|
Workshops On This Page:
Sunday & Monday: Please note these are two day workshops.
1. Creating and Refining Knowledges, Identities, and Understandings in On-Line Communities
Michael J. Muller, IBM Research, USA
David R. Millen, IBM Research, USA
This two-day workshop examines the ways that on-line communities create and refine their shared resources,
including both the formal and observable artifacts (documents, chats, threads) and the less tangible conventions,
roles, and identities in the community. We are particularly interested in the following topics:
- What formal or semi-formal shared resources are used by on-line communities? Some of these resources may be documents, images, code, or discussions and chats stored in a persistent form. Other resources are also of interest.
- What informal or intangible shared understandings are used by on-line communities? Some of these understandings will be the identities of individuals and groups, the roles in the community, and the working practices or social conventions among members of the community.
- How are the shared resources created, refined, and managed? Is there an `object lifecycle' for formal or semi-formal objects? Is there a process, protocol, or evolution for identities, roles, and conventions?
Participation in the workshop is by invitation, based on a position paper stating the author(s)' research, theory, or practice in one or more of the areas described above. Submissions should be electronic, in ASCII text, Word format, or PDF. Please send position papers or inquiries to Michael Muller (mullerm@acm.org) or David Millen (dmillen@acm.org).
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Michael J. Muller: mullerm@acm.org
back to top
2. Automatically Evaluating the Usability of Web Sites
Tom Brinck, Diamond Bullet Design, USA
Erik Hofer, University of Michigan, USA
Automated tools can help web designers and usability specialists evaluate and improve web sites. With automated tools they can improve usability, save evaluation time and cost, and achieve more consistent, higher-quality results. Examples of automated usability tools include code parsers and evaluators, image analysis tools, usage measurement tools (such as hit log analysis and instrumented browsers), semi-automated tools to aid the human evaluator, design evaluation and advice in web development tools, and automated online surveys. This two-day workshop will examine the variety of techniques for automating usability, establish key requirements for evaluation tools, and examine how these tools fit within an overall web design process.
Participants will be selected to provide a diversity of backgrounds and approaches reflected in their 2-4 page position papers. Your position paper should include a brief biographical sketch and a description of your related experience. If you have a tool or approach for automatic evaluation, we'd like to see a sample of the evaluation results (for comparison, those who are able should use their tool to evaluate microsoft.com). In the position papers, we encourage people to consider addressing one or several of the following topics: (1) technologies for automated evaluation, (2) usability of evaluation tools and integration in the design process, (3) application domains and design standards, and (4) overall frameworks relating the various techniques.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Tom Brinck: tom@diamondbullet.com
Sunday only:
3. Patterns in Practice: A Workshop for UI Designers
Martijn van Welie, Satama, The Netherlands
Kevin Mullet, Propel, Inc., USA
Paul McInerney, IBM Canada Ltd., Canada
This one-day workshop focuses on how UI designers are using patterns today. The scope includes the two overlapping areas of concern to design practitioners: (1) writing valid and useful patterns and (2) using patterns effectively in a design assignment. With input from particpants, four or five specific aspects of this topic will be discussed. Candidate discussion topics and activities include: 1) workshop one or more patterns, 2) write a pattern during the workshop, 3) identify new patterns, 4) discuss pattern set organization, 5) critique a particular pattern collection, 6) critique patterns on the same topic from several collections, 7) discuss experiences selecting and applying particular patterns, and 8) discuss introducing a pattern approach to design teams.
The primary selection criteria for participants will be their depth of experience in both (1) using patterns written by others and (2) writing patterns for their own use or for publication. Potential participants are invited to submit a two-page position paper covering at two or three of the following: (1) sample pattern they have authored, (2) a critique of an existing pattern collection (3) proposals for a new collection, (4) a critique of various patterns that address a particular UI aspect, (5) a design brief on a design they completed using patterns, or (6) organizational experiences.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Martijn van Welie: martijn.van.welie@satama.com
back to top
4. Cognitive Models of Programming-Like Activity
Alan Blackwell, Cambridge University, UK
Peter Robinson, Cambridge University, UK
Chris Roast, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Thomas Green, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
HCI deals with two major worlds, the home environment and the office environment. Both are changing. They increasingly adopt features from a third HCI world, that of programming. Today both in office applications and in home devices such as MP3 players, data classes can be defined and complex sequential behaviour can be programmed, just as in programming software. In all three worlds, it is repeatedly necessary for users to decide when to use abstractions and when not to.
