Paper Reading #3

Reference
Title: Hard-To-Use Interfaces Considered Beneficial (Some of the Time)
Author: YannRiche, Nathalie Henry Riche, Petra Isenberg, and Anastasia Bezerianos

Summary
The premise of the article states that while intuitive interface designs are explored regularly and extensively by researchers in the HCI domain, there is little work done regarding the potential benefits of a system that is more difficult for the user. The paper outlines two cases where they feel this is an issue. In the first, multiple users (see above picture) attempted to use the same computer at the same time using different mice. This naturally resulted in communication between users to resolve the issue of everyone attempting to control the pointer location themselves. In the second case was a study on elderly people. The individuals were instructed in the use of more recent technologies such as email in several workshops over an extended duration. However, following the end of the series of workshops, the subjects involved were found to still prefer older methods of writing letters as they credited the extra time taken to write them as giving them a higher emotion value. This argument was then interpreted as a point in favor of hard-to-use interfaces.

Discussion
I thought both cases outlined in this paper were highly irrelevant. In the first, the issue of multiple pointers could have easily been remedied by a better interface design. For example, the users could have had an interface where one user had control and could then pass control to another user. This would still facilitate communication, but without any of the initial confusion and learning process. An argument could be made that in the original case at least all users had equal access, but I think this is largely irrelevant as well, as giving all users equal access without the ensuing communication reduces the system to a state in which it is largely undesirable to use. To reiterate this, in the first scenario no one got to use the computer until the users communicated, in my scenario one user would get to use it initially, and then following communication the other users could also use the system. The end result is the same, but the second scenario is purely superior from an objective perspective in the initial phase.

The second case is a relation of the sentimental attachment that people attach to an arbitrary process. This study subjectively and intentionally picked a group of subject that they suspecting would prove their assertion. For example I could conduct a study on a population in an underdeveloped country and find that people prefer hearth fires to a centralized heating system in their houses because the former holds sentimental significance for them. What this really proves, is that people have an aversion to change, and more specifically, that this trend increases as they grow older. There are any number of studies that have been conducted regarding this issue, and I am certain that nearly all of them point to a correlation between age and resistance to change. Again, I feel that the authors intentionally targeted this correlation to draw a conclusion on a larger population that did not have the same constraints.

Paper Reading #2

Reference
Title: Communicating Software Agreement Content Using Narrative Pictograms
Author: Matthew Kay and Michael Terry

Summary
This article is a presentation of "narrative pictograms", referred to by the authors as "illustractive diagrams designed to convery the abstract concepts of software agreements. For the most part, this refers to EULAs presented to users when they install software as a way to more easily convey the terms of the agreement. These pictographs are explained as structured and standardized so that users always know what to look for. Furthermore the layout of these pictograms was the result of research by the same group, and is also included in the paper, along with the process and method of data collection.

Discussion
I found the article a bit hard to understand initially. While the goal of the article is to prove pictograms can accurately convey sensitive information such as the terms of  EULAs, very few of the pictograms given as examples in the document intuitively made sense to me. They all required an explanation. For example, the pictogram I included above comes directly from the article. However, I doubt very many people reading this will understand what it means. According to the article, the Apple symbol on the left combined with the arrow and the rising bar graph is supposed to convey to the user that the program they are installing will collect data regarding what operating system the user is using. The fact that all of the provided pictograms required lengthy explanation was really counter-intuitive to the content of the article.

I think several of their pictograms are too busy in that they have too much useless information in the image. In the image provided above this includes all the shapes on the keyboard, the contents of the screen, and possibly the mouse. Later on in the article the authors go on to explain how these help them convey whether or not the user is using the computer when data is collected and so forth, but I think this could be shown in a much simpler manner. Use of the computer could simply be shown by having the stick figure place his hands on the keyboard. If you really want to demonstrate typing you can have a text bubble on the screen as well. By limiting the complexity of the image you draw the readers attention to what is truly important - which in this case is whether or not the user is using the computer and if information is being collected. We don't need to know that the user had paint open and was drawing a landscape and a house.

