Handout 6: 10/29/99
Computer-Human Interaction
CPSC 436
Assignment 3
Written report due: Monday, November 22, 1999

The goal of this project is to prepare a thoughtful, concise, report and evaluation of material taken from the research literature. This is an individual project. Select one conference paper (a full paper; not a short paper, panel description, etc.) from one of the recent annual CHI conferences, sponsored by ACM SIGCHI. You can find fully-accessible proceedings for CHI 95 through CHI 97 pointed to at http://www.acm.org/sigchi/conferences/. If you have an ACM Digital Library account, you also can get papers from CHI 98 here. The proceedings (including 1999) are included in the Library's collection as well.

Read the paper and prepare two report in the format given below. 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. You should read at least two of the papers cited by the paper you have chosen, as well.

Your report 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. More details on the summary and evaluation follow. Third, list other references that you consulted in preparing the report.

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:

  1. purpose of work: what is the purpose of the work (e.g., tutorial, research, survey, entertainment, controversy, history, reference)? for whom is the work intended? What background is needed? Is the purpose fulfilled? If not, why not?
  2. context and comparison: if possible provide context by remarking on how the particular work relates to other work in the field.
Include your name and email address on the review.

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.