Title:
Chapter 3: How Simple Things Can Complicate Our Mind
Chapter 4: Social Signifiers
Reference:
Summary:
Chapter 3: How Simple Things Can Complicate Our Mind
Chapter three talks about the complexity of simple things. It seems that some things are so simple such as inserting a key into a whole and turning, but the differences between all the different types of keys and keyholes presents a problem. The same thing goes with computer passwords. The answer to this, says Norman, is to put the problem on the environment. If we put constraints on things based upon the environment around them we make it easy (and less stressful for our minds to remember) to figure out the way in which to use something. He calls things that make us use something a certain way forcing functions.
Chapter 4: Social Signifiers
Social Signifiers is about just that. Norman talks about the way in which clues from either the outside world or clues or cues from other people influence our thought process. If there are people waiting at a bus stop, that affords that the bus has not yet come, but if there aren't people at the bus stop we wonder if the bus is running at all. Affordances are perceived uses of a tool. All these are important in design in order for things to be used correctly and so that people are aided in their use of things.
Discussion:
This is exactly what he has talked about in previous books. I agree with him that it is a valid point, yet still don't understand why we are reading every book that this guy has authored. The password issue is a tough one, and there really seems to be no good solution to it. It is interesting - things like OpenID and such - that only require one password for a host of different applications. I am not sure on the security mechanisms that are backing that, but it is interesting to think about.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Paper Reading #25: Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags
Title:
Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Michael Atkinson
Reference:
Vig, J., Sen, S., and Riedl, J. Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags. IUI '09. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502661/p47-vig.pdf?key1=1502661&key2=6271472031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.169&CFID=16209705&CFTOKEN=47524431
Summary:
Tagsplanations is a design implemented on a movie recommender website that not only made recommendations to users but explained why the recommendation was made. This is the novel point about this design. It is split into both relevance of an item and preference of an item. For instance, if an item is similar in feature, the relevance would be high, but if the user preferred a certain type of item or brand, the preference would be high.
An experiment was conducted in order to see how users responded to the different types of recommendations. The conclusions were that tag preference was more important than tag relevance. Concerning effectiveness, the two were about the same. For mood compatibility, relevance was rated higher.
Discussion:The thought of telling people why an item was put on the "items you may enjoy" list in my opinion would be a very beneficial idea. For books on Amazon I can usually understand why they place the items there because most of the books are about computer science. However when it comes to other items sometimes I am oblivious to the reason they appear on my recommendations. Thus, this design I see as benefiting users. The paper was well organized and it was easy to track what they did and how they did it due to the nice section headings.
Future work could include testing this design in more than one domain. Since they only tested it on a movie recommendation website, they could try a site that sells accessories.
Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Michael Atkinson
Reference:
Vig, J., Sen, S., and Riedl, J. Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags. IUI '09. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502661/p47-vig.pdf?key1=1502661&key2=6271472031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.169&CFID=16209705&CFTOKEN=47524431
Summary:
Tagsplanations is a design implemented on a movie recommender website that not only made recommendations to users but explained why the recommendation was made. This is the novel point about this design. It is split into both relevance of an item and preference of an item. For instance, if an item is similar in feature, the relevance would be high, but if the user preferred a certain type of item or brand, the preference would be high.An experiment was conducted in order to see how users responded to the different types of recommendations. The conclusions were that tag preference was more important than tag relevance. Concerning effectiveness, the two were about the same. For mood compatibility, relevance was rated higher.
Discussion:The thought of telling people why an item was put on the "items you may enjoy" list in my opinion would be a very beneficial idea. For books on Amazon I can usually understand why they place the items there because most of the books are about computer science. However when it comes to other items sometimes I am oblivious to the reason they appear on my recommendations. Thus, this design I see as benefiting users. The paper was well organized and it was easy to track what they did and how they did it due to the nice section headings.
Future work could include testing this design in more than one domain. Since they only tested it on a movie recommendation website, they could try a site that sells accessories.
Living With Complexity
Title:
Living With Complexity - Full Blog
Reference:
Norman, Donald. Living with Complexity. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass, 2011.
Summary:
Living with Complexity touched on topics discussed in the Design of Everyday Things. What was present in the first four chapters were the ideas of why things are complex, why things are simple, some simple things aren't so simple, and social cues that aid us in understanding how to do something.
Norman makes a distinction between complex things and complicated. Complex is in the design of the object or environment and complicated is an idea we attribute to something we do not understand. With this in mind, simplicity is both a design issue and a perspective issue. Something can look simple but actually be complicated. Less does not always entail simplicity. In order for things to be truly simple in our mind, we need to, in effect, become experts in that area or with a specific object. In order to try and do this we often sketch in our minds a simpler version of the actual device.
Other things that can aid us in the recognition of how to use an object are putting the description back into the environment. This can be done through signs, post-it notes, and other visual reminders that show us the use of a function. Forcing functions, or making an objects use explicit by its perception is another way to make it more functional and usable. People also learn from other people how to use things - through social cues. This is almost like a forcing function as long as the tide of social cues is constant and people continue to benefit from these cues.
Discussion:
This book was the same old Donald Norman. Very dry and easy to skim. I feel like he writes his books just like papers. This is good for gathering information in a rote sort of way, but not a very good read. Nonetheless, the information is interesting and important. The thing I appreciated the most about this book was the social cues aspect of it. I have thought at a fairly low level about social cues, but this shed light into a much broader context to which this idea could be applied.
Living With Complexity - Full Blog
Reference:
Norman, Donald. Living with Complexity. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass, 2011.
Summary:
Living with Complexity touched on topics discussed in the Design of Everyday Things. What was present in the first four chapters were the ideas of why things are complex, why things are simple, some simple things aren't so simple, and social cues that aid us in understanding how to do something.
Norman makes a distinction between complex things and complicated. Complex is in the design of the object or environment and complicated is an idea we attribute to something we do not understand. With this in mind, simplicity is both a design issue and a perspective issue. Something can look simple but actually be complicated. Less does not always entail simplicity. In order for things to be truly simple in our mind, we need to, in effect, become experts in that area or with a specific object. In order to try and do this we often sketch in our minds a simpler version of the actual device.
Other things that can aid us in the recognition of how to use an object are putting the description back into the environment. This can be done through signs, post-it notes, and other visual reminders that show us the use of a function. Forcing functions, or making an objects use explicit by its perception is another way to make it more functional and usable. People also learn from other people how to use things - through social cues. This is almost like a forcing function as long as the tide of social cues is constant and people continue to benefit from these cues.
