creates a software pointer a fixed distance above the finger’s contact point. The Offset Cursor uses take-off selection [18,19] in which the target is selected at the point where the finger is lifted rather than where it first contacted the screen. This allows users to touch the screen anywhere and then drag the pointer into the target. Offset Cursor is in many ways a software version of a stylus: its pointer provides a unique selection point and it addresses occlusion by creating an offset between pointer and finger (in the image plane rather than above it, as the pen does).

However, the use of the Offset Cursor technique comes at a price. First, with Offset Cursor users cannot aim for the actual target anymore. Instead, they need to compensate for the offset by touching some distance away. Since there is no visual feedback until contact, users cannot always reliably predict the offset and need to iterate more. In our experimental evaluation we saw evidence of this with Offset Cursor acquisition time 1.57 times slower for targets large enough to select with the bare finger. Second, a constant offset distance and direction makes some display areas unreachable. For example, placing the pointer above the finger makes a corresponding strip along the bottom of the screen inaccessible. Although one could vary the offset direction depending on screen location, this would only exacerbate the difficulty in compensating for the offset, introducing even more corrective movement. Third, on first use, users are unlikely to expect the offset, aim directly for the actual target, and miss. While this is less of a concern in the case of a personal device, using Offset Cursor in a walk-up context like a kiosk may be questionable.

To address these disadvantages, we propose Shift. In addition to offsetting the pointer, Shift offsets the screen content to avoid all three drawbacks of Offset Cursor and leads to significantly better targeting performance.

example (shift CHI’07)

one paragraph for each logical step in your argument

1. to save time for retrieving the stylus, users operate PDAs using touch2. finger tip size and occlusion make acquisition of small targets hard33 zooming does not fix that occlusion (see section “user test paper”)33 offset cursor solves the problem, but has three drawbacks5. we propose Shift. It solves the problem while avoiding the 3

drawbacks

example (shift CHI’07)

write in logical order, not the chronological orderin which you came up with it (this is not a diary)

the intro of a paper at a mobile conference opens with:

“In this year alone, more mobile phones will be sold than PCs in their entire history combined”

shame: true for any paper on mobile interaction. (reviewers read this 10 times per conference).

If you need more than, say, 6 paragraphs you are probably underestimating your audience and started too far back.

Better: consider deleting the first paragraphs.

fame or shame

“There is a huge number of 3D applications including… <list of examples>. <What you do for them>”

Shame: Don’t try to persuade readers, you will achieve the opposite effect (if it was true, why would authors try to hammer it home so badly?)

Better “3D applications, such as <examples>…

fame or shame

“in the framework of the XX EU framework…”,“as a homework assignment”…

Shame: readers don’t care why you did it don’t say it

Better write as if your sole motivation was the reader, but don’t say that either. Don’t go meta. Just present a good contribution.

fame or shame

1.4 figure1

figure 1: showseverything in one picture

equally important:the caption says it allin 1-2 sentences

shift

Figure 1. (a) Small targets are occluded by a user’s finger. (b) The proposed Shift technique reveals occluded screen content in a callout displayed above the finger. This allows users to fine tune with take-off selection. (c) By adjusting the relative callout location, Shift handles targets anywhere on the screen.

(a) problem you solve(b) your solution

(a) benefit over prior art

= a mini abstract

lumino

Figure 1: (a) Luminos are tangible building blocks that allow the underlying diffuse illumination table to track their 3D arrangement, e.g., to support users with suggestions (such as the “overhang” warning at the bottom right). The callout shows how it works: Each unit contains a glass fiber bundle that transports light reflected off higher-level markers down to where the table can see it. The fiber bundle also rearranges marker images into a horizontal layout, here by offsetting marker images.

(b) your solution

new

starburst

p-to-targetsn

a

voronoi tessellation

field of targets

dots to claim lines

starburstyou can give your entire talk around this one

Figure 1: (ab) Traditional snap-to-target techniques expand targets into immediately adjacent space. For targets located inside a cluster, however, that expansion is minimal. (acd) The proposed Starburst algorithm connects targets to peripheral screen space to produce reasonably sized tiles for all targets, including those located inside a target cluster.

ridgepadyou can give yourentire talk around this one, too

1.5 requirements

fame or shame1. “We claim that a device must fulfill the following n

requirements (1)… (2)…”

2. You show your design

3. “Let’s revisit the requirements. We find that our design fulfills all of them”

These requirement sections are mind-numbingly boring, because everybody knows they are cooked up. Avoid them. Instead show what you have done. Then say what is good about it.