As a redeeming quality, I understand that if these pictograms became standardized they would of course become easier to read as people got used to them. However I still feel that there is no need to add elements that are not strictly necessary. The idea presented in this paper is good, but the way in which it is implemented and delivered needs some work.

Paper Reading #1

Reference
Title: Sequential Art for Science and CHI
Author: Duncan Rowland (and 14 others)

Summary
This paper was about using sequential art (comics) as a serious medium for information transfer. The authors argue that using this medium allows information to be more quickly disseminated to a wide audience. To this end, the paper itself (following the abstract) is written as a comic strip. There are two main sections of the paper. The first example is a photostory for the documentation of a practical science session. The second is also a photostory, by for the study on the biological nature of thrill. Both sections are narrated by a comic strip in a sort of third person.

Discussion
This paper is possibly legitimately the most interesting research paper I have ever read, simply for the shock factor of the paper being a comic book from start to finish. Having read the paper, I would tend to agree that the comic strip medium does have advantages, as the paper was quite possibly one of the easiest to read of all the numerous research articles I've read while at A&M. To a degree this article reminded me of a different reading in this class from the book "The Design of Everyday Things", and I think the authors of this article encapsulate much of what the author of that book was trying to convey.

While this format is certainly easier to read, there is of course a counter balance. To truly maximize the amount of information conveyed the author needs to pick their images very carefully, because each one provides vital information to the read that corresponds with the speech bubbles they are reading. This is most likely not a trivial task, and while I cannot speculate whether the creation of this research article would have taken more or less time to write if written in plain text, I think it is safe to say that it definitely required more expertise to write.

As an additional point, I feel that while this model has potential to be highly innovative in several areas of information transfer, research articles are not one of them. This is because research articles, as scientific documents, need to be extremely precise and clear on the meaning of statements. When information is displayed in this manner it becomes slightly more subjective to the viewer's perspective, as images hold a less concrete definition. Obviously it is still possible to convey concepts this way, but when an author is making a precise argument that needs to be defended, it only makes sense to use the least ambiguous medium.

On Computers

Reference
Title: The Complete Works of Aristotle
Author: Aristotle

Summary
While some initial reading suggests that Aristotle is only tenuously cemented as the author of this work, this summary and discussion will assume that he was the author. Aristotle starts the article with a characterization of the physical attributes and classification of plants, and contrasts some of these attributes to humans. This leads into his argument regarding plants being alive and potentially having souls. The article also contains a large amount of information regarding plants that is less relevant from a philosophical stand point.

Discussion
Personally I am not particularly interested in the soul argument, as I am not religious. It is sufficient to say that I doubt people have souls. I see the prime difference between this article and the Chinese Room argument as dealing with life as opposed to intelligence. This would seem to imply that you could have one without the other, but I don't think this is strictly true. Certainly every form of life we consider to be living has some type of rudimentary intelligence, even if this is just the nucleus in a cell. Viruses, for example, are not considered living, but they also lack this element in their structure. From this we can infer that intelligence is a requirement for life, but this says nothing about life being a requirement for intelligence. Unfortunately we have little to go on in this regard, and the only thing to broach the subject would be AI.

The four major requirements for life are reproduction, reaction to environment, metabolism, and growth. Plants meet all of these requirements. A computer meets only one of them, unless you consider machine learning to be a form of growth. In an abstract sense, you could also consider that the transfer of power throughout a computers system constitutes a metabolism. This really leaves physical growth and reproduction as the main landmarks computers must cross to be considering living. While it is certainly less than definitive if computers have truly reach human-like intelligence, I do think it would be difficult to argue that they are not at least intelligent in some way.

To solve the reproduction and growth issues regarding computers, perhaps it is more interesting to consider a program within a computer. A program can easily grow or reproduce. The issues in this case have more to do with metabolism, although in a very abstract sense perhaps you could consider the shifting of bits within a programs memory space to be a sort of metabolism. Unfortunately a program still cannot react with its environment without the aid of hardware that it cannot reproduce. From this I conclude that the only circumstance in which we could consider a program alive would be in a purely virtual world, and the program would only be alive in that contex


Picture courtesy of google image search, from the movie Artifical Intelligence.

