Human-Computer Interaction

Spring 2016 :: ECE 69500 :: Purdue University

This is an archived site from Spring 2016 ()


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 20160111-intro.pptx]
Scope and history of HCI [slides 20160113-design-overview.pptx]
Week 2: 1/20
Modeling human performance » Human-information processor [slides 20160120-hip.pptx]
Modeling human performance » Fitt's law Video: FFitts Law, preview, 0m43s
Week 3: 1/25
Modeling human performance » Fitts' law
Design » foundations » overview [slides 20160127-conceptual models.pptx]
Design » foundations » affordances, mental models
Week 4: 2/1
Design » foundations » goals, actions Video: Don Norman TED talk
Haptics » perception – Guest: Prof. Hong Tan [slides 20160203-tactile_perception.pdf]
Design » foundations » direct manipulation
Week 5: 2/8
Design » methods » Paper prototyping
declare groups, due 2/8 (Mon)
Design » methods » Prototyping [slides 20160210-low_fidelity_prototypes.pptx]
Haptics » technologies – Guest: Prof. Hong Tan [slides 20160212-haptics_technology.pdf]
Week 6: 2/15
Design » problem solving » Introduction, guidelines
Design » problem solving » Brainstorming [slides 20160217-brainstorming.pptx]
Design » problem solving » Discovery [slides 20160219-brainstorming.pptx]
Week 7: 2/22
Design » problem solving » Contextual design [slides 20160222-contextual inquiry.pptx]
pre-proposal, due 2/22 (Mon)
Low-fidelity prototype, due 2/26 (Fri)
Design » formalisms » QOC notation for design rationales [slides 20160224-qoc_design_rationale.pptx]
Design » formalisms » cognitive dimensions of notations
Week 8: 2/29
Design » end-user programming
no class
Week 9: 3/7
End-user programming [slides 20160307-eup.pptx]
proposal, due 3/9 (Wed)
End-user programming, undo
Undo [slides 20160311-errors.pptx]
Week 10: 3/21
Review of 5 facets of usability [slides 20160321-usability.pptx] – Usability Metrics: Tracking Interface Improvements
Implement undo, due 3/23 (Wed)
Heuristics » heuristic evaluation exercise
Week 11: 3/28
User goals, Keystroke-Level Model (KLM)
v0.1, due 3/28 (Mon)
Keystroke-Level Model (KLM), exercise [slides 20160330-klm, exercise.pptx]
Security » usable security, problems [slides 20160401-security_problems.pptx]
Week 12: 4/4
Security » phishing [slides 20160404-security.pptx]
video storyboard, due 4/6 (Wed)
Evaluation » visualization insight
Week 13: 4/11
Evaluation » principles
v0.5, due 4/13 (Wed)
Evaluation » planning a study [slides 20160415-eval_planning.pptx]
Week 14: 4/18
report, due 4/22 (Fri)
Evaluation » metrics [slides 20160420-eval_metrics.pptx]
HCI research [slides 20160422-eval_chi_contribs_videos.pptx]
Week 15: 4/25
HCI research
video, due 4/28 (Thu)
Project presentations


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:

  1. What was the contribution type? (examples)
  2. What do the authors claim as their key contributions?
  3. What strategies, methods, and technologies were used?
  4. What generalizable knowledge does the work contribute?  What research questions does it address?  How will this benefit other researchers?
  5. Do you find the conclusions convincing?  Are the results well-supported by data obtained with sound methods?
  6. What aspects of the work you find strongest? … and weakest? Why?
  7. What would be a natural next step for the work?
  8. 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.