Discussion:
This book was the same old Donald Norman. Very dry and easy to skim. I feel like he writes his books just like papers. This is good for gathering information in a rote sort of way, but not a very good read. Nonetheless, the information is interesting and important. The thing I appreciated the most about this book was the social cues aspect of it. I have thought at a fairly low level about social cues, but this shed light into a much broader context to which this idea could be applied.
Book Reading #51 - Living With Complexity
Title:
Chapter 1: Why Is Complexity Necessary?
Chapter 2: Simplicity is in the Mind
Reference:
Summary:
Chapter 1: Why Is Complexity Necessary?
Life is complex. Norman distinguishes between complex and complicated. Complexity is how the world shapes things and complicated is how our mind shapes things. Complexity is also seen as involving the design of a system as well as our innate skill in recognizing how to use it.
In order to reduce complexity and complication we seek to simplify. We do this by organization and familiarity. Nature and coffee makers can be complex. Food, farming, language, and music can be complicated but all have evolved over time so that one can put the blame on the world.
Chapter 2: Simplicity is in the Mind
Chapter 2 dealt with conceptual models. We often simplify things in our own minds in order to bridge the gap between complicated structures and the way we envision them. They help us organize our thoughts about something. The book states again that complexity is a matter of the environment and the simplicity is within us. If we understand something to the extent that we have mastered it, it seems simple to us because we have the experience.
Just because something seems simple doesn't mean it is. Reduction of buttons does not always lend itself to simplicity. Different cultures also have different notions of how a device should look - simple or complex - and that adds to how one should design these products too.
Discussion:
I was very disappointed to find out we were reading another Donald Norman book. He is often beating a dead horse with his continual citation of different examples. I am unsure where he is trying to go with this book because I know that I live in complexity. That is very easy to see. What is this book trying to say to me?
This seems like the fourth or fifth time we have talked about simplicity, conceptual models, and the like. It is getting very redundant. I think Norman would have been better off reducing the number of examples per book and then putting all of them together into one book.
Chapter 1: Why Is Complexity Necessary?
Chapter 2: Simplicity is in the Mind
Reference:
Summary:
Chapter 1: Why Is Complexity Necessary?
Life is complex. Norman distinguishes between complex and complicated. Complexity is how the world shapes things and complicated is how our mind shapes things. Complexity is also seen as involving the design of a system as well as our innate skill in recognizing how to use it.
In order to reduce complexity and complication we seek to simplify. We do this by organization and familiarity. Nature and coffee makers can be complex. Food, farming, language, and music can be complicated but all have evolved over time so that one can put the blame on the world.
Chapter 2: Simplicity is in the Mind
Chapter 2 dealt with conceptual models. We often simplify things in our own minds in order to bridge the gap between complicated structures and the way we envision them. They help us organize our thoughts about something. The book states again that complexity is a matter of the environment and the simplicity is within us. If we understand something to the extent that we have mastered it, it seems simple to us because we have the experience.
Just because something seems simple doesn't mean it is. Reduction of buttons does not always lend itself to simplicity. Different cultures also have different notions of how a device should look - simple or complex - and that adds to how one should design these products too.
Discussion:
I was very disappointed to find out we were reading another Donald Norman book. He is often beating a dead horse with his continual citation of different examples. I am unsure where he is trying to go with this book because I know that I live in complexity. That is very easy to see. What is this book trying to say to me?
This seems like the fourth or fifth time we have talked about simplicity, conceptual models, and the like. It is getting very redundant. I think Norman would have been better off reducing the number of examples per book and then putting all of them together into one book.
Why We Make Mistakes
Title:
Why We Make Mistakes - Full Blog
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Why we make mistakes discusses reasons that people make mistakes along with how mistakes are made. Most of the mistakes that people make are on the subconscious level and, thus, on the one hand have no control over. We often get use to doing things a certain way and due to our personal bias we take something to mean another - that which it is not suppose to. In order to make things simpler we often classify or stereotype things so that we do not forget the minute details we so often miss. In simplifying things, we also cut out the seemingly unnecessary details which may lead to errors.
Our memories are not very good at all, but it has been found that our spacial memory is much better than our rote memory; we can easily recognize a face but not so much a name. This can also happen because we are in the wrong frame of mind. It is easier for us to recognize something in its original context than an unfamiliar one. Mnemonic devices aid in our memory of things because it is important to make associations within our brain of connections between related items in order to remember them. This adds meaning to the memory.
We look at the good things we like and appreciate in good scenarios but discredit things we dislike. This shows more bias on our part, but also shows how hard it is for us to overcome something we are use to doing - we do not pay attention to the details.
Just as a computer cannot multitask, we cannot multitask. We can only simulate it. This is done when one of the activities can be pushed into the subconscious. We also skim material to look for patterns rather than go through all and look at the details.
We like to do things on our own rather than follow directions. Men are worse about this than women. We think more of ourselves than we ought; we are very overconfident. We also see situations more favorable than the one we are in. We feel we can do it all.
In conclusion, we should think realistically, plan ahead, get good sleep, don't make money our god, and learn to love the things in our particular environment.
Discussion:
This book first of all was very refreshing coming off of three Donald Norman books. This was the best book that we read. It gave great insight into ways we make mistakes in order that we can think about them more and hopefully change our ways. The most important part of the book for me was in the conclusion. For one, it was one of the best conclusions I have ever read because it summarized and gave the take-home points the book was trying to convey. Also I like the idea of finding the things we like in the environment we are in. So often I find myself being dissatisfied with where I am and yearning for more. While that is not always a bad thing, if I cannot cherish the good things about the circumstance that I am in I feel like it would be easy for me to become burnt out and lose my purpose.
Why We Make Mistakes - Full Blog
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Why we make mistakes discusses reasons that people make mistakes along with how mistakes are made. Most of the mistakes that people make are on the subconscious level and, thus, on the one hand have no control over. We often get use to doing things a certain way and due to our personal bias we take something to mean another - that which it is not suppose to. In order to make things simpler we often classify or stereotype things so that we do not forget the minute details we so often miss. In simplifying things, we also cut out the seemingly unnecessary details which may lead to errors.
Our memories are not very good at all, but it has been found that our spacial memory is much better than our rote memory; we can easily recognize a face but not so much a name. This can also happen because we are in the wrong frame of mind. It is easier for us to recognize something in its original context than an unfamiliar one. Mnemonic devices aid in our memory of things because it is important to make associations within our brain of connections between related items in order to remember them. This adds meaning to the memory.
We look at the good things we like and appreciate in good scenarios but discredit things we dislike. This shows more bias on our part, but also shows how hard it is for us to overcome something we are use to doing - we do not pay attention to the details.
