CHI 2002

1. 20 hours of CHI 2002 ..in 2*20 minutes!

2. CHI@20 “Fighting our way from marginality to power.” Ben Schneiderman Mitchel Waldrop Don Norman Stuart Card Marilyn Tremaine Alan Wexelblat

3. CHI@20 “Fighting our way from marginality to power.” • HCI started @ MIT - J.C.R. Licklider • Experimental Psychologist (psychoacoustics) • “Man-Machine Symbiosis” (1960) • conducted Human Factors research for SAGE defense system • started computer research @ BBN • Intergalactic Computer Network w/ ARPA • Xerox PARC Alto Personal Computer

4. To advance HCI, “We need to become designers, we need better tools for design. We need aesthetics: beauty + layout + design. Pleasant things work better.” HCI needs to develop its own science and theory. Usability by itself is important, but you can’t base the whole discipline on usability - it does not provide leverage to advance the field. The tool we need the most is a cognitive simulation system, an HCI ‘Spice’. CHI@20 “Fighting our way from marginality to power.”

5. CHI@20 “Fighting our way from marginality to power.” “We have so little fundamental design + evaluation theory that we cannot teach a coherent course in the subject of HCI. Today’s students are building tomorrow’s interfaces, and they don’t know what’s going on because we don’t know what’s going on. We keep building new applications because that’s exciting. But that’s shallow. We need to reward replication, a theory for evaluation methods, frameworks for design. We need a ‘set of white rats’ - standard basis to build and evaulate upon.”

6. CHI@20 “Fighting our way from marginality to power.” “The 4 Human Needs of this age are to : Collect: Information Relate: Communication Create: Innovation Donate: Dissemmination” B. Schneidermann “Interfaces?! We’re not about interfaces. And ACM is not for Computers, or Machinery. It’s about PEOPLE. We’re not about icons and menus. What’s the next interface of the future? I don’t know, and I don’t care. What I care about is what I’ll be able to do in the future.” D. Norman

7. RoomWare: 2nd Generation [ http://www.ipsi.fhg.de/ambiente ]

8. Social + Emotional Interfaces: Clifford Naas (Stanford) - Interactions with software interfaces elicit socio-emotional responses. Rosalind Picard (Media Lab) - Interfaces need not necessarily become more human-like; but should still be designed with explicit regard to human emotion. To do this, we must detect and classify users’ emotions. Pressure Mouse Nod detection, confusion sensing Kevin Warwick (Univ. of Reading) - To truly sense human emotion, we can add sensing implants - and become cyborgs! [ http://www.kevinwarwick.org/ ] Cynthia Breazeal (9th floor) - KISMET! Rosalind Picard, MIT Media Lab

9. All about Gaze: • - Head Orientation and Gaze Direction in Meetings • (R. Stiefelhagen, Univ. of Karlsruhe, Germany; J. Zhu, CMU) • Evaluated gaze estimation based upon head pose tracking • for us! Result: Head Pose focus-of-attention estimation • accuracy: 88.7% (p.860) • Messages Embedded in Gaze of Interface Agents: Impressions • Management with Agent’s Gaze • (A. Fukayama, T. Ohno, N.Mukawa, et al, NTT Corporation) • Gaze Behavior in Talking Faces Makes a Difference • (Es, Heylen, van Dijk, Nijholt et al., Univ. of Twente) • Focus + Context Screens (Xerox PARC) - Eye Tracking Demos

10. Q: How many users should you test in a usability study? JN: Depends on what you’re testing for: Metrics / Statistics - a large # Answering Design Questions - LESS is MORE. i.e.: if you have a budget for testing 100 people, and had the choice of testing 20 experiments of 5 people, versus 5 experiments of 20 people each, choose the former! You will learn more. Q: Interaction Design is about a combination of science and art. How do we teach the ‘art’? JN: Aesthetics is hard to put into a formula. It may be best taught by example. Q: It frequently seems that aesthetics and usability are frequently in conflict with each other. Do you find this to be the case? JN: No, they aren’t inherently in conflict; but they can be if you emphasize one and neglect the other. (Look at the Web for many examples!) But we CAN achieve both goals. Foe example, consistency is good for usability. But this does NOT imply that all sites have to look the same. Look at the English language (...) Ask Jakob

11. Q: What happened to Non-Command Interfaces? JN: Non-command interfaces (ie, “I do my task, and it does what it needs to do.”) will be coming back in a very big way. Today, all we see are simple examples like plugging an Ethernet cable into your card and having it auto-configure for the network. But, soon, interfaces that sense and ‘do what’s right’ will become very important, esp. with mobile devices. Q: How do we evaluate our interfaces? JN: All we have today is heuristic evaluation. But we need to remember to evaluate on 3 levels of heuristics: - the truly generic heuristics we defined many years ago - list of more specific guidelines that relate to the domain - our own specific ones that come from the specific application. Q: What’s next? JN: The challenge of making small devices + pocket gadgets, desktops, and intelligent places and spaces and deliver a unified user experience. Ask Jakob

12. Laser Pointers: Interacting at a Distance: Measuring the Performance of Laser Pointers and Other Devices (B. Myers, R. Bhatnagar, et al, CMU) Comparative study of laser pointing accuracy in 4 different laser pointing devices and grips with a mouse accuracy, a touch sensitive SmartBoard and “Semantic Snarfing” pointing to iPaqs. Results: Laser pointing extremely inappropriate as substitute for mouse - beam too unsteady, users unable to turn on + off laser pointer when appropriate, and there is no mouse button. SmartBoards afforded fastest and most accurate of the tested devices.

13. Location-based “awareness”: A new Lovegety Social Nets: Using Patterns of Physical Proximity Over Time to Infer Shared Interests (M. Terry, E. Mynatt, Georgia Tech) An ‘interest-matching’ application which extends the Lovegety system by integrating proximity information over time. Implemented on Cybiko’s, deployed at CHI 2001.

14. the CHAI troupe: “we went, we studied, we left... ... next year, we will CONQUER!”