Schedule
Expect some reordering and other changes. I am posting the full outline in advance to give you a course overview.
Reading responses are due the night before class (11:59 PM). They may be shared with the class (including your name).| Week 1: | 1/11 |
Introduction
[slides
 ]
|
|
| 1/13 |
Scope and history of HCI
[slides
]
|
||
| 1/15 | |||
| Week 2: | 1/20 |
Modeling human performance » Human-information processor
[slides
]
|
|
| 1/22 |
Modeling human performance » Fitt's law
–
Video: FFitts Law, preview, 0m43s
|
||
| Week 3: | 1/25 |
Modeling human performance » Fitts' law
|
|
| 1/27 |
Design » foundations » overview
[slides
]
|
||
| 1/29 |
Design » foundations » affordances, mental models
|
||
| Week 4: | 2/1 |
Design » foundations » goals, actions
–
Video: Don Norman TED talk
|
|
| 2/3 |
Haptics » perception – Guest: Prof. Hong Tan
[slides
 ]
|
||
| 2/5 |
Design » foundations » direct manipulation
|
||
| Week 5: | 2/8 |
Design » methods » Paper prototyping
|
declare groups,
due 2/8 (Mon)
|
| 2/10 |
Design » methods » Prototyping
[slides
]
|
||
| 2/12 |
Haptics » technologies – Guest: Prof. Hong Tan
[slides
]
|
||
| Week 6: | 2/15 |
Design » problem solving » Introduction, guidelines
|
|
| 2/17 |
Design » problem solving » Brainstorming
[slides
]
|
||
| 2/19 |
Design » problem solving » Discovery
[slides
]
|
||
| Week 7: | 2/22 |
Design » problem solving » Contextual design
[slides
]
|
pre-proposal,
due 2/22 (Mon)
Low-fidelity prototype,
due 2/26 (Fri)
|
| 2/24 |
Design » formalisms » QOC notation for design rationales
[slides
]
|
||
| 2/26 |
Design » formalisms » cognitive dimensions of notations
|
||
| Week 8: | 2/29 |
Design » end-user programming
|
|
| 3/2 |
no class
|
||
| 3/4 |
Midterm
|
||
| Week 9: | 3/7 |
End-user programming
[slides
]
|
proposal,
due 3/9 (Wed)
|
| 3/9 |
End-user programming, undo
|
||
| 3/11 |
Undo
[slides
]
|
||
| Week 10: | 3/21 |
Implement undo,
due 3/23 (Wed)
|
|
| 3/23 |
Heuristics
–
Shneiderman's Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design
|
||
| 3/25 |
Heuristics » heuristic evaluation exercise
|
||
| Week 11: | 3/28 |
User goals, Keystroke-Level Model (KLM)
|
v0.1,
due 3/28 (Mon)
|
| 3/30 |
Keystroke-Level Model (KLM), exercise
[slides
]
|
||
| 4/1 |
Security » usable security, problems
[slides
]
|
||
| Week 12: | 4/4 |
Security » phishing
[slides
]
|
video storyboard,
due 4/6 (Wed)
|
| 4/6 | |||
| 4/8 |
Evaluation » visualization insight
|
||
| Week 13: | 4/11 |
Evaluation » principles
|
v0.5,
due 4/13 (Wed)
|
| 4/13 |
Evaluation
|
||
| 4/15 |
Evaluation » planning a study
[slides
]
|
||
| Week 14: | 4/18 |
Evaluation
|
report,
due 4/22 (Fri)
|
| 4/20 |
Evaluation » metrics
[slides
]
|
||
| 4/22 |
HCI research
[slides
]
|
||
| Week 15: | 4/25 |
HCI research
|
video,
due 4/28 (Thu)
|
| 4/27 |
TBD
|
||
| 4/29 |
Project presentations
|
Readings
How to read papers for this course
Many people find it easier to read papers if they have a purpose in mind. As you read each paper, you might find it helpful to focus on a few questions:
- What was the contribution type? (examples)
- What do the authors claim as their key contributions?
- What strategies, methods, and technologies were used?
- What generalizable knowledge does the work contribute? What research questions does it address? How will this benefit other researchers?
- Do you find the conclusions convincing? Are the results well-supported by data obtained with sound methods?
- What aspects of the work you find strongest? … and weakest? Why?
- What would be a natural next step for the work?
- How does this relate to your own research or prior work?
Note: These questions are included only to help guide your reading. They won't apply to all of the readings. Your responses do not need to answer all of these questions, though you might find #5-8 to be a useful starting point.
How to write your response
The purpose of the responses is to jump-start the discussion before class, and to create a tangible goal for your reading.
A good response will clearly express a well-founded opinion about the work. The requires understanding the paper and thinking about what you liked/disliked about it. Your response will show that you read and understood the paper. Do not summarize.
Aim for about 2-3 short paragraphs (or 6-8 sentences) with 100-200 words (total) commenting on different parts of the reading. Longer is not better.
When sending responses by email, please put your response in the body (not an attachment) with the following subject line:
reading response #██ [ece695hci]
Later on, we may switch to a web-based discussion. At that time, I will simply switch the response links above.
The "default" score will be 1 point. The most insightful (and clearly written) responses will get 2 points. Those that show significant signs of not understanding the reading or simply summarize it may receive 0 points.
Important: Do not copy any amount of text from anywhere into your response, unless explicitly allowed. Copying paper titles and names of systems is fine. Quotations are fine and encouraged, but must be in quotation marks with explicit attribution of the source, even if the source is this reading.