Chinese Room

Reference
Title: Minds, Brains, and Programs
Author: John R. Searle

Summary
This article is the origin of the Chinese Room concept and argument. In essence, the argument states that if an English speaking person can follow a set of rules to create a written reply to a query placed by a Chinese speaking person well enough that the Chinese speaker would falsely believe them to understand Chinese, the English speaker still does not understand the Chinese language. This claim is then extended to AI in order to make the statement that an AI is not truly intelligent simply because it can make a human-like reply to a query posed in our language. To summarize the argument in just a few words, Searle argues that Strong AI has no comprehension of semantics.

Discussion
This argument is one of the main counter arguments to the Turing Test. However, between the two I would tend to side with the Turing Test. At the most basic level, we must all believe that other people are cognitive, self-aware, and real. Without this we all fall into solipsism. By Searle's own argument, we have no more proof that other individuals are self-aware than we have that a Turing machine is self-aware, but if we cannot tell the difference then it only follows that we should extend the same courtesy to both. This applies to Searle's own Chinese Room argument as well.

In addition, and as a supplement to my previous argument, I feel that if an individual can successfully follow an instruction manual in the creation of a statement in a language that they do not speak, that individual can still be said to understand the statement in some sense. This requires a bit of an abstract perspective, but consider that the individual and the instruction manual together form a separate entity that can understand and reply to Chinese queries. The key point here is that the understanding is abstracted to a new entity of which both the manual and the individual form only a part. I feel this is a fair point to make, as Searle's argument encompasses the entire system in its premise, but the conclusion of the argument is focused on only part of the system. This conclusion is then paralleled to a different system, and used to conclude that the entire second system is the same as only part of the first. A more appropriate parallel to make would be that if a computer were preforming the same task, the CPU in the computer would have no understanding of the meaning of what it was translating. This says nothing however about the comprehension of the computer as a whole.


Picture courtesy of Google image search, from Jim Carnicelli's AI blog.

Book Reading #1 (and #5): Microblog for The Design of Everyday Things

Reference
Title: The Design of Everyday Things
Author: Donald A. Norman


Chapter 1
Summary
The first chapter is largely about a combination of user/human error and its perception, and the excessive complexity of common technology. Some of the key design points he mentioned include visibility, intuitive design, mapping, and feedback.
Discussion
I liked this reading a lot, and I think that the author has some truly innovative and important ideas to convey. However I think most of the problems he describes come from base problems in human nature regarding product development, especially in a market economy. Developers suffer from a lack of an objective perspective that is powerful enough to dissuade them of their preconceptions regarding the product they are designing. Perhaps some of Donald Norman's ideas could lessen these preconceptions in the design process however.

Chapter 2
Summary
The second chapter places a larger emphasis on the false perception of human error. This includes concepts such as learned and taught denominations regarding helplessness. To better understand and justify these claims, the author also spends a significant amount of the chapter outlining the stages of action and the natural thought process.
Discussion
As with the first chapter, I greatly enjoyed this reading. I felt like the author set the reader up well for the second chapter, as the first chapter is sort of a discussion of the problem, while the second chapter is more solution focused. It is interesting that despite the length of these readings relative to other readings, I found this reading to be much more fluid, and personally perceived it as faster. I think this point draws a parallel with what the author is trying to accomplish and is definitely a strong point in his favor.

Ethnography Ideas

1) Study on user preference regarding smart phones, and the factors that contribute to these preferences.
This would include a survey most likely asking users about their phones to see how many features they are unaware of on their own device.

2) Study on the use of the A&M bus system by individuals who do not attend A&M.
This is mostly in regard to how many people local to college station use the A&M transit system for free rides around town, and if this creates a problem for students legitimately attempting to use the system to make it to classes. This could be done by riding along on several bus routes and recording how many people have study materials.

3) Study on user perference regarding web browsers, and the factors that contribute to there preferences.
This one is very similar to my first idea, and would also be survey based.

