Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 1 of 8
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
Introduction
The annual CHI conference is the leading international forum for the exchange of ideas
and information about human-computer interaction (HCI). Diverse members of the global
HCI community meet at the CHI conference to share the excitement of discovery and
invention, to make and strengthen professional relationships and friendships, and to
tackle real world problems.
The overall theme of CHI2003 was New Horizons, with special areas looking at elearning, emotion, and mass communication and interaction. This report covers the
special areas as well as other papers, short talks, special interest groups, and panels.
All references to full papers are to the ACM digital library (http://www.acm.org/dl/)
which requires paid access. Annual fees are $198 (for ACM Professional Membership
PLUS ACM Portal).
Papers
PenPets: A Physical Environment for Virtual Animals
Day 1: Papers: Physical-Virtual World Interaction
Shaun O’Mahony, University of York, UK; John A Robinson, University of York, UK
A video presentation, showing lovely fluid interactions demonstrated using light-weight
tools.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765895
Personal Universal Controllers: Controlling Complex Appliances With GUIs and
Speech
Day 1: Papers: Physical-Virtual World Interaction
Jeffrey Nichols, Carnegie Mellon University, USA; Brad A. Myers, Carnegie Mellon
University, USA; Michael Higgins, MAYA Design, Inc., USA; Joseph Hughes, MAYA
Design, Inc., USA; Thomas K. Harris, Carnegie Mellon University, USA; Roni Rosenfeld,
Carnegie Mellon University, USA; Kevin Litwack, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
We like Brad and Jef’s philosophy – using gadgets to simplify the world rather than adding
another layer of complexity. The demo was ambitious (and bits of it didn’t work – but that
is to be expected) with a range of control situations discussed (X10 light bulbs,
camcorders, cars, etc).
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765896
Media Inequality in Conversation: How People Behave Differently When Interacting
with Computers and People
Day 2: Papers: Digital Sociability
Nicole Shechtman, SRI International/Stanford University, USA; Leonard Horowitz,
Stanford University, USA
This is a controversial paper, attempting to challenge aspects of the well established ‘media
equation’. The paper is more aggressive than the presentation was; even so, we were not
convinced by their arguments, but the work raises interesting questions and caused a lot of
debate.
D:\106759940.doc
Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 2 of 8
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/642611.642661
How Do People Manage Their Digital Photographs?
Day 2: Papers: Searching and Organizing
Kerry Rodden, University of Cambridge; Kenneth Wood, Microsoft Research Limited
Digital photo systems will be a significant application in next five years, but current
systems seem to be interactively ‘clunky’. This nice paper gives some useful insights into
how we might better support users.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/642611.642682
Ethnographic Interviews Guide Design of Ford Vehicles Website
Day 2: Papers: Design & Usability in Practice: Ethnography and User-Centered Design
Stephanie Rosenbaum, Tec-Ed, Inc. USA
Project goals: Case study demonstrates using ethnographic interviews to obtain valuable
vehicle buyer data that help refine the vehicle Web site.
The author adapted the traditionally long-term methodology for short-term user
research projects by focusing the contextual inquiries tightly on key issues defined by the
Web design agency. Conducted ten one-hour interviews at the homes of vehicle buyers.
The agency used the findings to redesign the site. The follow-up usability testing
demonstrated improvement on the previous site design.
The presentation was very engaging with the presenter demonstrating how the
interviews were conducted and how the findings informed the site re-design. It is a very
convincing case study that practitioners can show the clients to demonstrate that user
research could be scaled to fit the purposes and constraints of a project, both in time and
budget, and that the improvements based on the findings are measurable (by usability
testing).
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765911
Designing Design
Day 2: Papers
William Gaver, Royal College of Art, UK
Project Objectives: Opening up HCI to influences from Art and Design
Approach: Examination of various practices from Art and Design fields that might enrich
HCI (and using HCI techniques to fine-tune interactive art).
References: Conservative, Romantic and Pragmatic accounts of what art ‘is’.
Key ideas: Sketching is intrinsic to Art and Design, so it should be to HCI; the aim of
design-oriented research is knowledge, ‘truth’, and research-oriented design is the artifact;
ambiguity should be employed as a resource for HCI as it allows issues to be raised but not
decided, it is a property of interaction; HCI techniques (eg: ethnography, task analysis) can
helpfully be used in the evaluation and iteration of interactive art
Conclusion: HCI, Art and Design can learn from each others and specifically by wandering
over discipline boundaries.