Oh, surprise,

1.5 requirements

1.5 walkthrough

walkthrough :=a series of steps that guide the reader through the most important scenario

typically as a sequence of screenshots ( comic book)

inkseineWalkthrough of an InkSeine Usage ScenarioFig. 4 shows an abbreviated walkthrough of InkSeine for a scenario where the user lassos ink notes to search for a document in his personal store, drags an icon representing the document into his notes, and then opens the document and takes a screen capture of a figure contained therein. The interaction techniques and rationale for the design will be explained in more detail in later sections.In step 1, the user inks “BumpTop” in his electronic notebook, and then decides he needs the PDF document for this CHI paper [1]. In 2a the user lassos the ink to create a breadcrumb; in 2b the user then opens the breadcrumb (see also Fig. 3). Since the breadcrumb is persistent, this could have been opened either immediately, or some time after it was created. Opening it brings up the results (step 3) and the user taps the PDF filter to narrow down the results set and locate the desired document. At step 4 the user drags the PDF icon into his notebook for future reference. The user then decides to grab a piece of content from this PDF document. He employs the document’s icon to open the PDF and a circular tracking menu appears (step 5) with some pen-operated controls for manipulating the underlying document. He touches the pen down in the outer ring of the tracking menu and circles with the pen to scroll through the document. When he sees the desired content, he taps the Capture icon (step 6) in the tracking menu. This places a transparent gray overlay on the screen and he sweeps out a rectangular selection region (step 7). The user hits the Close icon in the tracking menu to close the PDF and return to InkSeine. The clipping appears in the user’s notes (8a), and the user draws several ink annotations (8b) that refer to it.

shift

Figure 2. Shift technique walkthrough. (a-e) Scenario 1, ambiguous target selection due to occlusion: (a) on contact, Shift determines if occlusion is a problem for targets under the finger; (b) Shift responds by displaying a callout containing a copy of the occluded area with a pointer showing the finger selection point; (c) keeping the finger on the display, the user makes corrective movements until the pointer is over the target; (d) lifting the finger selects the target; and (e) removes the callout. (f-g) Scenario 2: (f) when occlusion is not a problem (g) Shift does not “escalate” and instead behaves like a regular, unmodified touch screen.

starburst

Figure 3: A walkthrough of the Starburst algorithm (a) Targets to be expanded, (b) Voronoi tessellation and identification of recipients, (c-d) clustering of targets into cliques, (e) nested rings, (f-g) claim line construction, (h) expansion of claim lines into tiles, and (i) final removal of claim lines.

If small things (fingers, text in UI) and large things (user) need to be shown, reveal details by cropping and by adding callouts

show details

cool figure 1 (not a walkthrough, obviously),but callout still unreadable (make bigger)

callout

annotate

annotate pictures, so readers get the idea even without reading the caption

Show walkthrough early, ideally after intro, end of page 1.

Once you can refer to the walkthrough, it is easy to say(1) benefits of your work = your requirements, if you will(2) related work, say how your thing is different

(The same holds for your presentation: Always start with a demo or at least a picture of the final thing. If you feel that readers/attendees won’t be able to follow, show demo twice)

walkthrough early

“but if I say everything right away, why would attendees/readers continue to pay attention?”

If readers get your idea, they will listen.If readers don’t in first 60sec, the first will fall asleep

1.6 contribution

contribution :=:= one or more things that have never been doneand that matter

engineering contribution:you made something thatworks better than before

science contribution:you learned something

about nature

It is generally assumed that touch input cannot be accurate because of the fat finger problem, i.e., the softness of the fingertip combined with the occlusion of the target by the finger. In this paper, we show that this is not the case. We base our argument on a new model of touch inaccuracy. Our model is not based on the fat finger problem, but on the perceived input point model. In its published form, this model states that touch screens report touch location at an offset from the intended target. We generalize this model so that it represents offsets for individual finger postures and users. We thereby switch from the traditional 2D model of touch to a model that considers touch a phenomenon in 3-space. We report a user study, in which the generalized model explained 67% of the touch inaccuracy that was previously attributed to the fat finger problem.