Book Reading #2 (and #6): Microblog for Coming of Age in Samoa

Reference
Title: Coming of Age in Samoa
Author: Margaret Mead


Chapter 1
Summary
The first chapter is an introduction to the rational behind using Samoa for the author's study, and some of the factors considered in the study. As the author explains, the purpose of her study is to better understand teenagers undergoing adolescence  This chapter also has some discussion on how this ethnography could benefit our own culture.
Discussion
A large part of the author's rational regarding the purpose of her study seems to hinge on the concept that by analyzing a stage in a radically different culture and then cross referencing it with the same stage in our own culture, you can gain insights that you may not have been able to see before hand. While this article doesn't have much to do with the C part of CHI, I still think it was a good read, and a great way to set the foundation for the HI part.

Chapter 2
Summary
The second chapter is largely a detailed account of daily family interactions. This includes all family members, including the adults and small children.
Discussion
While this chapter was effective at drawing the reader into the author's story and was very informative, the information is also pretty subjective. The concept of 'a typical day' is purely relative, although I concede that Margaret Mead, as an accomplished anthropologist, is better qualified to make this distinction than I would be. Nevertheless, the author still detailed only two days in this chapter, which to a purely objective reader is not anything to make inferences out of.

Appendix II
Summary
This appendix lists all of the considerations and assumptions made throughout the study, including allowances in the data collection process. The sample size (68 girls) and study constraints were also outlined here.
Discussion
This section is probably one of the most important in the book, as any study is irrelevant without the methodologies behind its collection process. I disliked that she needed to use translators to conduct interviews, as this introduces a second point of bias, but there wasn't much she could do about this aside from learning the native language.

Appendix V
Summary
This appendix outlines the content of data collected from the subjects, including information on each girl's test scores and social interactions. The information presented in this appendix came primary from questionnaires and tests.
Discussion
Most of the information presented is of the personal nature, although some things such as the intelligence test were more generic. I liked that the author gave these tests as it helps to give perspective on some of the other factors seen in the data. With such a small sample size, ruling out variables you are less interested in as contributers is important. On the downside, the test she gave wasn't standardized, which raises subjectivity questions regarding what the author considers to be intelligent. I understand that giving the girls a standardized test was not feasible though, but perhaps this raises the question that if any intelligence test, no matter how carefully tailored, would really provide useful information.

Introduction

My name is Kevin Casey. I'm a 5th year computer engineering senior, and I'll be graduating in May this year. I'm taking this class as my final technical elective credit, but also because I think it will help balance some of my other electives and work as an undergraduate which mostly focused on hardware. This is a somewhat older picture of me before I cut my hair recently:


I've had lots of work with micro controllers, although that isn't hugely relevant in a CHI class. Probably the biggest CHI related work I've done is a work in progress - a project I'm working on with a team of other undergrads and directed by Dr. Liu here at A&M for the Microsoft Imagine Cup competition. The project is for an embedded platform, but is very UI intensive as it aims to create a touch screen device usable by illiterate individuals.

In 10 years I would like to be working in research and development in the military/security sector, maybe lockheed martin or something else. Most likely I wont be, thats just where I'd like to be.

I think the next biggest development from a hardware stance in computers would probably have to do with overcoming the low fault-tolerance inherent in binary computing. This is important as computers get smaller and smaller. At some point we will begin to enter the quantum domain, and in order to continue building more powerful computers we will have to adapt our thinking. When we do overcome this barrier though, it will most likely revolutionize computing.

If I could travel back in time, I would go back and check out ancient Greece or maybe Rome. There isn't any one in particular I'm dieing to meet, but I think both cultures were amazing for their time.

I don't really have a favorite mustache, but if I had to pick one I'd probably go with the classic French mustache (also known as a handlebar mustache). This pick is probably entirely influenced by media and movies.

If I could be fluent in any foreign language, I'd probably pick either latin or Japanese. Latin because nearly no one speaks it, which makes it more interesting, and Japanese because I would be able to understand all the media coming from that country (mostly anime).

As an interesting fact about myself, I own an african grey parrot.