1. ADVT Assessment

2. Coinbox exercise

3. An apology I am really sorry about the bug in the feedback web pages Inexcusable Your feedback is most valuable

4. The assessment http://www-course.cs.york.ac.uk/advt/ADVT assessment 2012.pdf

5. Specification You are to write a paper according to the instructions below. The paper must be a literature review, informed by one or more of the classes in this module. The title of the paper will be of your choice, but will have to be approved by Alistair Edwards.

6. Four phases PhaseTaskDeadline 1Choose a title and have it approved 25 February 2Extended abstract11 March 3Feedback on abstract15 March 4Paper24 April

7. Title The title must relate to one or more of the classes in this module. It should be sufficiently specific to be realistic to be addressed in a paper written under these constraints. The paper must be based on existing work – as presented in the classes and in the literature. It must not require any original research.

8. Extended abstract The purpose of the abstract is to set out the structure and outline content of the eventual paper. Feedback will be provided on the abstract. The Extended Abstract must be no more than 2 pages. It does not have to conform to any page formatting rules, but must be in PDF electronic format and must be submitted electronically.

9. Paper The paper must address the title. It is expected that it will follow the outline of the extended abstract, but it is permissible to introduce new material. In particular, there may be topics covered in greater depth towards the end of term, which you may wish to include. Your paper must be in PDF format, formatted according to the published specification requirements (http://www- course.cs.york.ac.uk/hcit/Sample.docx or http://www- course.cs.york.ac.uk/hcit/Sample.doctx) ) and must not exceed 8 A4 pages. You must use the IEEE style of referencing. (See http://www.ieee.org/documents/ieeecitationref.pdf).http://www- course.cs.york.ac.uk/hcit/Sample.docxhttp://www- course.cs.york.ac.uk/hcit/Sample.doctx http://www.ieee.org/documents/ieeecitationref.pdf

10. Marking 1Has the Extended Abstract been submitted and approved? (0.5) 2Does the paper address the topic implied by its title? (0.5) 3Does the paper show evidence of the author having read more widely around the topics? (1.0) 4Does the paper show evidence of input from one or more of the ADVT classes? (0.5) 5Does the author show original and critical thinking? (1.0) 6Does the paper show awareness of the diversity of potential users of interactive technology? (1.0) 7Are references used appropriately? (1.0) 8Does the paper meet the formatting requirements? (0.5) 9Is the abstract appropriate? (1.0) 10Quality of the introduction. (1.0) 11Does the paper present appropriate conclusions? (1.0) 12Quality of presentation and writing. (2.0) This includes clarity of meaning, English style and grammar and formatting.

11. Questions? Any subsequent questions will be answered via the on-line forum: http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f =63&sid=84ed8f0e3bbff1cdd17c37d67db26025

12. A gentle introduction to writing research papers Alistair Edwards …but drawing heavily on slides from Chris Power

13. Objectives To give a brief introduction to scientific writing in general To help you prepare for the specific writing task for the assessment of this module

14. Why do we publish? (principled) As scientists we work at the forefront of our field, we have new insights into many topics in which we work We have an obligation to share our improved knowledge, about interaction or any topic, with others Peer-review self-selects the best work to be shared with the outside world forming a meritocracy Our work grants us immortality

15. Why do we publish? (pragmatic) Publications help us communicate our message to other scientists to foster collaboration Publications give us ‘esteem’, which is a quality that allows you to influence decision makers Publications get us money in the form of grants and scholarships Publications grant us jobs

16. ‘Publications get us money in the form of grants and scholarships’ Increasingly true All university departments are being assessed via the Research Excellence Framework (REF) This will depend to a large extent on bibliographic metrics of publications Publish a paper and get lots of people to cite it = £££££££

17. Why do we publish? Often people publish just to publish The “publish or perish” paradigm The best research scientists put out a moderate number of publications, each of which has an original contribution to the field in which they work The contribution is what you are trying to communicate to the reader – you want them to understand what you have done, how you have done it and why

18. Why do we publish? ‘Publish or perish’

19. Organizing your research (paper)

20. Choosing a topic Choosing your audience What is your hypothesis? What is your story ? Doing your literature review Finding your evidence

21. Choosing a topic One key to success is – What are you going to research? …but in the context of this assessment must be related to one or more of the classes must have a significant literature must be of the right size must require no original research

22. Choosing your audience After you have chosen your topic (and done the work!) you need to know how to target your paper Again, for this assessment: think of the second marker is an HCI expert but has not been to the classes

23. What is your hypothesis? A hypothesis is a proposition Your objective is to prove – or falsify – that hypothesis (Remember QUAN?)