Comments: Diverse but fertile series of papers that showed how an understanding of user
experience underlies much of the work undertaken in Art, Design and HCI. As computers
find themselves in more diverse socio-cultural contexts this disciplinary cross-fertilisation
should tend to increase.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/642611.642653
D:\106759940.doc
Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 3 of 8
Halo: a Technique for Visualizing Off-Screen Objects
Day 3: Papers: Interaction Techniques for Constrained Displays
Patrick Baudisch, Microsoft Research, USA; Ruth Rosenholtz, Palo Alto Research Center,
USA
Simple but effective technique for map navigation tasks. Good video available on the
conference DVD.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/642611.642695
Short Talks
Two Methods for Auto-Organising Personal Web History
Day 3: Papers/Demonstrations/Short Talks: World Wide Web
Scott LeeTiernan, University of Washington, USA
(http://shodalab.psych.washington.edu/scott/)
Project goals: organise Web history to better match users’ mental models.
Method: The similarity of pages was inferred from the URL root and the time accessed.
Web history was visualised, though the visualisation was not very good. The pilot study
asked “To what extent does organization match your history/mental model?”
Conclusions: improvements over Internet Explorer’s history function.
Issues and directions: organisation vs visualisation, and scalability. Didn’t use text
similarity (Chen and Dumais, 2000).
Questions: Did they consider using link analysis between pages?
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.766008
A Fisheye Calendar Interface for PDAs: Providing Overviews for Small Displays
Day 1: Short Talks
Benjamin Bederson, University of Maryland, USA; Aaron Clamage, University of
Maryland, USA; Mary Czerwinski, Microsoft Research, USA; George Robertson,
Microsoft Research, USA
Great example of an handheld interaction scheme that really “fits” well with user needs,
device limitations, etc, in the mobile context. The work is particularly as Bederson and his
group have developed an open source version of the toolkit (Piccolo), which was used to
develop DateLens.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765893
Peephole Displays: Pen Interaction on Spatially Aware Handheld Computers
Day 1: Short Talks
Ka-Ping Yee, University of California, Berkeley, USA
This session was a joy to attend. Although the work presents a particular prototype using
a handheld computer, the bigger contribution is the way Ka-Ping opens up really
interesting issues of personal information spaces – a neat vision of how ubiquitous
information access might be operationalised. The video presentations (separate sessions)
that went with this work are also very good, both in terms of production and intellectual
content).
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765902
D:\106759940.doc
Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 4 of 8
Typing in Thin Air, The Canesta Projection Keyboard – A New Method of Interaction
with Electronic Devices
Day 1: Demonstration/Paper/Short Talks: Interaction Techniques for Handheld Devices
Helena Roeber, Canesta, Inc. USA
Project goals: Provide handheld devices with a lightweight, portable, and low power input
solution for text entry.
Approach: The projected keyboard works on any surface. The QWERTY layout leverages
most users’ familiarity with mechanical keyboard.
Evaluation: It performed fairly well during usability testing comparing with three other
devices: a mechanical keyboard, thumb keyboard, and Graffiti (the Palm handwriting
entry software). Though lagging behind mechanical keyboards in terms of speed and error
rate, it outperformed the thumb keyboard and Graffiti for speed. However, it has higher
error rate than the thumb keyboard.
Issues: The keyboard is still relatively small (as some test participants commented). It
lacks the tactile feedback that an expert typist requires.
Questions: Why can’t you raise the height of the projector to increase the size of projectedkeyboard? Siemens had introduced a similar product in March, 2002.
Remarks: The demonstration was pretty straightforward. Descriptions of the product and
usability test results are very clear. We particularly enjoyed trying the actual device: it
actually worked. The presentation/demonstration showed practitioners a practical
solution to text entry for small, handheld devices.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765944
Special Interest Groups
HCI and the Arts: A Conflicted Convergence?’
Day 3: Special Interest Group
Chris Csikszentmihalyi, MIT Media Lab, USA
Project Objectives: Outline the domain of ITCP (Information Technology in Creative
Practices)
Approach: Nationally sponsored research into the ways in which IT and Creative Practices
are currently collaborating (and how they should be encouraged to in the future).
References: ‘Beyond Productivity: Information, Technology, Innovation and Creativity’
(National Academies Press, 2003); I3 programme (of the EU).