Just as a computer cannot multitask, we cannot multitask. We can only simulate it. This is done when one of the activities can be pushed into the subconscious. We also skim material to look for patterns rather than go through all and look at the details.
We like to do things on our own rather than follow directions. Men are worse about this than women. We think more of ourselves than we ought; we are very overconfident. We also see situations more favorable than the one we are in. We feel we can do it all.
In conclusion, we should think realistically, plan ahead, get good sleep, don't make money our god, and learn to love the things in our particular environment.
This book first of all was very refreshing coming off of three Donald Norman books. This was the best book that we read. It gave great insight into ways we make mistakes in order that we can think about them more and hopefully change our ways. The most important part of the book for me was in the conclusion. For one, it was one of the best conclusions I have ever read because it summarized and gave the take-home points the book was trying to convey. Also I like the idea of finding the things we like in the environment we are in. So often I find myself being dissatisfied with where I am and yearning for more. While that is not always a bad thing, if I cannot cherish the good things about the circumstance that I am in I feel like it would be easy for me to become burnt out and lose my purpose.
Paper Reading #24: Have a say over what you see: evaluating interactive compression techniques
Title:
Have a say over what you see: evaluating interactive compression techniques
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Tucker, S. and Whittaker, S. Have a say over what you see: evaluating interactive compression techniques. IUI '09. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502659/p37-tucker.pdf?key1=1502659&key2=1951472031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.169&CFID=16209705&CFTOKEN=47524431
Summary:
This paper goes over the idea of interactive compression (IC). This is the process seen in Figure 1 of reducing the amount of content. This is able to be done at different levels of compression which is different than most summary software, hence one can choose the level of compression wanted. IC controls the amount of information a user sees. It is split into two types in this paper: Excision - removing unimportant words or transcripts from a sentence and highlighting - keeping all the text there but highlighting important words.
The researches did an exploratory survey in order to test the design principles in which they were interested. The survey basically featured ways in which people skim a document and asked whether each way was helpful. The results showed that users had a preference for word over utterance techniques for IC and that highlighting was also liked.
The second study tested these findings in an implementation backed by the control of a regular full document. It was found that the IC techniques made users skip over more important information more easily, but also allowed them to view documents faster. Users also preferred IC to unmodified text. Excision allowed faster reading than highlighting, but highlighting allowed the user to skip over less information.
Discussion:
This paper was interesting. I am definitely a skimmer, and I think if I had this software to skim the papers that we are reading I would be in good shape and would appreciate it so much! Where is my copy? But I like that they did two surveys and based their implementation on an initial survey rather than just going out and thinking of a design themselves.
Future work could be to the effect of summarizing. They were railing on summaries, however if they claim their way is so much better, they must have some insight in to why summaries are weak and revise it.
Have a say over what you see: evaluating interactive compression techniques
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Tucker, S. and Whittaker, S. Have a say over what you see: evaluating interactive compression techniques. IUI '09. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502659/p37-tucker.pdf?key1=1502659&key2=1951472031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.169&CFID=16209705&CFTOKEN=47524431
Summary:
This paper goes over the idea of interactive compression (IC). This is the process seen in Figure 1 of reducing the amount of content. This is able to be done at different levels of compression which is different than most summary software, hence one can choose the level of compression wanted. IC controls the amount of information a user sees. It is split into two types in this paper: Excision - removing unimportant words or transcripts from a sentence and highlighting - keeping all the text there but highlighting important words. The researches did an exploratory survey in order to test the design principles in which they were interested. The survey basically featured ways in which people skim a document and asked whether each way was helpful. The results showed that users had a preference for word over utterance techniques for IC and that highlighting was also liked.
The second study tested these findings in an implementation backed by the control of a regular full document. It was found that the IC techniques made users skip over more important information more easily, but also allowed them to view documents faster. Users also preferred IC to unmodified text. Excision allowed faster reading than highlighting, but highlighting allowed the user to skip over less information.
Discussion:
This paper was interesting. I am definitely a skimmer, and I think if I had this software to skim the papers that we are reading I would be in good shape and would appreciate it so much! Where is my copy? But I like that they did two surveys and based their implementation on an initial survey rather than just going out and thinking of a design themselves.
Future work could be to the effect of summarizing. They were railing on summaries, however if they claim their way is so much better, they must have some insight in to why summaries are weak and revise it.
Book Reading #50 - Why We Make Mistakes
Title:
Chapter 12: We’ Don’t Constrain Ourselves
Chapter 13: The Grass Does Look Greener
Conclusion:
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Chapter 12: We’ Don’t Constrain Ourselves
This chapter discussed affordances and constraints. It spoke of how medicine is sometimes difficult to distinguish because things look the same and are named similar things.
It was shown that the navy and more generally pilots have a low rate of error in the tasks they go about in the navy. Medical people compared with the navy has a much higher rate of error. The root causes of these errors must be looked at rather than just the last person to cause the error. Also, with pilots, communication when a problem is seen and encouraged while in medical situations nurses more often keep quiet if they see something they do not agree with.
Chapter 13: The Grass Does Look Greener
This chapter shows how we always view things better in other places, but usually the content of life is the same. It gives the example of California versus Oregon or something like that and finds that the level of contentment is pretty much the same, though both places viewed California as the ideal better place to live.
We feel that in the future we will want something that is more beneficial to us than we actualize. It is the same kind of thing as the idea of choosing food now (candy) or later (healthy). Gift cards are a bad idea because we mispredict.
"Hope impedes adaptation" is the idea that people are more content when they are stuck in a situation than if they were to have options.
When making decisions, we often focus on the wrong things.
Conclusion:
The conclusion sums up the whole book. It pretty much touches on each focus of each chapter. It says to think negatively, think realistically, and plan ahead. We should get sleep and be happy. Money does not affect happiness. Learn to love the things about the specific environment you are in.
Discussion:
While chapter 12 did not discuss anything new to me, the idea of communication between ranks when a problem is seen was important to me. This crosses over to every platform of society. As religion is what interests me the most, it is natural for me to default my thoughts to this topic. Hence, I see it necessary for lay people to communicate to those in staff positions and leadership positions when a seeming problem is seen.
I think it is interesting that we are more discontent when we have choices or the possibility of reversal. This can kind of be seen in having many options. I like having few options because it is easier to decide.
Honestly, blown away by this conclusion. Awesome stuff! What a great book.
Chapter 12: We’ Don’t Constrain Ourselves
Chapter 13: The Grass Does Look Greener
Conclusion:
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Chapter 12: We’ Don’t Constrain Ourselves
This chapter discussed affordances and constraints. It spoke of how medicine is sometimes difficult to distinguish because things look the same and are named similar things.
