Human-Computer Interaction

Spring 2018 :: ECE 695 :: Purdue University


Readings and topics may change without notice up to 1 week before the due date.
Week 1: 1/8
Introduction: What is HCI?
Introduction: What is design? … and usability?
Design vs. Science
Week 2: 1/17
Capabilities: Model Human Processor
HCI research
Week 3: 1/22
*** Read part 5 only ***
Design » methods » Contextual design
Week 4: 1/29
Design » methods » Paper prototyping
declare groups, due 2/2 (Fri)
Design » methods » Mockups/Wireframes/Prototypes
Design » foundations » affordances, mental models
Read chapter 1: Psychopathology of everyday things
Week 5: 2/5
Design » methods » Paper prototyping » Demos
HW01: Prototype, due 2/4 (Sun)
synopsis, due 2/9 (Fri)
Design » foundations » goals, actions
Read chapter 4: Knowing what to do
Week 6: 2/12
Design » foundations » direct manipulation
Design » problem solving » Brainstorming
Week 7: 2/19
Design » formalisms » QOC notation for design rationales
proposal, due 2/23 (Fri)
Design » formalisms » cognitive dimensions of notations
No reading today
Week 8: 2/26
Web development: HTML
v0.1, due 3/2 (Fri)
Web development: JavaScript
Web development: JavaScript
Week 9: 3/5
Human Error? No, Bad Design
Ch 5 of DoET
HW02: Undo, due 3/7 (Wed)
Web development: Frameworks
Week 10: 3/19
Usable security: problems
v0.5, due 3/23 (Fri)
Usable security: solutions
Week 11: 3/26
React (MVC) walk-through
Week 12: 4/2
Experimental methods » questions, hypotheses
Read pp. 191-200 (through “Evaluating Your Hypothesis”
In lieu of response: Propose 5 HCI-related experiments, in terms of the hypothesis you would test. You don't need to explain further (unless necessary for understanding). This can be a total of 5 sentences.
HW03: MVC, due 4/6 (Fri)
video storyboard, due 4/6 (Fri)
Experimental methods » variables, designs
Read pp. 200-214 (stop just before “Statistical Analysis”
In lieu of response: Copy-paste your hypotheses from Monday. Then, for each one, give a brief outline of an experiment, including the design type (within/between), IVs, DVs, covariates, and randomization/counter-balancing strategy. You do not need to write paragraphs; keep it brief.
Experimental methods » analysis, framing
Read pp. 214-222 (stop just before “References for Becoming …”
In lieu of response: Evaluate each of your experiments with respect to the M.A.G.I.C. criteria.
Week 13: 4/9
We will have one more reading about evaluation.
Hands: skin
Guest lecture: Prof. Hong Tan
Week 14: 4/16
Survey research: planning
Read pp. 229-240. Stop before “Questionnaire Design and Biases”.
Survey research: design
Read pp. 240-250 + 254-259. Start at “Questionnaire Design and Biases”. Stop before “Review and Survey Pretesting”. Start at “Data analysis and reporting”. Stop before “Exercises”. In lieu of a response, there will be a short exercise.
Hands: augmentation
Week 15: 4/23
No reading
report, due 4/23 (Mon)
video, due 4/26 (Thu)
No reading
Project videos



For each reading, write a response (≈150-300 words) and post it to Blackboard by 2:30pm on the day the reading is listed for. You may give a mini-review (i.e., what was strong and/or weak), a rebuttal, a detailed comparison to something you have worked on or read, or some combination of those. Your response should demonstrate that you read and understood it, without summarizing. You can also describe something you found surprising, but be clear about why it went against your expectations.

Responses should be readable and concise. Bullets and bold text are encouraged.

Responses are intended to spearhead discussion in class. We will frequently refer to individual responses.


  1. Do not summarize (e.g., “The paper says that __.”).
  2. Be specific and/or give reasons (e.g., “__ seems good.”).
  3. Avoid empty sentences (e.g., “I really like __.” or “__ is interesting.”)
  4. Comment on the ideas in the reading, not the writing (e.g., “The introduction is not clear.”) or superficial aspects of the presentation (e.g., “Figure ___ is hard to read when printed in B&W.”). Those things are important, but that's not what this excercise is about.
  5. Do not copy any text verbatim from anywhere, unless it is in quotation marks. If you quote from anything other than the reading you are writing about, be sure to site the source.


Most responses will get 1 point. Those that are exceptionally insightful and clear will get 2 points. Those that are very vague, inaccurate, or merely paraphrase the abstract will get 0 points.

Starting in week 23, there will be a couple very short questions to answer about each reading, regarding the contribution type. This will be explained on 1/12/2018.
I am making the submission time (2:30pm) as late as possible, while still giving me time to read them before class. If that becomes a challenge, I might shift it earlier later on. Let's see how this goes.

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?
  7. What would be a natural next step for the work?

Note: These questions are included to help guide your reading. They won't apply to all of the readings.  Unless otherwise announced, you do not need to answer these questions in your response.