In the second half of the paper, we present two devices that exploit the new model in order to improve touch accuracy. Both model touch on per-posture and per-user basis in order to increase accuracy by applying respective offsets. Our RidgePad prototype extracts posture and user ID from the user’s fingerprint during each touch interaction. In a user study, it achieved 1.8-times higher accuracy than a simulated capacitive baseline condition. A prototype based on optical tracking achieved even 3.2-times higher accuracy. The increase in accuracy can be used to make touch interfaces more reliable, pack up to 3.22 = 10-times more controls into the same surface, or to bring touch input to very small mobile devices.

science contribution:you learned something about nature

engineering contribution:you made something that works better than before

your contribution is the most important part of your paper,it is the reason why you are writing it

spend us much space on your contribution as possible; spend as little space as possible on non-contributions, such as the web server you had to set up (even if you spent 80% of your time on it)

make sure everybody gets your contributionlist the top 1-2 in the abstract. Consider stating your contributions again more explicitly at the end of the intro

1.7related work

related work :=show how your paper integrates itself into your field= a set of parent nodes in a graph structure

If you review a paper, you probably do mind if authors1. misspell your name2. skip your work even though it is directly related3. get the formatting wrong4. list why your work sucks (rather than simply acknowledge its “limitations”)

so don’t do these to others. Respect your reviewers and their work. (practical reason: people you reference (and committee members) are likely to be reviewers)

tricky cases

you need to say how you are different only for the most relevant 1-3 key pieces of related work. For all others just write “<authors> did <project>.”

Mention limitations and drawbacks in a sentence, not a paragraph

1.7design section

design section :=explains why yours is the best possible designhelps others avoid dead ends

best = “better than others”requires you to show those other designs

design section :=

this

elaboration reduction

Laseau (1980)

your final design is typically theresult of exploring a tree of options

keep intro and walkthrough short by explaining only

in a separate design section mention dead ends

do not drill deeper into dead ends though(even if you spent 80% of your time here)

solution

once you have shown the different versions justify why the final version is the best

1. you can rationalize (“marking menus require dragging gestures, which seem to be hard to perform using feet”)

2. better if you can refer to the observation of participants in a study (be concrete: what exactly did you see? “participants liked it better” is not necessarily enough)

1.7conclusions

conclusions :=sit back and think about what you have learned on a very high level. Insights that you can share now, that would not have made sense before people have read the paper.

(In the case of a foot project e.g., what you learned about feet.)

ridgepadCONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper, we made two types of contribution.

On the one hand, we made a technical contribution. The RidgePad device achieved 1.8 times higher accuracy than simulated capacitive and we demonstrated that the use of high precision 3D tracking can more than triple touch accuracy. This substantial increase in accuracy can be used to make touch interfaces more reliable or to pack up to 10 times more controls into the same touch surface. Future versions of the optical tracking device might achieve a smaller footprint by using cameras placed in the corners of the screen. A more distant future version of RidgePad might leverage in-cell technology to bring touch input to very small mobile devices, such as interactive watches and rings.

On the other hand, we made a contribution in the theoretical domain, which we tend to think of as at least equally important. We introduced a new model for touch inaccuracy, the generalized perceived input point model. We presented a user study, the findings of which are congruent with our new model, while they refute the fat finger problem, which was traditionally considered the primary source of touch inaccuracy.

This paper also contributes a new perspective on touch. Touch has traditionally been considered a 2D phenomenon, most likely because touch screen interaction required only two coordinates, i.e., an x/y coordinate pair. The proposed model, in contrast, establishes touch as a phenomenon of not only the touch surface, but of a wider context of three-dimensional factors. While we primarily investigated the user’s finger posture in 3-space, this wider context may include additional factors, such as head position, device orientation, parallax, and so on. Tracking these additional factors might allow future devices to realize even larger improvements in touch accuracy. Additional research is required here.

Finally, we learned about users. We found that users are not inaccurate—they are just different. The most likely explanation for this difference is that touch on a millimeter scale was never defined in the first place. For targets on this almost microscopic scale, pointing means to “dock” a comparably large, asymmetric object with a tilted surface. Comparing the arrangement of ovals across Figure 5 clearly shows that no two participants of our study had the same mental model of how to accomplish this. Contact area—the determining factor in today’s touch technology—might be a factor, but clearly only one of many. Additional research is required to reach a new and more detailed understanding of users’ mental models of touch.

