Note: There are a number of assignments due on the last day of class, including this one. The purpose for this is to allow you some flexibility in planning your schedule, not to indicate that the assignment should be put off until then. Please do not wait until the last minute to do these projects.
The goal of this project is to prepare a thoughtful and concise report, evaluation, and comparision of material taken from the research literature. This is an individual project.
Select two conference papers (full papers; not short papers, panel descriptions, etc.) from a recent annual CHI conferences (1995 or later), sponsored by ACM SIGCHI. The papers you select should cover the same topic but be written by different authors.
These conference proceedings are available via site license from TAMU IP addresses. See http://www.acm.org/dl/ and then follow the links to proceedings and then to CHI. You also may select full papers from another of the related ACM conferences instead. Appropriate papers include all papers in UIST and IUI and many in CSCW, HT, DL, and JCDL. Ask if you are unsure.
Read both papers and for each prepare a the three-part report, described below. In addition, prepare a short report (approximately one page) in which you compare the results, approaches, and presentation of the two papers to each other. Finally list any other references that you have consulted in preparing your writeups.
It is likely to be appropriate and necessary to find and read some of the papers referenced in the one you've selected in order to get enough context to understand the implications of the research.
Your section of the report describing each of the papers should have three parts. First give a complete and accurate citation for the publication you have selected. Second, give a brief summary of the work, limited to 250 words. Third give a brief evaluation of the work, limited to 250 words.
The summary and evaluation should be clear, correct, and concise. They should show unity, coherence, and emphasis. The summary should be objective, yet comprehensive. It should tell the reader what problem the paper seeks to address and what results have been obtained. The evaluation should express your opinion of the work's value, supported by information that you have obtained in your background reading. Taken together, the two parts should provide at least the following insights:
As you can see, the review covers a lot of ground! Fitting a review of this complexity into the space limits given will take a lot of attention to organization of your thoughts and probably require a couple of drafts in order to express thoughts succinctly but convincingly.
In summary, what you turn in will have the following parts: