Workshops On This Page:
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 (email@example.com) or David Millen (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Send position papers or questions to Michael J. Muller: email@example.com
back to top
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.
Send position papers or questions to Martijn van Welie: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Send position papers or questions to Alan Blackwell: email@example.com
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.
Send position papers or questions to Jennifer Allanson: firstname.lastname@example.org
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: email@example.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.
Send position papers or questions to Susan R. Fussell: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Send position papers or questions to Stephen Marsh: email@example.com
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.
Send position papers or questions to Scott Berkun: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Send position papers or questions to Sharon J. Laskowski: email@example.com
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.
Send position papers or questions to Andrew Monk: A.Monk@psych.york.ac.uk