It was shown that the navy and more generally pilots have a low rate of error in the tasks they go about in the navy. Medical people compared with the navy has a much higher rate of error. The root causes of these errors must be looked at rather than just the last person to cause the error. Also, with pilots, communication when a problem is seen and encouraged while in medical situations nurses more often keep quiet if they see something they do not agree with.
Chapter 13: The Grass Does Look Greener
This chapter shows how we always view things better in other places, but usually the content of life is the same. It gives the example of California versus Oregon or something like that and finds that the level of contentment is pretty much the same, though both places viewed California as the ideal better place to live.
We feel that in the future we will want something that is more beneficial to us than we actualize. It is the same kind of thing as the idea of choosing food now (candy) or later (healthy). Gift cards are a bad idea because we mispredict.
"Hope impedes adaptation" is the idea that people are more content when they are stuck in a situation than if they were to have options.
When making decisions, we often focus on the wrong things.
Conclusion:
The conclusion sums up the whole book. It pretty much touches on each focus of each chapter. It says to think negatively, think realistically, and plan ahead. We should get sleep and be happy. Money does not affect happiness. Learn to love the things about the specific environment you are in.
Discussion:
While chapter 12 did not discuss anything new to me, the idea of communication between ranks when a problem is seen was important to me. This crosses over to every platform of society. As religion is what interests me the most, it is natural for me to default my thoughts to this topic. Hence, I see it necessary for lay people to communicate to those in staff positions and leadership positions when a seeming problem is seen.
I think it is interesting that we are more discontent when we have choices or the possibility of reversal. This can kind of be seen in having many options. I like having few options because it is easier to decide.
Honestly, blown away by this conclusion. Awesome stuff! What a great book.
Paper Reading #23: Improving meeting summarization by focusing on user needs: a task-oriented evaluation
Title:
Improving meeting summarization by focusing on user needs: a task-oriented evaluation
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Hsueh, P. and Moore, J. Improving meeting summarization by focusing on user needs: a task-oriented evaluation. IUI '09. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502657/p17-hsueh.pdf?key1=1502657&key2=8161472031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.169&CFID=16209705&CFTOKEN=47524431
Summary:
This paper deals with the idea of summarizing meetings, but not simply the meetings themselves, but specifically the decisions made in the meetings. There has been much work on meeting browsers and search structures that allow people to search for a specific part of the meeting, but often the most important part of the meeting is a decision that is made. There was a pilot study in which participants witnessed four meetings and were asked to summarize the decisions made in these meetings for upper-management. The end design attempts to automate this summary. The summaries were reviewed and an implementation was made through a meeting browser.
The results found that a decision summary model of meetings was effective in increasing the effectiveness of people trying to get an overview of the decisions of a meeting.
Discussion:
The outcome of this model makes complete sense, that it is quicker to get an overview of the decisions made in a meeting by having a summary of the decisions themselves. I think the novel part of this paper was the fact that they realized from previous work that it is, in fact, the decisions that are the important part of the meeting, while they only take up a brief portion of the meeting. The technology seems like a good idea for people who need to quickly find the summaries of a meeting.
Improving meeting summarization by focusing on user needs: a task-oriented evaluation
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Hsueh, P. and Moore, J. Improving meeting summarization by focusing on user needs: a task-oriented evaluation. IUI '09. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502657/p17-hsueh.pdf?key1=1502657&key2=8161472031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.169&CFID=16209705&CFTOKEN=47524431
Summary:
This paper deals with the idea of summarizing meetings, but not simply the meetings themselves, but specifically the decisions made in the meetings. There has been much work on meeting browsers and search structures that allow people to search for a specific part of the meeting, but often the most important part of the meeting is a decision that is made. There was a pilot study in which participants witnessed four meetings and were asked to summarize the decisions made in these meetings for upper-management. The end design attempts to automate this summary. The summaries were reviewed and an implementation was made through a meeting browser.
The results found that a decision summary model of meetings was effective in increasing the effectiveness of people trying to get an overview of the decisions of a meeting.
Discussion:
The outcome of this model makes complete sense, that it is quicker to get an overview of the decisions made in a meeting by having a summary of the decisions themselves. I think the novel part of this paper was the fact that they realized from previous work that it is, in fact, the decisions that are the important part of the meeting, while they only take up a brief portion of the meeting. The technology seems like a good idea for people who need to quickly find the summaries of a meeting.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Book Reading #49 - Why We Make Mistakes
Title:
Chapter 10: We All Think We’re Above Average
Chapter 11: We’d Rather Wing It
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Chapter 10: We All Think We’re Above Average
This chapter focuses on the human nature of overconfidence. We tend to always overestimate our abilities and underestimate our failings. Examples given are short putting greens in pro shops, people and health centers, credit cards, and diet programs.
Calibration is the extent to which one has an accurate self-representation. A person with good calibration would be able to estimate within good bounds their ability. Weather casters have good calibration concerning their weather predictions. Hallinan points this in part to the strong feedback. If they predict rain tomorrow, they will know whether or not their prediction was correct.
We have an illusion of control that we can manipulate our situation above our ability. We also tend to think that more information is good. This just leads us to be more confident in our choices. It was shown that it does not always lead to better decision making.
Chapter 11: We’d Rather Wing It
This chapter discussed the case that we would rather do it on our own without instructions or guidance and in our own configured way than either follow instructions or think of a different way of solving the problem. It explained how it has been concluded that experts have over 10,000 hours of time clocked on their activity of expertise. This being the case, they have "libraries" of information in their head based upon patterns of their activity. For example, chess players have a bank of valid positions of a chess board one could be in.
Discussion:
I would agree that we as humans are very overconfident. We often boast about things that we can or have accomplished only to find that this is not in fact the case. A question I have is how this overconfidence affects our moral judgments. Do we see ourselves like more of a good person being confident in our abilities and less like a good person if we feel (from a realistic point of view) that we cannot indeed do all we set out to do?
The idea of having a library of patterns in my head really interested me. It gives good insight into the idea of practicing in order to hone certain skills in order to be able to recall them during experiential cognition to put it in terms of Donald Norman.
Chapter 10: We All Think We’re Above Average
Chapter 11: We’d Rather Wing It
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Chapter 10: We All Think We’re Above Average
This chapter focuses on the human nature of overconfidence. We tend to always overestimate our abilities and underestimate our failings. Examples given are short putting greens in pro shops, people and health centers, credit cards, and diet programs.