Key ideas: Inter-disciplinarity (collaboration without disciplinary change) vs Transdisciplinarity (collaboration where disciplines are changed); Problems of securing research
funding for this type of enquiry (grant-giving bodies tend to focus on productivity
metrics); IT can provide new tools for artists and designers, art can provide ways to
fundamentally rethink IT research (stressing the importance of improvisation,
experimentation, interoperability, extensibility, modularity and backwards compatibility).
Conclusion: HCI is moving towards an Information Arts perspective. There are trong
emerging requirement for a ‘Digital Bauhaus’ (or even several).
Personal comments: Timely consideration of the ways in which HCI and the Arts can
productively influence each other and the challenges and opportunities this presents for
both disciplines (backed up by a very detailed report which is available online).
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.766044
D:\106759940.doc
Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 5 of 8
Panels
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam How Can We Stop It?
Day 3: Panels
Jonathan Lazar, Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, USA ;
Elizabeth Churchill, FX Palo Alto Laboratory, USA; Hans deGraaff, KPN Mobile,
Netherlands; Batya Friedman, University of Washington, USA; Joseph Konstan,
University of Minnesota, USA; Jenny Preece, UMBC, USA
Lively panel – interesting diverse viewpoints… We liked Elizabeth’s point-of-view: “its not
the spam that worries me; it’s the stuff I get from colleagues” [paraphrase]. Like her, we
quite enjoy spam but Jenny and others made good points about impact on developing
countries etc. We think that spam is the new Millenium Bug (overstated, overhyped).
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765940
The “Magic Number 5:” Is It Enough for Web Testing?
Day 2: Panel
Nigel Bevan, Serco Usability Services, UK
Panel Goals: To discuss the seemingly conflicting recommendations on the optimum
number of participants for usability testing by various experts in this area.
Jared Spool (UIE, USA): My test data showed that the number of usability problems found
in testing increases as the number of participants increases. It doesn’t taper off at 5
participants as Nielsen suggested. In the real world, we test as many users as limited by the
time and resources. It is always better than not doing it.
Rolf Molich (DialogDesign, Denmark): Depending on the goals of testing, the optimum
number ranges from 3 to over 100. In my usability testing research, CUE1 and CUE2,
which employed 7 usability-testing experts to test the same product, the majority of
problems, 75% for CUE1 and 91% for CUE2, were reported by only one team.
Gilbert Cockton (University of Sunderland, UK): There is not a clear-cut answer for this
question because users and problems are discrete for every project. Test planning based on
the project goals – a Discovery Model which identifies all variables that influence problem
discovery.
Carol Barnum (Southern Polytechnic State University, USA): Molich and Spool’s
researches suggest that 5 is nowhere close to enough. My own studies suggest that very
similar results can be duplicated by different test teams. 5 is enough for Web testing as
long as the results are used for diagnostic purposes not for validation.
Dennis Wixon (Microsoft Corp, USA): In the commercial world, the goal is to produce the
best possible design. Usability testing is not just to find errors but to get them fixed as
efficiently as possible and be sure that the fixes actually work for users. Practitioners must
employ usability methodology in context. Therefore the number of participant should be
based on the project needs.
Comments: The panels’ diverting viewpoint best demonstrated that there is no ‘one size
fits all’ solution/recommendation, not just about the optimum number of test participants
but also about most other recommendations. Practitioners should consider the context in
selecting usability methodologies appropriate for the project goals and project constraints
(both time and resources) for best possible product.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765936
D:\106759940.doc
Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 6 of 8
Post-cognitivist HCI: Second-wave Theories
Day 1: Panel
Bonnie A Nardi, Agilent Laboratories,USA (moderator)
Project Objectives: Taking theoretical consideration of HCI ‘Beyond Information
Processing’.
Approach: Cognition is embodied/a social construct; new devices, modalities of use and
the social dimension of interaction have made this clear.
References: Activity theory, Cognitive Psychology, Distributed cognition, Language/Action
Theory
Key ideas: HCI must move towards analysis and design for a particular work practice,
focus on active use and multiple, complex contexts; there is a need to open up the ‘unit’ of
HCI analysis beyond the individual; the complexity of the HCI context is increasing
because of ubicomp [ubiquitous computing]; we urgently need metrics beyond efficiency
and productivity.
Conclusion: Opening up the social dimension of interaction with systems is imperative for
HCI.