24. Example hypotheses Animation makes web advertising more effective Fast-tempo music increases game players’ sense of immersion Perceived ease-of-use is positively related to flow experience of playing of an on-line game Data entry by older users is easier when the pocket computer has a keyboard, albeit a small one

25. The null hypothesis The negation of the hypothesis Seek to prove it Fail and you have proved the hypothesis e.g. Perceived ease-of-use is not positively related to flow experience of playing an on-line game

26. Even a review paper should have a hypothesis Find a point to argue and do so with reference to the literature

27. What is your story ? Every paper has a story Finding it can be hard but once you are clear you can write a clearer paper ‘No tale is so good that it can’t be spoiled in the telling’ (Proverb)

28. Example stories ‘This is my hypothesis and here is the evidence to prove or disprove it’ A history Selling an idea a product Teach start from what the reader knows and lead them to new knowledge

29. Doing your literature review There is always a literature review Your assessment paper will be mostly a literature review

30. Doing your literature review

31. Look for those references that have titles and keywords that seem to match the problem you are solving If available, read the abstract Collect papers – either digital or go to *gasp* the library! Do this early because if you need to see a paper and we don’t have it in the University you can order through inter-library loans (ILL)

32. Doing your literature survey Read the abstract, introduction and conclusions If they are well written these will tell you what the paper is about and whether it is useful Discard those that are not useful – may want to keep a file of interesting things to look at for another time Keep those that are applicable and read methods and results

33. Doing your literature survey Read the abstract, introduction and conclusions These will also be most important in the paper you write and are often poor

34. Doing your literature review Make notes as you go along Organize the papers cleverly – use good tools to store and organize papers Desktop – Bibtex, Endnote, RefMan Cloud – Mendeley, Citeulike Do not keep them in a word document or other basic file type – you will drown With the above tools you can then generate bibliographies for your own paper in whatever format you want

35. Exercise: Doing a literature survey in 15 minutes

36. Exercise Get into groups of 3 or 4 Each group to have a computer with web access Choose a topic that is interesting to you Do a Google Scholar search on that topic http://scholar.google.co.uk/ Pick 1 paper that appears to be highly cited Read the abstract and introduction Pick out interesting references After 10 minutes you will tell the other groups the ‘story’ of research you have found

37. Choose a topic What is Multimodality? Research in Practice Design for the web: Frameworks and Metaphors Cross-cultural design Can we do a better mail merge? Using dialogical methods to understanding experience Are we human or are we children? Research through Design The social experience of gaming Multimodality Forms Design: What really matters to users Access to the Web for disabled and older people

38. What’s your story?

39. Structuring your paper You then have to communicate all of the above to your reader Build constructs of language – sentence to paragraph, paragraphs to sections, sections to papers All constructs of our paper will have the same structure: Introduction – orienting the reader Contribution – the point of the construct Conclusion – sending the reader off

40. Structuring your paper Introduction Contribution Generally Method Results Discussion Conclusion

41. Structuring your paper Introduction Contribution For the assessment mainly discussion Conclusion

42. Abstract Abstract: State the contribution you are making State the motivation as to why it is interesting State the methodology you followed State the results State the conclusions You get about 1-2 sentences for each of these The abstract will keep people reading your paper Extended abstracts – short paper – you get 1 or 2 paragraphs for each of these

43. Abstract Abstract: State the contribution you are making State the motivation as to why it is interesting State the methodology you followed State the results State the conclusions You get about 1-2 sentences for each of these The abstract will keep people reading your paper Extended abstracts – short paper – you get 1 or 2 paragraphs for each of these

44. Abstract The abstract and paper should be capable of being read independently Don’t assume that the reader reading one of them has read the other