How are such program-like representations planned, formulated, articulated and subsequently understood? We need to know about how users choose and manipulate abstractions, how they decide when to use an abstraction and when to avoid doing so, how they perceive the costs, and how successful they are. The problem domain encompasses the notational/linguistic devices employed, the tools and environments for manipulating them, and the developmental context. At least four types of research can contribute: empirical research on the psychology of programming; cognitive modeling of users? decision processes in similar tasks; analysis of the properties of information structures; and decision theory.
This one-day workshop aims to discuss and test cognitive models of these increasingly important activities. The first half of the day will contrast three alternative models, and the second half of the day will apply them to specific research examples. Participants must submit either a proposed analytic or cognitive model, or a suitable research example (preferably both). The workshop will involve practical modelling activity for the selected examples.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Alan Blackwell: alan.blackwell@cl.cam.ac.uk
back to top
5. Physiological Computing
Jennifer Allanson, Lancaster University, UK
Gillian M. Wilson, University College London, UK
The increasing availability of commercial physiological sensing technology provides researchers with an opportunity to explore detectable human physiology as a means of advanced human-machine integration. Not only can physiological sensing technologies provide existing interactive applications with a new, intimately personal data source but they also afford interesting new types of interaction, such as direct brain-computer communication. Yet to be explored are the implications of having one's own physiological responses to environment manifest.
This workshop will bring together researchers and practitioners who are interested in the utility of physiology within the human-machine interface. The main goal of the workshop is to develop an understanding of how the availability of physiological information is going to affect the future of human-machine interaction.
TOPICS OF INTEREST INCLUDE (but are not limited to):
- Physiological sensing technologies
- Development support for physiologically-enabled interactive applications
- Affective computing
- Physiological usability metrics
- Bio-cybernetic/ biofeedback systems
- Healthcare Applications
We encourage submissions from researchers and practitioners in academia, industry, government, and consulting. Students, researchers and practitioners are invited to submit an extended abstract (about 2000 words) describing original work or a position paper (about one page). Participants will be selected based on their submissions; a selection of extended abstracts will be presented at the workshop. The workshop organizers will be actively seeking to secure journal publication of extended versions of the best submissions. Suitable submissions could otherwise form the basis of a book on this interesting topic.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Jennifer Allanson: allanson@comp.lancs.ac.uk
back to top
6. Robustness in Speech Based Interfaces: Sharing the Tricks of the Trade
Jennifer Lai, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, USA
Nils Dahlbäck, Linköping University, Sweden
Arne Johnson, Linköping University, Sweden
This one-day workshop will bring together researchers, designers, developers, and early adopters of speech based interface technology to study how greater user satisfaction can be obtained, not by increasing the accuracy of the underlying technology, but by applying the tricks and tools of the trade to create a more robust interaction.
The following questions will be discussed:
- Which techniques can be used to increase robustness in speech-based interfaces?
- What are the dimensions for distinguishing between different classes of speech based interfaces, and how do these dimensions impact the techniques discussed?
Each participant should submit a position paper (no more than three pages) describing lessons-learned and recommendations for increasing the robustness of a speech based interface. Ideally, the participants will describe two or more, "tricks of the trade" that they have tried and their experience with these. While it always is interesting to hear about and learn from success stories, perhaps even more can be learned from failure stories. By sharing knowledge about approaches tried without success, other workers and project teams need not walk down the same cul-de-sac. Another important issue in learning from experience is knowing in which contexts the lessons learned apply and in which contexts they can not be applied. What we hope will emerge from the workshop is not only a list of 'this works' and 'this doesn't work', but also qualifications of these statements with respect to different conditions.
The papers will be selected based on their relevance and originality. All participants will be asked to come prepared to discuss their experience with the suggestions put forward in the other workshop position papers.
