X-Apparently-To: rashmi_sinha@yahoo.com via web2305
X-Track: 1: 40
Received: from malaprop.SIMS.Berkeley.EDU (EHLO malaprop.sims.berkeley.edu)
(128.32.226.99)
by mta409.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 05 Mar 2001 17:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by malaprop.sims.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA10601
for tango-outgoing; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bailando.sims.berkeley.edu (bailando.sims.berkeley.edu [128.32.226.68])
by malaprop.sims.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA10596
for <tango@sims>; Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from hearst@localhost)
by bailando.sims.berkeley.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00373;
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200103060141.RAA00373@bailando.sims.berkeley.edu>
X-Authentication-Warning: bailando.sims.berkeley.edu: hearst set sender to
hearst@bailando.sims.berkeley.edu using -f
From: Marti Hearst <hearst@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>
To: tango@sims.berkeley.edu
Subject: HFWeb accepted!
Sender: owner-tango@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU
Precedence: bulk
------- Start of forwarded message ------From: "David Addy" <dladdy@optavia.com>
To: "'Marti Hearst'" <hearst@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: word version of hfweb submission
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:34:21 -0600
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3A6C7647.206A3C09@sims.berkeley.edu>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300
Importance: Normal
Disposition-Notification-To: "David Addy" <dladdy@optavia.com>
Marti,
Could you please pass along this e-mail to the other authors of the
submission?
Thanks!
March 5, 2001
Dear Mr. Sinha, Ms. Hearst, Ms. Ivory, and Ms. Draisin:
Thank you for your paper submission, Content or Graphics? An Empirical
Analysis of Criteria for Award-Winning Web Sites, for the 7th Conference on
Human Factors and the Web in Madison, Wisconsin. We are pleased to inform
you that your paper has been accepted for presentation at the conference on
Monday, June 4, 2001. Please note the suggested revisions below as provided
by our panel of reviewers. The comments are taken directly from the
submitted feedback on review sheets.
We understand that you may or may not refine this research before the
conference in June. The final copy of your paper is due in PDF format along
with your PowerPoint presentation by Wednesday, May 2, 2001. We will be
emailing the conference PowerPoint template to you by Thursday, March 22,
2001. Please be advised that all presentations must use the conference
template. Alternative formats will not be accepted.
Also, since we have accepted your research for presentation, you are
responsible for its delivery. If you are unable to attend the conference,
please make arrangements for a qualified colleague to appear and present in
your place.
Upon receiving this, please e-mail me confirming your participation. Also
include the final title of your presentation that will be posted in the
program if it differs from your submission.
There will be a reception for conference presenters at 6:00 on Sunday, June
3, 2001 at the conference hotel. There you will have an opportunity to meet
the other presenters and receive the final schedule for the conference.
I would like to again congratulate you on acceptance of your paper for the
conference. I look forward to working with you in the ensuing months
Regards,
David L. Addy, Ph.D.
Papers Chair, HFWeb 2001
DLAddy@optavia.com
If accepted, the authors should clarify who the raters were earlier in the
paper and report on inter-rater reliability. They should also beware of
drawing conclusions based on absolute differences between correlations.
They need to report the significance of the correlations in their category
analysis (News, Art, etc.). They need to number the figures correctly in
the text (e.g., 1a, 1b, and so forth).
The authors sometimes use the plural of criterion ("criteria") when they
should be using the singular ("criterion").
Explain what constitutes "an overall score" in the abstract.
Use active voice instead of passive. For example, "pool of 2909 sites was
rated on overall quality." Say who did the rating: "The Webby judges rated
a pool of ...."
Also, "the websites are assigned into 27 categories..." By whom are they
assigned? At the beginning of the paper, the reader is unsure of who is
doing the rating and assigning. This becomes clearer later, but it would
help to clarify it earlier.
Representation and interpretation of the partial correlations needs to be
clarified.
Do not report exact alpha levels. Use a standard alpha level (.05 or .01)
and say whether or not results were significant based on this standard. The
specific alpha level does not generalize.
Report whether or not correlations are significant.
Stylistically, instead of saying "determine if..." or "evaluate if...," say
"determine whether..." and "evaluate whether..."
At the end, say more about the "novel approaches" that might be taken "to
the development of web design guidelines." It's easy to say that the
findings suggest novel approaches, but the authors leave the reader
wondering exactly what they have in mind.
------- End of forwarded message --------------Posted to the tango@sims.berkeley.edu mailing list.
To unsubscribe, send an email message to Majordomo@sims.berkeley.edu
with the phrase "unsubscribe tango" in the body of the message.