Paper Reading #3: The Coffee Lab: Developing a Public Usability Space

Commentary

See what I have to say about Jessica's and Joshua's work.

References

Karam, M. (2010). The coffee lab: developing a public usability space. Proceeding of the Acm conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2671-2680). Atlanta: http://www.sigchi.org/chi2010/.

Article Summary

Karam outlines her project that explores usability in a public setting, called the Coffee Lab. The lab is set up in a local Toronto coffee shop and consists of several interactive systems with which Karam can conduct public usability tests (PUTs). The novel concept in this project is the fact that Karam conducts her studies outside of a traditional laboratory environment, affording her the opportunity to explore a wide user base in a more natural setting, in the hopes that she will get more salient results. Karam describes the project as ...[being] aimed at developing a permanent usability facility in a coffee shop, where different interactive systems are presented, evaluated, and experienced by anyone who enters the shop.

The Emoti-Chair in the Coffee Lab
Image courtesy of Sideshow Cafe

There are currently two interactive systems being tested at the Coffee Lab: the Emoti-chair and the iGesture. The infrastructure of the lab consists of several computers networked together with various webcams for data gathering and touchscreens for interaction. She evaluates the systems in five stages:

• exposure, or first contact with the user;
• experience, in which the user first learns about the system;
• experiment, in which a more structured approach is taken towards gathering user input;
• extension, which encompasses long-term study opportunities;
• and exploration, after the user has become familiar with the system and has been subjected to various questionnaires and interviews, and is allowed to interact with the system in a completely unstructured way.

Karam goes on to cover some of the results she has gathered and to offer some improvements that will be made to the system as time goes on.

Discussion

This is as ingenious a concept as the CAT article I reviewed previously. A recurring theme I've been noticing in the field of HCI is that of the observing the interaction itself, and not just trying to come up with and test what we as the designer think is a creative idea. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's interesting to me to step away from design for a moment and focus on observation. If I could fault myself on one thing it might be the atrophy of my creative process, maybe through disuse, maybe through too narrow a scope of explorations. I can complete a project to a specification, and I can surely come up with some improvements to the specification I discover through the process of creating it, but I feel like employing some of these techniques from the field of HCI might help me fix my disability of not being able to discover my own novel interactions.

Paper Reading #2: Early Explorations of CAT: Canine Amusement and Training

Commentary

See what I have to say about Evin's and Paola's work.

References

Wingrave, C. A., et al. (2010). Early explorations of cat: canine amusement and training. Proceeding of the Acm conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2661-2669). Atlanta: http://www.sigchi.org/chi2010/.

Article Summary

Wingrave and his associates work in the field of CHCI, or Canine-Human-Computer-Interaction, in order to create an environment for meaningful interaction between humans and their canine companions using the help of computers. The system they created was designed to be used as an aid to effective canine training and also to teach the human how to develop appropriate habits for training and for play.

The proof of concept designed by the team comprised the setup of the system and three games: some basic training commands, a tag game, and a chase game. The system used Wiimotes from Nintendo to track canine movement and a combined TV-projector display (TV for the humans, projector pointed towards the floor for the dogs). Their initial results were reviewed by an animal training specialist, who gave them some insight as to the effects of both the games and the human participation on the dogs.

The team then altered the system to correct minor design flaws and developed new games that would provide a more efficacious training environment for the dogs: the new games focused on keeping both humans and dogs calm in various scenarios. Dogs learned to stay with and come to their owners, and to be placed in various locations in which they would stay.

The team is currently continuing to evaluate the responses of humans and canines alike to various changes in the system to provide a fun, usable system for CHCI. Their future plans include training tips based on observed human and canine behavior, the possibility of collaborative play, and eventually the distribution of this system on a widespread scale.