Position papers should include in addition to the description of the technique:
- Characteristics and demographics of user population (e.g. naïve speech users);
- Primary context of use;
- Brief description of underlying technology;
- Impact and results;
FURTHER DETAILS WEB SITE
Send position papers or questions to Jennifer Lai: lai@watson.ibm.com
7. Relationships Among Speech, Vision, and Action in Collaborative Physical Tasks
Susan R. Fussell, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Robert E. Kraut, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Jane Siegel, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Susan E. Brennan, SUNY Stony Brook, USA
Collaborative physical tasks are tasks in which two or more partners work together to perform actions on concrete objects in the three-dimensional world. For example, an expert might guide a worker's performance in emergency repairs to an aircraft or a medical team might work together to save a patient's life. These types of tasks play an important role in many domains, including education, design, industry, and medicine. Designing technologies to support remote collaboration on physical tasks is challenging due to the complex relationships among language, visual information, and actions. Our goal in this workshop is to work toward developing a theoretical framework linking task attributes, communication processes, and affordances of technologies. We will do this by considering three sets of challenges: (1) understanding the nature of collaborative physical tasks; (2) understanding how people use speech, gaze, and behaviors to coordinate their activities in these tasks, and (3) understanding how video and other technologies can be used to support the remote accomplishment of collaborative physical tasks. Participants will provide video clips of the 3D tasks they are using in their own research. We will select 4-5 of these tasks to examine in detail as a group during the workshop. For each of the tasks, we will consider the nature of the task, the way people coordinate their behaviors, and how technologies might permit its remote accomplishment. After examining this sample of tasks, we will consider whether we can formulate general principles for understanding collaborative physical tasks that transcend individual tasks.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Susan R. Fussell: susan.fussell@cmu.edu
back to top
8. The Philosophy and Design of Socially Adept Technologies
Stephen Marsh, National Research Council of Canada, Canada
John F. Meech, AmikaNow!! Corporation, Canada
Lucy Nowell, Pacific Northwest National Laboratories, USA
Kerstin Dautenhahn, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Socially Adept Technologies are interface technologies, systems, or embodied technologies capable of reasoning about human values, and using them to adapt to a user's culture, society or personal preferences in order to make the interaction more efficient for the user. Presently research in the overall topic of Social Adeptness is spread over several fields and locations with little cohesiveness. We believe that a common thread can be built between the individual projects to allow the participants to more effectively design, develop, and deploy their technologies.
This workshop will explore the concept of Social Adept Technologies and the current state of the art in the field, with the goal of kick-starting a vibrant worldwide CHI research community in the area. Contributions (theoretical, empirical, practical) are sought in the following areas:
- Models of trust in interacting with artificial systems.
- The effect of personality on interaction.
- The effect of emotion on interaction.
- Anthropomophisation of technology.
- Persuasive technologies.
- Systems that use social elements to advise or interact (e.g. collaborative filtering)
- Moral and ethical aspects of interacting with autonomous technologies.
- The interaction of privacy, security and trust in the on-line world.
Suggestions of other possible topic areas are also welcome.
Contributions should be in the CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts style, 2 to 4 pages long. Participants will be selected based on the quality and topic of the submissions and their overall fit in the workshop as it develops. There will be an opportunity for more wide-reaching publication.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Stephen Marsh: steve.marsh@nrc.ca
back to top
9. Teaching Interaction Design: Methods, Philosophies and Approaches
Scott Berkun, Microsoft Corporation, USA
Educators in interaction or web design are invited to participate, and exchange their knowledge with others in their field. Each participant will bring a method or approach they use in teaching interaction design, and share it with the group, using the other participants as students. We will discuss the methods, and how they pertain to our experiences, with the goal of elevating our combined knowledge about the unique challenges and difficulties in teaching interaction design.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Scott Berkun: scottber@microsoft.com
back to top
10. Automatic Capture, Representation and Analysis of User Behavior
Sharon J. Laskowski, NIST, USA
James A. Landay, University of California, USA
Mike Lister, Netusability Limited, UK
We can now capture software user interaction on a much larger scale than ever before and, as a result, new approaches for evaluating usability and validating theories of computer-human interaction are being developed. The main questions are: can we leverage all this capability to validate our models, to improve the user experience, and to change the user interfaces in products in measurably better ways? How will human computer interaction (HCI) and usability engineering (UE) as bodies of knowledge and practice change? How has HCI/UE research and practice changed as new analysis, design, and evaluation methods have emerged and been adopted. Unresolved issues related to these new methodologies are under discussion in both the HCI and UE communities, such as how and when to apply methods, when is remote, automated testing useful, and what can server logs provide. The goals of this workshop are to encourage researchers to exchange ideas on how to address these issues and provide a foundation for a clearer understanding and more systematic application of these methodologies. We are looking for participants with experience in building or using automated tools for analysis of usability or in empirically validating research hypotheses about user interaction. We expect participants to be willing to contribute to papers that result from this workshop. Potential participants are asked to note in their position papers: relevant experience, issues they have encountered and would like to address, and suggestions for the type of paper they would like to author or co-author.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Sharon J. Laskowski: sharon.laskowski@nist.gov
back to top
11. Funology - Designing Enjoyment
Andrew Monk, University of York, UK
Marc Hassenzahl, User Interface Design GmbH, Germany
Mark Blythe, University of York, UK
Darren Reed, University of York, UK
Fun is set to be a major issue as information and communication technology moves out of the office and into the living room. As more researchers get involved in this topic it has become clear that our current understanding of user concerns, derived from the world of work, is simply not adequate to this new design challenge.