45. Abstract Example This paper presents the design of a new web browser, the Tree Trailblazer, which allows users to browse the web while maintaining a visual record of their exploration path, or trail, through the information space. This design enhances the backtracking aspects of web browsing over current designs by providing visual cues regarding the pages related to the page being viewed, providing users with an understanding of their position in the trail. This design also helps users blaze new trails off a page by allowing them to open previews of pages off of the currently viewed page. The scenario based design process that was used to construct the browser is discussed in conjunction with the initial prototype implementation. A formative user evaluation of this prototype showed this browser design to be very easy to learn and highly usable, with particular attention being paid to aspects of the tree visualization. Power, C.; McQuillan, I.; Petrie, H.; Kennaugh, P.; Daley, M.; Wozniak, G.;, "No Going Back: An Interactive Visualization Application for Trailblazing on the Web," Information Visualisation, 2008. IV '08. 12th International Conference, vol., no., pp.133-142, 9- 11 July 2008 doi: 10.1109/IV.2008.64 URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4577938&isnumber=4577908http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4577938&isnumber=4577908

46. Introduction Introduce the topic ‘This paper is about…’ very early on ‘No one reads the second paragraph’ Journalists’ dogma Introduce the background Introduce the paper

47. Literature review In this section you will convince the reader that what you are doing is new and interesting Hit on major themes within the research community Look for problem areas such as common disagreements or ‘dogma’ that is in the field so that you reference them clearly This is particularly important in your assessment You have not simply read the literature, you have analysed it critically Discussion section?

48. Conclusions Simple rule Introduce nothing new in the conclusions It is a distillation of what has gone before

49. Conclusions State – or re-iterate – succinctly: The contribution you have made The motivation as to why it is interesting to your audience and how it applies to them The methodology you already described The key results What the findings mean to the field and how it is original and important

50. Scientific Writing Style

51. Scientific writing Everything you say must be backed by evidence From the literature From your results There is no place for opinion

52. Finding your scientific voice It’s not a highly personal narrative “I studied different sources in the library. I attended the class on…” It doesn’t have to be very convoluted, full of complex terms “If skin deformation is a critical factor for roughness perception (Taylor and Lederman, 1975), then it would seem reasonable to argue that roughness perception in virtual reality might be more similar to roughness perception in the physical world via a probe, than via a bare finger.” 46-word sentence - I have to draw breath, that’s not a good sign

53. Keep it as plain and simple as you can Try to find a way of writing that is somewhere in the middle, that you are comfortable with A certain amount of use of the first person is fine Keep words short and simple as possible - except for technical terms Keep sentences short always (break the argument down into its logical parts for the reader to understand)

54. Sentences building to paragraphs ‘ Skin deformation may be a critical factor for roughness perception (Taylor and Lederman, 1975). Roughness perception in the physical world is usually undertaken with the bare fingers and thus involves skin deformation; sometimes it may be undertaken with a probe or other device, and no skin deformation is involved. Therefore it is reasonable to argue that roughness perception in virtual reality, which inevitably uses a probe, is more similar to roughness perception in the physical world via a probe than via a bare finger.’

55. Readability Original sentence: Flesch Ease of Reading Index 13% Chris’s (initial) re-write: Flesch 33.4% These reading indices are not very good, but can occasionally be a useful tool

56. Don’t go all literary, darling Don’t feel that you are expected to write in some very literary style Don’t vary terms for interest (see defining terms later) Don’t suddenly vary topic Don’t intentionally create suspense

57. Don’t be too informal, either Contractions such as don’t, can’t and wasn’t have no place in a formal document do not, cannot and was not They are a way of documenting the way we speak - and signalling informality (which is why they are used in these slides)

58. Precision and rigor! A scientific style is usually as precise as possible Avoid vague terms ‘the web users tended to…’ Make sure you know the meaning of complex words you use ( e.g. sequencing attribute grammar) Avoid colloquial/culturally specific expressions e.g. ‘training wheels interfaces …’ Chris had no idea what this meant

59. Think about your reader(s)! You need to persuade your reader that this is an important document/project and lead them through the information The story Don’t discuss a concept for three pages and then define it - reader needs a definition at the beginning of a discussion of the concept Provide introductory/bridging sentences/phrases “The next section will introduce concepts of web accessibility and usability in order to establish the criteria for evaluations of websites by users”

60. Define terms (and abbrevs) and stick to them! Early in your paper, define any technical terms you need to, set up abbreviations and then stick to them In the case of technical terms, if you vary them, the reader may think you mean something different ‘web user’, ‘evaluator’, ‘participant’, ‘tester’ are these all the same lot of people?