Discussion

I loved this article. As the new owner a very young, very small dog who came from a shelter, I definitely understand the necessity for meaningful interaction between man and his best friend. My dog, Marvin, is still skittish when there's a lot of excitement going on, doesn't like other humans very much, and doesn't respond well to my training attempts (granted, I haven't taken to time that I don't have anyway to do any serious training). This isn't to say that I've given up on him, but I imagine a system like this could do wonders to help the both of us understand each other better. This isn't the first attempt at incorporating animals into computer games to some degree of reasonable facsimile for the purposes of learning and training:

Image courtesy of IGN

But I think it's pretty revolutionary to extend the field of HCI to CHCI. At the same time, I think that users should take as much care with monitoring their pets' game time as they should their own children. I mean, we all know that these sorts of things can get out of hand:

Image courtesy of Fort 90

Blog Entry #3: If I were an ethnography, I would be about...

If I weren't a computer science major, I would definitely have been a psychology major. Or a sociology major. Or an anthropology major. Basically, I like people, and more than that, I like interacting with people and seeing how people interact with each other, and with technology. Case in point: my ethnography topics.

IDEA #1: Free as in speech, or free as in beer?

Image courtesy of xkcd

This idea centers around that fact that I can be a pompous jerk sometimes I don't feel that many people out there know about OSS, either in and of itself or as an alternative to proprietary software, or if they do, don't know about the different degrees of open-ness. I aim to distribute a questionnaire about OSS, covering knowledge on:

• Definitions of open, free, libre, and proprietary software
• Types of open-source licenses
• Open-source projects, ranging from common use to totally esoteric
• and the differences between proprietary software and their open-source replacements

I feel that this exercise will 1) help me gain some perspective on the progress of open-source in today's technological age, and 2) open some eyes and win some hearts and minds over to the open-source initiative/side/philosophy/whatever.

IDEA #2: I like your hardware...

Image courtesy of iTech News Net

I'm just gonna come right out and say this, sometimes I get a little gear envy. I appreciate your full-frame DSLR with that great piece of glass on the front. I admire your well-tuned-but-not-overdone suspension and capable off-road tires on your Jeep. I commend the sensibility, usability, and quality of your Macbook Air. Oh, you didn't know what a great piece of technology you have there under your fingertips? I wonder how often this situation arises for the common folk for non-computer-related majors: you have a decent computer because your friend/dad/boss/salesman told you to buy it, but you don't really understand its capabilities. To really get a grasp on how much people understand about the personal technology, I'd like to pose the following questions, among others:

• What's the make, model, and trim on your computer?
• What were the considerations you made when purchasing it?
OR
• What were the considerations someone made when purchasing it for you?
• What are some of its main features? Processor cores/speed/caches, memory speed/amount, screen size and lighting, graphics capabilities, special peripherals, battery size/life, etc.
• For what purpose do you mainly use your computer?
• What is your overall satisfaction with your computer?

The purpose of this exercise is 1) to open my eyes to what "the common folk" (read: non-computer-related majors) know about the technology they rely on, and 2) to hopefully get them interested in learning about and looking into said technology.

IDEA #3: I'm going to go blog about this in my blog because I'm a blogger

Image courtesy of Gaping Void

Last idea: we blog a lot in this class. Some people have blogged before; some never have. Some people know what a blog is, but have no idea where that word came from. Some people read blogs religiously; some use them as a valuable resource for information and opinions, but not much else. The fact of the matter is that blogs are available to pretty much everyone, everywhere. I want to find out how involved or concerned people are with blogs:

• Do you know where to words blog and vlog come from?
• Do you read blogs/watch vlogs? How many? With a program or on the main site?
• How do you use the information in the blogs you read/vlogs you watch?
• Do you have a blog/vlog? Who serves it? How many readers/viewers do you have?
• Do you find blogging/vlogging to be a worthwhile endeavor? Why or why not?
• Do your friends and family find blogging/vlogging to be a worthwhile endeavor? Why or why not?

The purpose of this exercise is [see above].