2.1paragraphs

Visible light consists of different wavelengths. When hitting a prism, the shorter wavelengths are refracted more. The atmosphere contains tiny water drops that serve as prisms. In the evening the sun is low. As a result, blue light is less refracted towards the planet and more red light. As a result the sky looks red during sun set, rather than blue.

fame or shame

Visible light consists of different wavelengths. When hitting a prism, the shorter wavelengths are refracted more. The atmosphere contains tiny water drops that serve as prisms. In the evening the sun is low. As a result, blue light is less refracted towards the planet and more red light. As a result the sky looks red during sun set, rather than blue.

hall of shame!

This paragraph explain why the sky is blue, butI had to read until the very end to understand what it was talking about. Many people won’t.

<30sec brainstorming>

The sky looks red during sun set, rather than blue. The reason is that during sunset the blue portion of the sun’s light is less refracted towards the planet, the red light more so….

Gives readers a chance to skip the rest of the paragraph (rather than making them drop the paper altogether)

better:

use section heading as summaries to sections

“PROG is an old-fashioned way of doing iteration”

[Winston Horn: Common Lisp]

don’t ask rhetorical questions,just give the answer

each paragraph is one step in a logical argument

rearrange material until every paragraphis the logic succession to the preceding paragraph

for every paragraph think of a 5-word summary of that step in your head. If you can’t, leave it out (even if you spent 80% of your time on it).

minimizes the “stack depth” you require from readers:

write each every paragraph like a mini paper, starting with an “abstract sentence” that summarizes the findings

“As shown in figure 1…” is better than “…. (Figure 1)”

help people with dyslexia: give them the right mental picture at the beginning of a section or paragraph, then extend it.

[the gift of dyslexia]

2.2HCI lingo

low-level reason: cannot back it upif you don’t have study to back it up it is a false claimif you do have a study let the study speak and say “in our user study, participants completed an XXX task XX% faster when using the… interface”

mid-level reason: meaningless “truism”Sure, you need to distinguish yourself from everybody else who wants to design hard-to-use heavy-weight systems :)

top-level reason: you don’t belongEvery community has its language. Don’t show that you are not part of them

don’t say “easy to use, lightweight…”

avoid gender-specific terms, use plural, e.g., “users…”

passive voice is to be avoided, avoid passive voice

break long sentences into two short sentences

2.3contribution vs.

related vs. random

what is wrong here?

Optical tracking based on frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) has been shown to be an effective way of detecting touch. A system has been implemented that exploits FTIR to enable a the recognition of marked objects. Studies have shown that this is a better way of tracking markers than Diffuse illumination markers. An improved system was built that uses FTIR markers to enable group collaboration.

passive voice is non-standard in HCI (& hard to read)

what is wrong here?

Optical tracking based on frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) has been shown to be an effective way of detecting touch. A system has been implemented that exploits FTIR to enable a the recognition of marked objects. Studies have shown that this is a better way of tracking markers than Diffuse illumination markers. An improved system was built that uses FTIR markers to enable group collaboration.

what did the authors do? what is prior art?

what is wrong here?

Optical tracking based on frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) has been shown to be an effective way of detecting touch. A system has been implemented that exploits FTIR to enable a the recognition of marked objects. Studies have shown that this is a better way of tracking markers than Diffuse illumination markers. An improved system was built that uses FTIR markers to enable group collaboration.

1

2

3

4

better

Han et al. found optical tracking based on frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) to be an effective way of detecting touch. Their system implemented exploited FTIR to enable a the recognition of marked objects. In this paper, we present two studies have shown that this is a better way of tracking markers than Diffuse illumination markers. We use these FTIR markers to create a system that enables group collaboration.

1

2

3

4

you need to be explicit about your contribution

if reviewers misunderstand your contribution things go bad

ask yourself “what is my contribution?”often hard to do!

every paper has three types of contents

1. contribution: novel and matters

2. related work: been done before

3. random design decision: not been done before, but does not matter/you don’t want to make it matter(not part of previous example, because…

abstracts are about contribution

abstract = 20% related work + 80% contribution

intro = related work

walkthrough = contribution

related work section = related work (no more related work after this point)

design = contribution + random choices

user study = contribution

conclusions = contribution

each lives in its own sections

2.4process

letting go of (bad) contents is hard

instead of deleting, move things to a “purgatory” section at the end of the paper draft.