This workshop aims to:
- provide a forum to discuss emerging issues in the design of enjoyable applications;
- discuss a research agenda;
- identify recommendations about how companies and research funders can combine and use the several disciplinary specialities needed to design fun products.
We encourage participation from a wide range of disciplines including Computer Science, Design, Psychology and Social Science.
We plan to cover the following general topics: theory, drawn from various fields; justification, in terms of field studies and experiments; practice, through case studies of software products; technique, the design process and critique (reasons for staying with the current usability concept).
The workshop format will include a presentation by each participant, discussion and games. In addition each participant will lead a discussion of the issues raised by another participant's paper.
The workshop will be limited to 16 participants. Please submit a one- or two-page position paper outlining your interest in this topic to A.Monk@psych.york.ac.uk. Position papers must be received by 25 January 2002. Participants will be notified of selection by 22 February 2002.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Andrew Monk: A.Monk@psych.york.ac.uk
Monday only:
12. HCI & IA: Information, Interaction, Interface and Usability Architects
Keith Instone, IBM.Com, USA
Lisa Chan, Stanford University, USA
Peter Boersma, Satama Interactive, The Netherlands
George Olsen, Interaction by Design, USA
How does what information architects do compare with what other HCI practitioners do? This workshop will let various "architects" (information, interaction, interface and usability) share their deliverables to help us understand the relationship between HCI and information architecture.
We will discuss themes that cut across our deliverables (type of document, audience, lifecycle stage). We will also address some of the larger issues around HCI and IA, such as skill overlaps and gaps, IA beyond web sites, and design vs. architecture.
Interested participants must fill out the form at and specify what type of architect they are. Participants must also submit several sample deliverables in order to be considered for the workshop. The deliverables have to be "publicly shareable" - submitters can use actual deliverables or create "sanitized" versions that can be publicly displayed.
Particpants will be selected based on several criteria, including the diversity of their backgrounds. Accepted participants will be expected to become familiar with the other participants deliverables before the workshop. Selected participants will also be asked to report on themes that cut across them.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Keith Instone: keith@instone.org
back to top
13. Web Navigation Workshop: Exercising and Sharing Web Design Knowledge
Scott Berkun, Microsoft Corporation, USA
Interaction design is difficult to learn. Usability engineering provides structure for design thinking, but the specific process of generating ideas, reviewing, describing and deciding take time and experience to learn. Books often provide theories and approaches, but it is left to the reader to learn how and when to apply different kinds of thinking to the specific problems they are expected to solve on real world schedules. It is difficult to find open and fun forums for discussion with a diverse group of designers with different sets of experience. This workshop will provide an opportunity for designers to approach new problems, generate ideas as individuals, and then work together as a group critiquing solutions and discussing further ideas and underlying methods. Experienced designers can share their knowledge by showing good design practice, and can learn form others by observing how they approach the same problems.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Scott Berkun: scottber@microsoft.com
back to top
14. The Business Value of HCI: How Can We Do It Better?
Gitte Lindgaard, Carleton University, Canada
Nicola Millard, BTexact Technologies, UK
Business models look at bottom line costs of sale, but do they really account for the "true" costs of bad usability? Data on costs such as the number of post-sale customer contacts, the negative equity of customer word of mouth, and the need to re-engineer/document/re-launch a product because it just isn't fit for purpose are extremely difficult to come by, often because they are simply not collected. Yet, these are precisely the data HCI needs to cement itself into current business practices.
Questions we raise in this workshop include:
- How does (or could) HCI contribute to the bottom line?
- Where is the persuasive argument to the CEO that HCI is essential to the business?
- How can HCI respond in webtime?
- Can we justify our existence in the current commercial business models? Accounting and project management practices are over 100 years old - can we influence the way companies look at their bottom line by providing examples where HCI HAS made a difference.