61. Abbreviations and acronyms Spell out all abbreviations and acronyms the first time you use them Even ‘common’ ones e.g. ‘A long standing controversy within human- computer interaction (HCI) is…’

62. Abbreviations and acronyms Specifying an abbreviation (abbrev) and then not using it is just irritating for the reader - last thing you want Make a list of abbreviations as you go along, at the end check that you have introduced them on the first instance of their use Make sure that any acronyms, abbreviations that you use without explanation really are understood in the field Don’t use too many abbreviations - again, think of the mental load on the poor reader

63. If there is disagreement about terminology, key concepts? Do discuss different researchers’ definitions, concepts if appropriate But make it clear where you stand - you are now an expert! ‘A ccording to Jones (2001), web accessibility is… However, Smith (2004) defined web accessibility as… In this thesis, I will follow Jones…’ Or: ‘In this thesis, accessibility will be defined as…’ Or: In this thesis, I will define accessibility as…’ Conceptual analysis and definition of new terms may well be an important part of your contribution to the field

64. Politically correct interlude If writing about human beings, use non-sexist terminology Not: ‘The web user was shown a scale on which to rate the usability of each site. He was asked to study this…’ Easy way out - use the plural! But: ‘Web users were shown a scale on which to rate the usability of each site. They were …’ If writing about particular groups of humans, personalize them Not: ‘The elderly cannot see colours with the accuracy…’ But ‘Many elderly people cannot see colours…’

65. Political correctness Language is powerful It is easy to cause offense So, try to avoid it but not at the expense of clarity e.g. what is a ‘visually challenged person’?

66. How do I start? See Thimbleby, H (2008) Write now!, (in) Cairns. P & Cox, A. (eds.) Research Methods for Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge University press, pp.196-211

67. Using other people’s words This might be something about plagarism, but let’s think of this in another way If you literally use the words of other authors, it isn’t your own voice, and will lead inevitably to a very uneven style - a bit from one author, a bit from another, or worse, a bit from X, a bit from you, a bit from X One thing you are being assessed on is the ability to explain other people’s work in your words

68. Quotations So… keep quotations fairly rare and keep them brief Save them for really key points Particularly where the original author’s words are critical Of course, always acknowledge the source of material (Petrie, 2008)

69. Headings Use them (they help the reader), make them informative “Background research” - not very informative! “Previous research on web accessibility and usability” (Some readers like only the standard headings like ‘Introduction’, ‘Methodology’) BUT don’t assume the reader has read them on the way through (may seem odd, but it’s definitely true)

70. Headings So, do not follow a heading Research on Web accessibility and usability with This area of research received little attention until the late 1990s. Must be: Web accessibility and usability received little research attention…

71. Figure and tables They can help a reader enormously It is OK to use a figure/table from a published source, if it’s acknowledged (usually in the title) Each figure/table should have a clear, stand- alone caption Each figure/table must be referred to in the text (otherwise how will the reader know when to study it?)

72. Designing figures and tables Make sure they are sufficiently rich in information (would it be simpler to give some words - an error I often make!) but not too cluttered Are axes, objects all clear? Zobel has a good section on good and poor design http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Computer-Science- Justin-Zobel/dp/1852338024 Give figures/tables to a colleague and ask them what they mean

73. Allow (as much time as possible) for checking, proofing Use spell checks, but remember they are dumb, dumb, dumb Read yourself, out loud if at all possible Have someone else proof read if possible Remember, you won’t fail for the odd spelling mistake, but you want your report to look as professional as possible

74. Sources of information Zobel Writing for Computer Science http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Computer-Science-Justin-Zobel/dp/1852338024 Strunk and White - Elements of Style For the specifics of constructions etc (if you are not confident) - Fowler’s Modern English Usage Mander K. (1994) Writing for Humans http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/tutorials/writingforhumans.html Thimbleby, H (2008) Write now!, (in) Cairns. P & Cox, A. (eds.) Research Methods for Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge University press, pp.196-211 Read literature critically for style - re-read papers, chapters that you found easy to read