Calibration is the extent to which one has an accurate self-representation. A person with good calibration would be able to estimate within good bounds their ability. Weather casters have good calibration concerning their weather predictions. Hallinan points this in part to the strong feedback. If they predict rain tomorrow, they will know whether or not their prediction was correct.
We have an illusion of control that we can manipulate our situation above our ability. We also tend to think that more information is good. This just leads us to be more confident in our choices. It was shown that it does not always lead to better decision making.
Chapter 11: We’d Rather Wing It
This chapter discussed the case that we would rather do it on our own without instructions or guidance and in our own configured way than either follow instructions or think of a different way of solving the problem. It explained how it has been concluded that experts have over 10,000 hours of time clocked on their activity of expertise. This being the case, they have "libraries" of information in their head based upon patterns of their activity. For example, chess players have a bank of valid positions of a chess board one could be in.
Discussion:
I would agree that we as humans are very overconfident. We often boast about things that we can or have accomplished only to find that this is not in fact the case. A question I have is how this overconfidence affects our moral judgments. Do we see ourselves like more of a good person being confident in our abilities and less like a good person if we feel (from a realistic point of view) that we cannot indeed do all we set out to do?
The idea of having a library of patterns in my head really interested me. It gives good insight into the idea of practicing in order to hone certain skills in order to be able to recall them during experiential cognition to put it in terms of Donald Norman.
Book Reading #48 - Media Equation
Title:
Part 1: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Part 2: Computers are Social Actors
Part 3: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
Reference:
Nass, Clifford and Moon, Youngme. Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2000, pp. 81–103. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00153/pdf
Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. Computers are Social Actors. CHI '94. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/200000/191703/p72-nass.pdf?key1=191703&key2=6181032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B., Reeves, B., and Dryer, C. Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities? CHI '95. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/230000/223538/p228-nass.pdf?key1=223538&key2=9381032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
Summary:
Part 1: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass goes over people and their social responses to computer. He conducts four studies which will be discussed in this section.
The beginning of this experiment was similar to experiment 4 is "Computers are Social Actors" (Part 2).
The experiment consisted of three rounds of questionairres and responses from computers with either a male or female voice. The users filled out a written questionairre at the end cataloging their perception based upon the gender of the voice. It was found that male voices elicit a greater sense of correctness and likability. Males are also found to be thought of as more intuitive on technological matters whereas females are on relationships.
After gender, the next variable studied was ethnicity in people's responses to computers. This tested "mindless stereotyping" because upon being asked a situational question based upon risk the researchers saw if there was a difference when the users spoke to a face of a Caucasian or Korean on the video screen. It turns out this was the case.
The third section of this experiment tested whether people would have different responses to different groups - one they were in and one they were not in. Participants were more likely to cooperate with the computer when it seemed to be representing the team of the user.
In a different experiment, it was found that people are polite to a computer. It was found that the reciprocity norm was also held, that the user helped the computer that helped it and did not help as much the computer that did not help that person as much. An extension of this looked at how people divulge intimate information. The more likable reciprocity the computer the more likely the person was to divulge more intimate information to it.
Another series of experiments dealt with perception. There was a generalist and specialist program and they found that people thought the specialist program was more informative.
The next section addressed possible explanations for the above experiment results. The first addressed was anthropomorphism. This was immediately rejected because the people being studied were adults and denied that they thought the computer was a person. The next objection is that the people actually are intending to respond to the person behind the computer, or the programmer. First, when questioned the users did not think of the programmer behind the computer. Next the users thought that all computers were programmed by the same person, eliminating the bias of different people behind different computers. Finally when the terms "computer" verses "programmer" were used, computer was more favorable to programmer. The final argument against these experiments is that the questionnaires made the users forget that they were dealing with a computer. Nothing was fancy about these that would motivate a user to elicit human attributes or think it wasn't a computer.
The last part of the paper was future research described here. They wonder what the characteristics of the computer are that make users make these attributions to computers. They go through hypotheses of these questions. They also discuss similar experiments that they did as compared to a real human taking the place of the computer.
Part 2: Computers are Social Actors
This paper seeks to show that people are not expecting their interaction with a computer to be the same as that of a human. In order to do this, this study looks at five questions and studies each one. The questions include
Experiment 1:
Here a paper and pencil questionnaire was compared to a questionnaire asked by the computer. It was found that subjects claimed the computer was more helpful in a tutor than pencil and paper.
Experiment 2:
Here there were two computers used in order to distinguish between two entities where one was critical and one gave more praise. It was found that the user did treat the computers differently.
Experiment 3:
This is an extension of 2, but here there was a fluctuation of voices spoken to the subject of the praise and criticism in order to get a more general outcome. It was found that the subjects respond to different voices as different social actors.
Experiment 4:
In order to do this experiment, the researchers altered the voices coming from the computers in the training time to either male of female. This experiment tested perceptions of male praise being more likable than female praise which was found true, females being more knowledgeable on relationships which was found to be true, and praise from males is more convincing than females which was actually found to be relative to the style of the subject.
Experiment 5:
Here the subjects went through the rounds of the experiment twice with different labelings of the computer and the experimenter (I, the computer, the programmer). It was found that the use of "I" was liked over "the computer" over "the programmer".
The paper ended by summing up the findings and extrapolating that among other things CHI is social interaction.
Part 3: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
This tested submissive and dominant personalities of computers upon users interpretations. For the experiment, subjects were either paired with a submissive or dominant computer. The subjects then answered a questionnaire. The results found that the people could tell which version was more dominant, and people liked the similar personality to their own in the computer showing that they did judge the computer based upon its personality.
Discussion:
Part 1: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
This paper had no pictures. So in following Paul's lead, I was very disgusted while reading this paper. But aside from being difficult and fairly boring to read, it was nice to get the overall theme that people interact with computers in similar ways as regular people. This could have been summarized in at most a three-page paper that would have been so much more interesting.
Part 2: Computers are Social Actors
It is laughable to take anything from the results from any of the five experiments. They all seem like a joke in the context of anything larger than trying to participate in the scientific method, or a mock-research project. I suppose the concept of people treating computers as people is fairly useful, but the other aspects and ways of conducting the experiment to me seem absolutely ridiculous.
The best part about this paper is the summary at the end where it has the bullet points under each of the experiments. This is really all you need to read of the paper. Unfortunately I read the whole thing (sad face).
Part 3: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
PRAISE GOD FOR A SHORT ARTICLE! This article was by far the best because it was the last and shortest. However in terms of content it is not a novel idea that people could tell from a set of questions whether something, whether a human or not, could tell whether it had a dominant or submissive trait. We can see that in animals and even art. Way to go, Nass, you have proven yet another instance of extremely uninteresting facts. Thank you, though, for making it only two pages.