before submitting, go over the purgatory and “revive” things from there if you need, delete rest

triage

a low grade/score means:your paper is bad

a high variance between scores means:your paper is poorly written(and not as commonly believed, that the

reviewers were idiots)

what ratings mean

is your paper poorly written? make your paper a page too long, give it to friends and say “I need to cut a page, can you help me decide which contents to cut” (works even with the politest people)

do it early, so you can still make big changes;plus they are not working on their own papers yet

user-test your paper

during testing you might find out that readers don’t get your contribution: they think it is the same as earlier work X.

prevent readers/reviewers from getting stuck on a misconception: add a clarification early in the paper (page 1, or even abstract).

clarify early

that’s interesting!

ridgepadIt is generally assumed that touch input cannot be accurate because of the fat finger problem, i.e., the softness of the fingertip combined with the occlusion of the target by the finger. In this paper, we show that this is not the case. We base our argument on a new model of touch inaccuracy. Our model is not based on the fat finger problem, but on the perceived input point model. In its published form, this model states that touch screens report touch location at an offset from the intended target. We generalize this model so that it represents offsets for individual finger postures and users. We thereby switch from the traditional 2D model of touch to a model that considers touch a phenomenon in 3-space. We report a user study, in which the generalized model explained 67% of the touch inaccuracy that was previously attributed to the fat finger problem.

the recipe for making a paper interesting iswhile X et al found that X [ref], we found that !Xand to a lesser extend

while it is commonly believed that X, we found that !X(make sure this really is a common belief; a ref helps)

confirming what is expected is inherently less interesting

Being interesting is not all there is, but it helps. Hard to tag on later, but might help you decide between two possible projects.

for more examples, read Murray S Davis. That’s Interestinghttp://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/writing_guide/marketing

3 paper types

HCI

“Einsteins” “Edisons”

[Hudson, panel at UIST 2007]

techniques(self-contained)impact by being generic

systems(emergence)

impact by being broad

discovery invention

engineeringpapers

HCI

“Einsteins” “Edisons”

[Hudson, panel at UIST 2007]

techniques(self-contained)impact by being generic

systems(emergence)

impact by being broad

discovery invention

3.1 technique paper

technique paper

a new way of interacting with a (known) device or a new device that works better than the current method.

User study is straightforward (ANOVA, t-test).

Control conditions: must be best of breed

Task requires care to not be “cooked up”

Control conditions: Best of breed vs. avoiding confounds

Greenberg: Techniques study = “existence proof”[usability study considered harmful]

1. a novel idea2. a prototype (some reviewers prefer a system

running on a real OS over Flash)3. a field study4. a lab study (used to be mandatory)

Yes, the more of the above the better

ingredientsa classic

Techniques get their value from being generic

A designer knows when he has reached perfection, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, 1900-1944]

3.2 systems paper

none of the ingredients have to be new, but by assembling them in a new way you have generated a novel type of emergent behavior that was not present in any of the ingredients.

Showing emergent behavior can be difficult.Study types that work for techniques papers are likely to fail here. [Greenberg & Buxton, CHI 2008]

systems paper

Technique : 30% expansion; 70% polishing and removal

System: 90% expansion; 10% polishing

technique vs. system

3.3 science paper

HCI

“Einsteins” “Edisons”

[Hudson, panel at UIST 2007]

techniques(self-contained)impact by being generic

systems(emergence)

impact by being broad

discovery invention

“Today people use device/technique X.We built a new device/technique Y.We hypothesized that Y is faster than X.In a user study, we found that Y was significantly faster (ANOVA, post-hoc t-tests, p < 0.01)”

is this science?

<30sec brainstorming>

science :=

<30sec brainstorming>

science :=

science :=

science is a method for testing assumptions (aka “hypotheses”)

theoriesmodels

observation

predict the world

build things that work (engineering)

prototyping

formalevaluation

science :=

create a model that explains how nature (in the wider sense) works

design an experiment.Based on your model, predict what comes out of it.

run the experiment. Does it match your prediction?

Yes—good. supports hypothesis. Still we never know.

No—drop your model.

“Today people use device/technique X. We built a new device Y. We hypothesized that Y is faster than X. In a user study, we found that Y was significantly faster (ANOVA, post-hoc t-tests, p < 0.01)”

this is not science because there is no model.You “hypothesize” a performance benefit because“well, because otherwise why would I have built it”

Also: a model that predicts a Boolean is not much of a model

Understand a piece of the world. Develop a theory that predicts. Run a study the outcome of which is congruent with your theory but falsifies previous theory.

Fashion in science:

The original goal of science was to understand “creation”

end