We are convinced that there are many HCI folks out there who have data, thoughts, experiences, successes, disasters, and models to share. We also believe that by putting put it all together, your input can help strengthen our collective business case. If your story is any of the above and you are interested in furthering HCI at the business level, please send your position paper to Gitte Lindgaard or Nicola Millard.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Gitte Lindgaard: gitte_lindgaard@carleton.ca
back to top
15. It's a Global Economy Out There: Usability Innovation for Global Market Places
Mizue Fujinuma, Microsoft Corporation, USA
Kirsten Risden , Microsoft Corporation, USA
While PC sales in the US stagnate, computer and Internet usage internationally is exploding. Global market places have become increasingly more important for the survival of hardware and software industries. To ensure good user experience and profitability in international markets, there has been growing need to conduct international or cross-cultural usability research. Despite increasing dialog on the need for international usability research, there is comparatively little discussion about how to actually do such research. Our field needs more discussion around innovative usability methods to address the requirements of global market places. The goal of this workshop is to provide a forum for international usability researchers to share experiences and learn from experiences of other researchers. In this one-day workshop, participants will interact extensively with one another to share and understand common research questions, challenges, solutions, and current best practices for doing usability research in global contexts. Potential participants will provide a case study write up of a project where globalization or localization was addressed. Within their case studies participants should include:
- A description of the globalization problem or research question addressed,
- How the problem was addressed, specific challenges encountered and how those challenges were overcome including methods used, logistical considerations, etc.
- Outcomes of the work.
Participants will be selected based on their interest and experience with the problem and their potential for contributing innovative solutions representing the widest scope of approaches to international or cross-cultural usability work possible. Send case studies to Kirsten Risden at kirstenr@microsoft.com.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Mizue Funinuma: mizuef@microsoft.com
back to top
16. Mobile Ad Hoc Collaboration
Mark Billinghurst, University of Washington, USA
Hans - Werner Gellersen , Lancaster University, UK
Gerd Kortuem, University of Oregon, USA
The emergence of mobile ad-hoc networks (MANET) creates opportunities for new forms of mobile collaboration involving interaction between people who are co-located and organized in an unforeseeable way. The acceptance of MANET devices will depend on the applications they facilitate and the social benefits they provide. This workshop aims to provide a forum for the discussion of human-factors issues related to the design and evaluation of collaborative applications for mobile ad-hoc and personal-area networks. In particular, it tries to advance the understanding of how ad-hoc network applications can facilitate spontaneous collaboration. The workshop will focus on:
- Taxonomies of ad hoc collaboration
- Presence-based and face-to-face collaboration
- Support for opportunistic meetings
- Spontaneous collaboration
- Mobile and wearable communities
- Security and privacy aspects
- Groupware for mobile collaboration
- Design and evaluation methods
We seek contributions in the form of case/design studies, or evaluations of existing systems. The intention is to bring together researchers from a wide variety of disciplines such as CSCW, HCI, Mobile/Wearable Computing, Ubiquitous/Distributed Computing and Wireless Networking, to discuss issues related to the design, development, and evaluation of MANET applications.
Participants will be selected based on a 4-page position paper describing their interests or ongoing research in the field. Send submissions in PDF or postscript format to Gerd Kortuem at kortuem@cs.uoregon.edu by January 20th. We plan to publish accepted submissions as part of workshop proceedings.
FURTHER DETAILS WEB SITE
Send position papers or questions to Gerd Kortuem: kortuem@cs.uoregon.edu.
back to top
17. Getting to Know You: Open Source Development Meets Usability
Nancy Frishberg, Sun Microsystems, USA
Anna Marie Dirks, Ximian Corporation, USA
Calum Benson, Sun Microsystems, Ireland
Seth Nickell, GNOME Usability Project, USA
Suzanna Smith, Sun Microsystems, USA
Andrea Mankoski, Sun Microsystems, USA
The human computer interaction (HCI) community has spent a great deal of time and energy studying and theorizing about collaborative computer supported work. But open source developers are actually in the trenches using CSCW methods and practices because they have no other choice. They work with limited budgets, highly distributed workgroups arranged in relatively non-hierarchical structures. CHI2002 presents a timely opportunity to join together in a face-to-face meeting to learn from one another, to test our assumptions, and to rid ourselves of stereotypes that may be holding us back from productive collaborations.
