Human-Computer Interaction

Spring 2018 :: ECE 695 :: Purdue University

Schedule

Readings and topics may change without notice up to 1 week before the due date.
Week 1: 1/8
Introduction: What is HCI?
1/10
Introduction: What is design? … and usability?
1/12
Design vs. Science
Week 2: 1/17
Capabilities: Model Human Processor
1/19
HCI research
Week 3: 1/22
Capabilities: TBA
1/24
Design » foundations » overview
1/26
Design » foundations » affordances, mental models
Week 4: 1/29
Design » foundations » goals, actions
1/31
"
2/2
Design » foundations » direct manipulation
Week 5: 2/5
Design » methods » Paper prototyping
2/7
Design » methods » Prototyping
2/9
"
Week 6: 2/12
Design » problem solving » Introduction, guidelines
2/14
Design » problem solving » Brainstorming
2/16
Design » problem solving » Discovery
Week 7: 2/19
Design » problem solving » Contextual design
2/21
Design » formalisms » QOC notation for design rationales
2/23
Design » formalisms » cognitive dimensions of notations
Week 8: 2/26
Design » end-user programming
2/28
no class
3/2
Midterm
Week 9: 3/5
End-user programming
3/7
End-user programming, undo
3/9
Undo
Week 10: 3/19
Review of 5 facets of usability
chapter 2 in book
3/21
3/23
Heuristics » heuristic evaluation exercise
Week 11: 3/26
User goals, Keystroke-Level Model (KLM)
3/28
Keystroke-Level Model (KLM), exercise
3/30
Security » usable security, problems
Week 12: 4/2
Security » phishing
4/4
4/6
Evaluation » visualization insight
Week 13: 4/9
Evaluation » principles
4/11
Evaluation
4/13
Evaluation » planning a study
Week 14: 4/16
Evaluation
4/18
Evaluation » metrics
4/20
HCI research
Week 15: 4/23
HCI research
4/25
TBD
4/27
Project presentations

Readings

Responses

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.

Pitfalls

  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.

Scoring

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.