Personal comments: Strong introduction to the complexities of emerging HCI theory,
useful background for participation in this level of debate to be found in Dourish’s Where
the Action Is (The MIT Press, 2001)1. We need to work out how to engage industry with
some of these insights in a suitable form.
Full paper at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/765891.765933
CHI and the Fate of AOL Time Warner
Dan Gillmor, San Jose Mercury Technology Columnist, USA
Day 1: Special Area Session Panel
Objectives: Consider what role HCI can claim for itself in the development of mass media
post the collapse in value of AOL Time Warner.
Approach: Need to go back to Tim Berners-Lee’s original vision of the web as a read-write
medium, user-generated input and commentary is one plausible scenario for the future.
Key ideas: Profit margins of the mass media will be eroded but there are possible models
of online profitability that need to be explored (eg: online gaming); tools are needed to
facilitate payment; tools are needed to facilitate ground-up user involvement and foster
community (trends such as moblogging [mobile posting to a Weblog] and photoblogging
are a promising start).
Conclusion: Media owners should move towards opening a channel of communication for
user generated comment (when an event occurs people can send in what they have).
Book information. Dourish, an alumnus of Xerox PARC and Assistant Professor and UC Irvine, argues that
HCI needs to establish a new philosophical basis and argues for what he calls ‘embodied interaction’, an
approach to interacting with software that “emphasised skilled, engaged practice rather than diesembodied
rationality”. He discusses tangible and social approaches to interaction as tools for understanding embodied
interaction, and considers how they could affect the design of future interactive systems.
1
D:\106759940.doc
Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 7 of 8
Comments: Promising avenues for exploration but large media corporates are both
concerned about their revenues and slow to innovate, much work needs to be done in
terms of revisions/change to institutional structures required before we will see real
change (perhaps it will come from without rather than within be co-opted, as with
blogging).
Plenaries
Emotion & Design
Day 3: Closing plenary
Donald A Norman
[Norman is soon to publish Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things
(Basic Books, 2004) http://www.jnd.org/books.html This site also gives background
information on his writing and work.]
In the Mini Cooper the company optimised fun. We used to focus on making things that
work well. Given our rhetoric (shows Jakob Nielsen phrases) no wonder we don’t get
attention from CEOs. Making something useful is only a small part of what life is about.
You can’t separate affect from cognition. You think differently when you are under
pressure. So, attractive things do work better. (See Ortony, Norman & Revelle on ‘Effective
Functioning’.)
There are three levels of emotion. Visceral(reactive): wired in (sweet tastes are good,
scolding voices are bad, consistent, adaptation and classic conditioning). Behavioural
(routine): most of what we do, learned. Reflective: includes sense of oneself. What
distinguishes one kind of water from another? [Shows Jaguar E-type as example of
visceral design that works badly.]
We don’t address the feel of design to the body: tangible. This is behavioural design.
The history of fashion is history of reflective design.
You cannot design something that has no [emotional] characteristic. Photographs have
huge emotional value as do souvenirs. SMS is an emotional tool: their messages appear to
be empty. A $13,000 watch is reflective, saying something about you. It is OK if someone
has to explain to you how something works, but not if they have to explain it a second
time.
Why don’t we pay more attention to the sounds things make. Visually and acoustically
attractive. [Shows Alessi juicer and well- balanced Japanese knife: claims juicer works
well.]
We can convey emotion in a wide variety of ways. R2D2, Sony Aibo, serving robot.
“Beauty is good.” It makes us do things better.
References: Designing Pleasurable Products Patrick Jordan, Funology Andrew Monk et
al., Designing Emotion Pieter Desmet.
Discussion: [Question on the theory.] We don’t impact why people buy the product so
business doesn’t pay us any attention. Overlap with marketing? Yes. Why do you fight
with engineering and marketing? Surely you should collaborate? “ This isn’t a design
community.” Our objective is to make the product, not usability [or any specific
dimension]. Where do you draw a line between emotion and experience? I don’t want to.
D:\106759940.doc
Nico Macdonald|Spy: Reports
CHI2003 ‘New Horizons’ Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 2003
07 March 2016 Page 8 of 8
Credits
Report commissioned and edited by Nico Macdonald, with contributions from Fu-Tien
Chiou, Luke Skrebowski, and Matt Jones.
Spy
103 Seddon House, Barbican
London EC2Y 8BX
2003 © Spy. No reproduction or circulation authorised without permission.
This report can be found at http://www.spy.co.uk/Reports/CHI2003
D:\106759940.doc