Part 1: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Part 2: Computers are Social Actors
Part 3: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
Reference:
Nass, Clifford and Moon, Youngme. Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2000, pp. 81–103. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00153/pdf
Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. Computers are Social Actors. CHI '94. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/200000/191703/p72-nass.pdf?key1=191703&key2=6181032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B., Reeves, B., and Dryer, C. Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities? CHI '95. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/230000/223538/p228-nass.pdf?key1=223538&key2=9381032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
Summary:
Part 1: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass goes over people and their social responses to computer. He conducts four studies which will be discussed in this section.
The beginning of this experiment was similar to experiment 4 is "Computers are Social Actors" (Part 2).
The experiment consisted of three rounds of questionairres and responses from computers with either a male or female voice. The users filled out a written questionairre at the end cataloging their perception based upon the gender of the voice. It was found that male voices elicit a greater sense of correctness and likability. Males are also found to be thought of as more intuitive on technological matters whereas females are on relationships.
The third section of this experiment tested whether people would have different responses to different groups - one they were in and one they were not in. Participants were more likely to cooperate with the computer when it seemed to be representing the team of the user.
In a different experiment, it was found that people are polite to a computer. It was found that the reciprocity norm was also held, that the user helped the computer that helped it and did not help as much the computer that did not help that person as much. An extension of this looked at how people divulge intimate information. The more likable reciprocity the computer the more likely the person was to divulge more intimate information to it.
Another series of experiments dealt with perception. There was a generalist and specialist program and they found that people thought the specialist program was more informative.
The next section addressed possible explanations for the above experiment results. The first addressed was anthropomorphism. This was immediately rejected because the people being studied were adults and denied that they thought the computer was a person. The next objection is that the people actually are intending to respond to the person behind the computer, or the programmer. First, when questioned the users did not think of the programmer behind the computer. Next the users thought that all computers were programmed by the same person, eliminating the bias of different people behind different computers. Finally when the terms "computer" verses "programmer" were used, computer was more favorable to programmer. The final argument against these experiments is that the questionnaires made the users forget that they were dealing with a computer. Nothing was fancy about these that would motivate a user to elicit human attributes or think it wasn't a computer.The last part of the paper was future research described here. They wonder what the characteristics of the computer are that make users make these attributions to computers. They go through hypotheses of these questions. They also discuss similar experiments that they did as compared to a real human taking the place of the computer.
Part 2: Computers are Social Actors
This paper seeks to show that people are not expecting their interaction with a computer to be the same as that of a human. In order to do this, this study looks at five questions and studies each one. The questions include
- "Will users apply politeness norms to computers?"
- "Will users apply the notions of ‘self and ‘other’ to computers?"
- "On what basis do users distinguish computers as ‘self or ‘other’ — the voice or the box?"
- "Will users apply gender stereotypes to computers?"
- "If people do respond socially to computers, is it because they feel that they are interacting with the computer or with some other agent, such as the programmer?" and, "Who or what do users think of when the a computer says ‘I’?"
Experiment 1:
Here a paper and pencil questionnaire was compared to a questionnaire asked by the computer. It was found that subjects claimed the computer was more helpful in a tutor than pencil and paper.
Experiment 2:
Here there were two computers used in order to distinguish between two entities where one was critical and one gave more praise. It was found that the user did treat the computers differently.
Experiment 3:
This is an extension of 2, but here there was a fluctuation of voices spoken to the subject of the praise and criticism in order to get a more general outcome. It was found that the subjects respond to different voices as different social actors.
Experiment 4:
In order to do this experiment, the researchers altered the voices coming from the computers in the training time to either male of female. This experiment tested perceptions of male praise being more likable than female praise which was found true, females being more knowledgeable on relationships which was found to be true, and praise from males is more convincing than females which was actually found to be relative to the style of the subject.
Experiment 5:
Here the subjects went through the rounds of the experiment twice with different labelings of the computer and the experimenter (I, the computer, the programmer). It was found that the use of "I" was liked over "the computer" over "the programmer".
The paper ended by summing up the findings and extrapolating that among other things CHI is social interaction.
Part 3: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
This tested submissive and dominant personalities of computers upon users interpretations. For the experiment, subjects were either paired with a submissive or dominant computer. The subjects then answered a questionnaire. The results found that the people could tell which version was more dominant, and people liked the similar personality to their own in the computer showing that they did judge the computer based upon its personality.
Discussion:
Part 1: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
This paper had no pictures. So in following Paul's lead, I was very disgusted while reading this paper. But aside from being difficult and fairly boring to read, it was nice to get the overall theme that people interact with computers in similar ways as regular people. This could have been summarized in at most a three-page paper that would have been so much more interesting.
Part 2: Computers are Social Actors
It is laughable to take anything from the results from any of the five experiments. They all seem like a joke in the context of anything larger than trying to participate in the scientific method, or a mock-research project. I suppose the concept of people treating computers as people is fairly useful, but the other aspects and ways of conducting the experiment to me seem absolutely ridiculous.
The best part about this paper is the summary at the end where it has the bullet points under each of the experiments. This is really all you need to read of the paper. Unfortunately I read the whole thing (sad face).
Part 3: Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities?
PRAISE GOD FOR A SHORT ARTICLE! This article was by far the best because it was the last and shortest. However in terms of content it is not a novel idea that people could tell from a set of questions whether something, whether a human or not, could tell whether it had a dominant or submissive trait. We can see that in animals and even art. Way to go, Nass, you have proven yet another instance of extremely uninteresting facts. Thank you, though, for making it only two pages.
Paper Reading #22: User-oriented document summarization through vision-based eye-tracking
Title:
User-oriented document summarization through vision-based eye-tracking
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Xu, S., Jiang, H., Lau, F. User-oriented document summarization through vision-based eye-tracking. IUI '10. ACM, New York. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502656/p7-xu.pdf?key1=1502656&key2=6714922031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.135&CFID=17152168&CFTOKEN=47763320
Summary:
The researchers seek to create an algorithm that allows eye-tracking to aid in summarizing documents for users. They go about this by estimating the average time spent on a single word in the documents the user is reading and extrapolate that data into the likely-hood the user will find a whole sentence interesting in summing up the probability the user will be interested in the single words of that sentence (as well as similar words). A regular web-cam is used and it is calibrated by their own document viewer they made. Once this is done the user is off to reading.
The researchers compare their results of summarization to two popular methods of summarization - Microsoft Word AutoSummarize and the MEAD summerizer system. The experiment involved using sets of literature from science and leisure. The results showed that this algorithm tailors better to the users preferences as compared to the other two.