The workshop seeks to create a meeting place for people involved in open source development to encounter people involved in human computer interaction research and practice. The workshop aims to increase the likelihood that usability will become a core value in the open source community. We want to interact and exchange ideas about
- assuring that distributed work leads to successful products
- building trust and collaborative relationships in non-hierarchical systems
- authorial rights and authority
- attitudes toward users and user centered design
We invite open source developers and HCI professionals to send a statement of interest including suggestions for additional topics for our 1-day workshop. Statements shall not exceed 2 pages (approximately 500 words) and are due no later than January 22, 2002 to Nancy Frishberg . While we may want to include all interested parties in some activities in advance of the workshop and following on from it, we anticipate the face-to-face meeting will be limited to about 20 persons, half from the open software development side, and half from HCI. We will honor a broad range of opinions and experiences.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Nancy Frishberg: Nancy.Frishberg@sun.com
back to top
18. Creativity and Interface: Looking at the Diverse Role of the Use of Computational Tools Within the Creative Process
Winslow Burleson, MIT Media Lab, USA
Ted Selker, MIT Media Lab, USA
This workshop will focus on the topic of Creativity and Interface, exploring the diverse role of computational tools within the creative process. These tools range from those that promote generative and evaluative tasks to ones that enhance capabilities, communication, resource utilization, etc.... Two sub-topics that have a significant bearing on computer enhanced creativity, Captology and Peak Performance, will also be discussed. Captology deals with emergence of persuasive technologies. The tools that make us peak performers are those tools that extend the users' ability to exploit any and all internal and external resources toward a focused goal. The specific goal of the workshop is to start the discussion on these topics to outline the exciting opportunities and to communicate this discussion as broadly as possible through, posters, journal articles, dedicated special issues and potentially an edited book if sufficient interest is generated (we believe that through our efforts and the relevance of the topic there will be sufficient interest to develop a book).
Participant Selection: Participants will be selected based upon a two page position statement on their work and their perspective on the topic. Everyone is encouraged to submit since we will try to represent a range of contributions and perspectives from diverse fields: Cognitive Science, Psychology, Computer, Interface Design, and Computer Science.
Please submit your Personal Statements by January 25, 2002 to Winslow Burleson: win@media.mit.edu
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Winslow Burleson: win@media.mit.edu
back to top
19. Discourse Architectures: The Design and Analysis of Computer-Mediated Conversation
Thomas Erickson, IBM Research, USA
Susan Herring, Indiana University, USA
Warren Sack, University of California at Berkeley, USA
We use the phrase `Discourse Architectures' to highlight the relationship between online conversation (either text-based or digital audio) and structure. The phrase has two meanings, both of them relevant to our concerns. One meaning has to do with the structure of conversation itself, that is, with the ways in which the remarks which form a conversation interrelate and build upon one another. The second meaning has to do with architectures for discourse, with the ways in which the design of CMC systems shapes the conversations within them.
This workshop will investigate the relationship between the structure of online conversation and the design of CMC systems. Specifically, we propose to examine conversational coherence from the perspective of graphical interfaces.
Many approaches to discourse analysis make use of some form of graphical or diagrammatic representation in order to illustrate patterns of connections among utterances, meanings, and people in conversations. Within some disciplines (e.g., linguistics), these graphical representations are primarily intended to address specific research questions or support theoretical models. In other areas (e.g., CSCW), the purpose of the representations is more pragmatic: they are actual graphical interfaces that users can manipulate. We are interested in both kinds of representations, especially in the ways in which diagrams based on conversation research and/or theory might, suitably modified, be useful as interface designs, and the ways in which interface designs might usefully provide information to researchers about the nature of conversation.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Thomas Erickson: snowfall@acm.org
back to top
20. New Technologies for Families
Catherine Plaisant, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
Allison Druin, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
Hilary Browne, University of Maryland, College Park, USA
Mobile phones, video games and the Internet have already changed the way families stay in touch, coordinate daily tasks or family events or even spend time together. There is increased interest from commercial companies and academic research labs in the development of new technologies for the home in general, and for families in particular, from applications to share digital photographs to specialized family message boards or monitoring devices for the elderly.
In this workshop, we hope to address some of the following questions. Can we develop technologies for families? What brings families together (celebrations, meals, chores, playing, etc.)? Can we develop innovative artifacts that support the needs of co-located and distributed intergenerational user? How to design for and with families? How can these technologies be embedded in our homes? Can they become a part of the very fabric of everyday family life?
Potential participants should submit a position paper (2 or more pages). A maximum of 15 participants will be selected. Selection criteria will include relevance, active involvement in research, and the presence of results to be shared with the group. We will balance industry and academia representation, and encourage international balance. Participants will be expected to read all position papers before the workshop. During the day demos and videos from selected projects will be presented in the morning. The afternoon will be dedicated to discussion and brainstorming in subgroups.
FURTHER DETAILS
Send position papers or questions to Catherine Plaisant: plaisant@cs.umd.edu
back to top
|