People are just so much fun :)

Blog Entry #2: On Computers

Commentary

See what I have to say about Shena's and Vince's work.

References

Aristotle. (1994). On plants. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of aristotle (pp. 1252-1271). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

On Computers

Intelligence and understanding is found in humans and computers; but while in some humans it is clearly manifest, in computers it is programmed and unnatural. For before we can assert the presence of true understanding in computers, a long inquiry must be held as to whether computers possess a soul a true capacity to understand. This inquiry, however, will not be performed here.

Some computers contain within them graphics processing units integrated into the motherboard. Some have stand-alone or third-party graphics processing units. Some have even two or three, and maybe one is used independently as a PhysX engine. Some components of the computer are simple, such as a radiated heatsink-cooled northbridge and an air-cooled southbridge; some are more complex, like a thermoelectrically-cooled processing core. Computers possess other various parts as well: SATA cables, power supplies, and peripheral ports.

Just as in the human, so also in the computer there are homogeneous parts: the case of the computer is like the skin of the human; the processor is like the brain; the data buses and cables are like nerves and veins; but that's pretty much it. If a computer had a stomach, it would probably be the hard drive, but that metaphor is a bit of a stretch, and so you should probably ignore it.

I suppose I could carry on forever, but alas, I am not a philosopher, but merely a student, a blogger no less, and this farce is but a travesty of the great works from minds much keener than mine.

Image courtesy of Corbis Images

So don't take me too seriously :)

Blog Entry #1: Minds, Brains and Programs

Commentary

See what I have to say about Wesley's and Bain's work.

References

Searle, P. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417-457.
Chinese room. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Dijkstra, E. W. (1984). The threats to computing science. Proceedings of the Acm 1984 south central regional conference (pp. 3). Austin, TX: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd08xx/EWD898.PDF.

Article Summary

In this article, Searle sets out to disprove the possibility of strong artificial intelligence (AI), specifically that a computer program cannot display cognition as a human brain could. He does this by setting up what is known as the Chinese room, a thought experiment in which Searle is locked in a room and knows no Chinese, and yet is able to convince an outside observer that he does. Given a set of Chinese characters and a set of English rules for manipulating them, Searle states that he can receive input in Chinese, apply the English rules based on what he sees to create new Chinese data, and pass this data to output as acceptable Chinese.

Searle also addresses some of the common arguments against his position, and finally addresses the question of what he believes understanding to be. He repeats his assertions from the beginning of the article: that "intentionality in human beings...is a product of causal features of the brain"; and that "instantiating a computer program is never by itself a sufficient condition of intentionality." He concedes that it may be possible to "give" a computer the facilities that make him, as a human, intentional, but still maintains that "formal symbol manipulations by themselves don't have any intentionality...."

Discussion

Sometimes, when I dive into things like the Chinese room argument, and I start getting all metaphysical and stuff, I start to feel a lot like this :

Image courtesy of xkcd.com

In all honesty, I'm with Dijkstra:

...the question of whether Machines Can Think...is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim.

I really don't feel that it matters whether or not we create machines that exhibit strong AI or are capable of cognition or are intentional or whatever. As long as we're discussing thought experiments, given an unlimited amount of processing and memory resources, and a program covering enough inputs and their appropriate outputs with enough complexity, weak AI will always be strong enough for anything we really need it for. I mean, I'm all for helping the elderly cross the street or carrying groceries for the single mother with three kids:

Image courtesy of imdb.com

But once we start trying to capture the human essence and start thinking about machines as humans, who are to be afforded the same rights, who are to be worthy of the gift of our love, we run into some serious issues:

Image courtesy of imdb.com

I'm just sayin'.

Paper Reading #1: Sequential Arts for Science and CHI

Commentary

See what I have to say about Zack's and John's work.

References

Rowland, D., et al. (2010). Sequential arts for science and chi. Proceeding of the Acm conference on human factors in computing systems& (pp. 2651-2660). Atlanta: http://www.sigchi.org/chi2010/.