Discussion:
After reading the abstract I was very excited to read this article. I thought it interesting that they were doing the algorithm based on single word time rather than something else such as time over a sentence in order to summarize the context of something. I also was unsure of how the summary would go: would it be in whole sentences or just keywords? I then found that it was because of the personal aspect of the algorithm, it is implemented in order to list in order the sentences that would be most preferable for the user to read.
Not only is the idea behind this paper really interesting, but the way in which they approached the problem was really cool. Also the fact that users rated their algorithm above the other two popular ones is a bolster to the credit of this report. The paper itself was not extremely thorough in explaining all of the details of it all, but I am satisfied with that if I can go over the article and not get bored to tears over every inch moved by their finger.
Future projects that I could envision for this research would be possible linking this algorithm across different avenues of software in order to gain a greater understanding of the user, similar to how Google knows everything about us by our searches. Through our web-cams, maybe it could also know all about what we are looking at.
User-oriented document summarization through vision-based eye-tracking
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Xu, S., Jiang, H., Lau, F. User-oriented document summarization through vision-based eye-tracking. IUI '10. ACM, New York. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1510000/1502656/p7-xu.pdf?key1=1502656&key2=6714922031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.135&CFID=17152168&CFTOKEN=47763320
Summary:
The researchers seek to create an algorithm that allows eye-tracking to aid in summarizing documents for users. They go about this by estimating the average time spent on a single word in the documents the user is reading and extrapolate that data into the likely-hood the user will find a whole sentence interesting in summing up the probability the user will be interested in the single words of that sentence (as well as similar words). A regular web-cam is used and it is calibrated by their own document viewer they made. Once this is done the user is off to reading.
The researchers compare their results of summarization to two popular methods of summarization - Microsoft Word AutoSummarize and the MEAD summerizer system. The experiment involved using sets of literature from science and leisure. The results showed that this algorithm tailors better to the users preferences as compared to the other two.
Discussion:
After reading the abstract I was very excited to read this article. I thought it interesting that they were doing the algorithm based on single word time rather than something else such as time over a sentence in order to summarize the context of something. I also was unsure of how the summary would go: would it be in whole sentences or just keywords? I then found that it was because of the personal aspect of the algorithm, it is implemented in order to list in order the sentences that would be most preferable for the user to read.
Not only is the idea behind this paper really interesting, but the way in which they approached the problem was really cool. Also the fact that users rated their algorithm above the other two popular ones is a bolster to the credit of this report. The paper itself was not extremely thorough in explaining all of the details of it all, but I am satisfied with that if I can go over the article and not get bored to tears over every inch moved by their finger.
Future projects that I could envision for this research would be possible linking this algorithm across different avenues of software in order to gain a greater understanding of the user, similar to how Google knows everything about us by our searches. Through our web-cams, maybe it could also know all about what we are looking at.
Media Equation
Reference:
Nass, Clifford and Moon, Youngme. Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2000, pp. 81–103. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00153/pdf
Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. Computers are Social Actors. CHI '94. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/200000/191703/p72-nass.pdf?key1=191703&key2=6181032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B., Reeves, B., and Dryer, C. Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities? CHI '95. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/230000/223538/p228-nass.pdf?key1=223538&key2=9381032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
Summary:
These papers were composed by Clifford Nass and occasionally some associates. They all point to computers in relation to humans' perceptions of them. He conducts many experiments in order to determine different facets of peoples' perception of computers. He concluded from these that people stereotype computers by gender and race when applicable, when they receive generous reciprocity from the computer they evoke the same in return as compared with a computer that is not as kind. It was also found that users determined a difference in computers in terms of personality (dominant and submissive), that the users preferred the personality that matched their own, that they put weight on the difference between genders, races, and personalities of a computer. Also, it was extrapolated that specificity seemed more elegant, important, and meaningful than generality when labeled in terms of a news cast.
Discussion:
These three papers by Nass seemed to be pretty much proving things that I would take as common knowledge. I did not really learn anything I wouldn't have expected. I suppose the research would be good for citation in explaining to your boss why you would implement a specific feature in a program. Other than that it does not seem very applicable, though it is very relevant to the grass-roots of HCI.
Nass, Clifford and Moon, Youngme. Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2000, pp. 81–103. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00153/pdf
Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. Computers are Social Actors. CHI '94. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/200000/191703/p72-nass.pdf?key1=191703&key2=6181032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B., Reeves, B., and Dryer, C. Can Computer Personalities Be Human Personalities? CHI '95. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/230000/223538/p228-nass.pdf?key1=223538&key2=9381032031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.172&CFID=17171862&CFTOKEN=58852860
These papers were composed by Clifford Nass and occasionally some associates. They all point to computers in relation to humans' perceptions of them. He conducts many experiments in order to determine different facets of peoples' perception of computers. He concluded from these that people stereotype computers by gender and race when applicable, when they receive generous reciprocity from the computer they evoke the same in return as compared with a computer that is not as kind. It was also found that users determined a difference in computers in terms of personality (dominant and submissive), that the users preferred the personality that matched their own, that they put weight on the difference between genders, races, and personalities of a computer. Also, it was extrapolated that specificity seemed more elegant, important, and meaningful than generality when labeled in terms of a news cast.
Discussion:
These three papers by Nass seemed to be pretty much proving things that I would take as common knowledge. I did not really learn anything I wouldn't have expected. I suppose the research would be good for citation in explaining to your boss why you would implement a specific feature in a program. Other than that it does not seem very applicable, though it is very relevant to the grass-roots of HCI.
Book Reading #47 - Why We Make Mistakes
Title:
Chapter 8: We Like Things Tidy
Chapter 9: Men Shoot First
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Chapter 8: We Like Things Tidy
This chapter focused on our perception of things in terms of our simplifying of them. When we think of relative locations of things on a map, we simplify places and put it in a hierarchical structure in order to get more of a larger picture of the map.
Music and environment can play a large role in our remembering something. When brought back into our original context of the state we learned or recognized the even in, we are more likely to remember the event.
Our memory also evades us. When retelling a story, we often either embellish parts or detract from parts based upon the audience and our goal in telling the story. When we replace the facts with more things we make up, we then come to think that the things we made up were actually a part of the actual event upon repetition of the story.
Chapter 9: Men Shoot First
This chapter went through the idea that not only are men overconfident when compared with women, but they are also more likely to engage in riskier business. All these factors are hard to trace back, but some is due to the way in which boys grow up as compared to girls. When it comes to navigation, men are more likely to not ask directions whereas women would. The author points this to the fact that boys tend to have a larger range of mobility allowed to them by their parents when they are young over girls. Boys are also encouraged to tinker more than girls are which also may influence the risk taking and overconfidence of the male.
Discussion:
I think it is very important to us to simplify these things. The book did not go into how our minds categorize things, but I think it is very important to our association and recollection of things for us to categorize things and put classes of object together maybe even oversimplifying things. Our spacial parts of our brains are so much more powerful at remembering things than just rote memory.
Being a man, I see this overconfidence in us over girls all the time. It is a part of who we are and cannot really be separated out in order to have a different perspective of things. While we may be able to look back on an event or even ourselves and recognize this difference, we will always (in my opinion) be prone to this type of behavior.
Chapter 8: We Like Things Tidy
Chapter 9: Men Shoot First
Reference:
Hallinan, Joseph. Why We Make Mistakes. Random House, Inc.c New York. 2009
Summary:
Chapter 8: We Like Things Tidy
This chapter focused on our perception of things in terms of our simplifying of them. When we think of relative locations of things on a map, we simplify places and put it in a hierarchical structure in order to get more of a larger picture of the map.
Music and environment can play a large role in our remembering something. When brought back into our original context of the state we learned or recognized the even in, we are more likely to remember the event.
Our memory also evades us. When retelling a story, we often either embellish parts or detract from parts based upon the audience and our goal in telling the story. When we replace the facts with more things we make up, we then come to think that the things we made up were actually a part of the actual event upon repetition of the story.
Chapter 9: Men Shoot First
This chapter went through the idea that not only are men overconfident when compared with women, but they are also more likely to engage in riskier business. All these factors are hard to trace back, but some is due to the way in which boys grow up as compared to girls. When it comes to navigation, men are more likely to not ask directions whereas women would. The author points this to the fact that boys tend to have a larger range of mobility allowed to them by their parents when they are young over girls. Boys are also encouraged to tinker more than girls are which also may influence the risk taking and overconfidence of the male.
Discussion:
I think it is very important to us to simplify these things. The book did not go into how our minds categorize things, but I think it is very important to our association and recollection of things for us to categorize things and put classes of object together maybe even oversimplifying things. Our spacial parts of our brains are so much more powerful at remembering things than just rote memory.
Being a man, I see this overconfidence in us over girls all the time. It is a part of who we are and cannot really be separated out in order to have a different perspective of things. While we may be able to look back on an event or even ourselves and recognize this difference, we will always (in my opinion) be prone to this type of behavior.
Paper Reading #21: Towards maximizing the accuracy of human-labeled sensor data
Title:
Towards maximizing the accuracy of human-labeled sensor data
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Rosenthal, Stephanie, and Dey, Anind. Towards maximizing the accuracy of human-labeled sensor data. IUI '10. ACM, New York. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1730000/1720006/p259-rosenthal.pdf?key1=1720006&key2=7883922031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.135&CFID=17152168&CFTOKEN=47763320
Summary:
This study was focused on researching seeing the factors that influence the way people label things. More specifically the study was related to the labeling of online content. Some websites attempt to label their content through computer generation while others rely on user to label the data for them. When the latter is done, there are usually many users who do this in order to increase the accuracy of the label. The investigation focuses on uncertainty, amount and level of context, prediction of an answer, and request for user feedback concerning labeling.
The study was done to see the relation between people labeling their own data and labeling strangers data. The result of this experiment found there was little difference in the way these labelings occurred. The results found that there there were combinations of the focus of the investigation (uncertainty, amount and level of context, prediction of an answer, and request for user feedback) that would aid the most in maximizing labeling accuracy among users. It was found that all these were important and helpful to generate more accurate labels on data. The limitation was that providing additional information did not have an effect on their accuracy. This was seen as a result of the user going in with notions based upon the raw data and didn't need to formalize any other thoughts in his head about the situation.
Discussion:
The paper began in utter confusion for me as I had very little idea what the paper was actually talking about until I was almost done with the introduction. The title and abstract did not give me near the amount of information needed in order to understand in any sort of what what the study was trying to accomplish.
Aside from that, the idea of labeling and the accuracy to which people do so reminded me of a few things I have done in school. In my ecology class we all had to grade each others assignments online. In order to calibrate our grading, we were all given three sample papers to correct and grade and off of that a program would analyze our conclusions in order to grade we should get on our papers.
I don't think that this study was important at all. I didn't understand why they were doing it as they did not have a good explanation in any part of the paper. I couldn't follow it completely. I would say that for future work, aside from writing a decent report, would be to try and make an algorithm to better label instead of just having people label.
Towards maximizing the accuracy of human-labeled sensor data
Comments:
Cindy Skach
Luke Roberts
Reference:
Rosenthal, Stephanie, and Dey, Anind. Towards maximizing the accuracy of human-labeled sensor data. IUI '10. ACM, New York. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1730000/1720006/p259-rosenthal.pdf?key1=1720006&key2=7883922031&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=165.91.4.135&CFID=17152168&CFTOKEN=47763320
Summary:
This study was focused on researching seeing the factors that influence the way people label things. More specifically the study was related to the labeling of online content. Some websites attempt to label their content through computer generation while others rely on user to label the data for them. When the latter is done, there are usually many users who do this in order to increase the accuracy of the label. The investigation focuses on uncertainty, amount and level of context, prediction of an answer, and request for user feedback concerning labeling.
The study was done to see the relation between people labeling their own data and labeling strangers data. The result of this experiment found there was little difference in the way these labelings occurred. The results found that there there were combinations of the focus of the investigation (uncertainty, amount and level of context, prediction of an answer, and request for user feedback) that would aid the most in maximizing labeling accuracy among users. It was found that all these were important and helpful to generate more accurate labels on data. The limitation was that providing additional information did not have an effect on their accuracy. This was seen as a result of the user going in with notions based upon the raw data and didn't need to formalize any other thoughts in his head about the situation.Discussion:
The paper began in utter confusion for me as I had very little idea what the paper was actually talking about until I was almost done with the introduction. The title and abstract did not give me near the amount of information needed in order to understand in any sort of what what the study was trying to accomplish.
Aside from that, the idea of labeling and the accuracy to which people do so reminded me of a few things I have done in school. In my ecology class we all had to grade each others assignments online. In order to calibrate our grading, we were all given three sample papers to correct and grade and off of that a program would analyze our conclusions in order to grade we should get on our papers.
I don't think that this study was important at all. I didn't understand why they were doing it as they did not have a good explanation in any part of the paper. I couldn't follow it completely. I would say that for future work, aside from writing a decent report, would be to try and make an algorithm to better label instead of just having people label.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)