Article Summary

Rowland and his associates performed several preliminary experiments on the relationship between sequential art and several specific scientific processes with the help of Plasq's Comic Life program. Their method of delivery was in a sequential art format: the paper is actually a comic strip. The authors cite the impact that visual media have for visual creatures such as human beings. One author puts it succinctly:

"This paper suggests that sequential art offers unique mechanisms of communication that may be of use to science."

In the first experiment, a group of children completed a science project in which they had to design an effective alternative energy solution through wind power; their teacher documented their progress. Then the children were asked to create a "photostory" with the use of the Comic Life program that depicted the experiment from start to finish.

In the second experiment, the physiological responses and facial expressions of people on theme park rides were both recorded with respect to time, and the participants were given a DVD of their faces during the ride. They were later asked to select images that corresponded to different emotions they felt while on the ride, and these images were made into a photostory for them.

Discussion

This paper is about as brief an overview of this topic as one might imagine, but to be fair, the authors were sure to point out the "preliminary [nature of their] studies" from the start. I agree that the use of sequential art could be very powerful at "keeping only the essence" of an idea, as one author points out. It is even postulated that "reality can be sampled and distilled into concepts" through the use of visual communication method. That being said, the only things I would fault this work on are:

• drawing from one example that, from what I can see, was already pretty distilled (case in point: the childrens' alternative energy science experiments);
• and not actually distilling the concepts out of the reality of the theme park ride experiment (or at least not providing the results of the study).

I think that the next step in this research should be to apply it to a more complex model or task, say, modeling an internal combustion engine. For example, one might want to show that:

1. It is possible to contain enough information using sequential art to explain internal combustion (to some degree of complexity).
2. The information contained by the sequential art is somehow comparable in complexity to the information contained by the reality of the task, i.e. in a mechanical engineering textbook.

Basically, for this idea to take hold, one must be able to prove the possibility and the efficacy of the use of sequential art in a practical situation. Case in point: what would be an acceptible level of complexity and distillation for something like this?

I, for one, would be interested to see that happen.

Blog Entry #0: Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?

Everybody has seen Full Metal Jacket, right? Good. Kubrick is a psychopath genius.

Hey! Here's me interacting with a computer:

So there I was: sitting at my New Student Conference, listening to some joker introduce himself as a sixth-year senior, thinking, "That'll never be me!" And now here I am, on my twelfth and final semester, God willing. When I was signing up for classes, I realized that a) I didn't want to take robotics, b) I needed one last course in this track to satisfy my elective requirements, and c) I really like interacting with computers and wanted to learn how to help others interact with them more effectively. That's not a joke; hence, I'm in this class. I have experience with good coding style and good grammar, and I feel that I have a latent ability to recognize a good design when I see one, though creating one for myself still takes a little work.

And now, if I might speculate a bit:

• In ten years I hope to have at least three kids, a flourishing career, and two-thirds of a house with this lady right here:

• The next biggest technological advance in computing science will be the full native parallelization of all applications.
• I would take a time machine back to meet Aristotle. I maintain that he was the greatest philosophical mind of all time. What would the Christian, and especially the Catholic theological and scholastic traditions be without his metaphysics?
• The Mexican mustache has to be the most awesome mustache because it's a solid 'stache, not too imposing but definitely confident.
• I wish I were fluent in Gaelic. Everyone's got a little Irish in them, and it's part of my history if not really my heritage.

Last but not least, there's something you should know about me. I have an addictive personality coupled with never-diagnosed-but-probable ADD, and as such I have a "Flavor of the Week" as far as my interests go. Most recently, I've been into the penny whistle, photography, long-boarding, off-roading. I'll keep you updated as to "The Next Big Thing."

Tune in next time, when we'll discuss sequential art and comic books, and how they relate to learning effectively about physics and other such things.