Tag Archives: MobileHCI

Commentary: On Excellence in Reviews, Thoughts for the HCI Community

Peer review — and particularly the oft-sorry state it seems to sink to — is a frequent topic of conversation at the water-coolers and espresso machines of scientific institutions the world over.

Of course, every researcher freshly wounded by a rejection has strong opinions about reviews and reviewers.  These are often of the sort that are spectacularly unfit to print, but they are widely held nonetheless.

Yet these same wounded researchers typically serve as reviewers themselves, and write reviews which other authors receive.

And I can assure you that “other authors” all too frequently regard the remarks contained in the reviews of these erstwhile wounded researchers with the same low esteem.

So if we play out this vicious cycle to its logical conclusion, in a dystopian view peer review boils down to the following:

  • We trash one another’s work.
  • Everything gets rejected.
  • And we all decide to pack up our toys and go home.

That’s not much of a recipe for scientific progress.

But what fuels this vicious cycle and what can be done about it?

As reviewers, how can we produce Excellent Reviews that begin to unwind this dispiriting scientific discourse?

As authors, how should we interpret the comments of referees, or (ideally) write papers that will be better received in the first place?

When I pulled together the program committee for the annual MobileHCI conference last year, I found myself pondering all of these issues, and really wondering what we could do to advance the conference’s review process with a positive footing.

And particularly because MobileHCI is a smaller venue, with many of the program committee members still relatively early in their research careers, I really wanted to get them started with the advice that I wished someone had given me when I first started writing and reviewing scientific papers in graduate school.

So I penned an essay that surfaces all of these issues. It describes some of the factors that lead to this vicious cycle in reviews. It makes some very specific recommendations about what an excellent review is, and how to produce one. And if you read it as an author (perhaps smarting from a recent rejection) who wants to better understand where the heck do these reviews come from anyway? and as a by-product actually write better papers, then reading between the lines will give you some ideas of how to go about that as well.

And I was pleased, if not more than a bit surprised, to see that my little rant essay was well-received by the research community:

And I received many other private responses with a similar tenor.

So if you care at all about these issues I hope that you will take a look at what I had to say. And circle back here to leave comments or questions, if you like.

There’s also a companion presentation [Talk PPTX] [Talk PDF], which I used with the MobileHCI program committee to instill a positive and open-minded attitude as we embarked on our deliberations. I’ve included that here as well in the hope that it might be of some use to others hoping to gain a little insight into what goes on in such meetings, and how to run them.


Thumbnail - Excellence in ReviewsHinckley, K., So You’re a Program Committee Member Now: On Excellence in Reviews and Meta-Reviews and Championing Submitted Work That Has Merit. Published as “The MobileHCI Philosophy” on the MobileHCI 2015 Web Site, Feb 10th, 2015. [Official MobileHCI Repository PDF] [Author’s Mirror Site PDF], [Talk PPTX] [Talk PDF].

Advertisements

Contribute to MobileHCI 2015 and Help Advance the Frontiers of Mobility: Submissions Due Feb 6th, 2015.

Mobile HCI 2015 bannerSend us your work. If it makes us go “Wow!” we want it.

Along with Hans Gellersen of Lancaster University (UK), I’m proud to announce that I’m co-chairing the papers selection committee for the 2015 installment of the long-running MobileHCI conference (sponsored by the ACM and SIGCHI), to take place Aug 24th-Aug 27th, 2015, in wonderful and historic Copenhagen, Denmark.

MobileHCI is the premiere venue to publish and learn about state-of-the-art innovations and insights for all aspects of human-computer interaction as it pertains to mobility–whether in terms of the devices we use, the services we engage with, or the new patterns of human behavior emerging from the wilderness of the modern-day digital ecology.

Submissions due Feb 6th, 2015.

Call for Papers

MobileHCI seeks contributions in the form of innovations, insights, or analyses related to human experiences with mobility.

Our interpretation of mobility is inclusive and broadly construed. Likewise, our view of contribution encompasses technology, experience, methodology, and theory—or any mix thereof, and beyond. We seek richness and diversity in topic as well as approach, method, and viewpoint. If you can make a convincing case that you have something important to say about mobility, in all its many forms, we want to see your work.

In no particular order, this includes contributions in the form of:

Systems & infrastructures. The design, architecture, deployment, and evaluation of systems and infrastructures that support development of or interaction with mobile devices and services.

Devices & techniques: The design, construction, usage, and evaluation of devices and techniques that create valuable new capabilities for mobile human-computer interaction.

Applications & experiences. Descriptions of the design, empirical study of interactive applications, or analysis of usage trends that leverage mobile devices and systems.

Methodologies & tools. New methods and tools designed for or applied to studying or building mobile user interfaces, applications, and mobile users.

Theories & models. Critical analysis or organizing theory with clearly motivated relevance to the design or study of mobile human-computer interaction; taxonomies of design or devices; well-supported essays on emerging trends and practice in mobile human-computer interaction.

Visions & wildcards. Well-argued and well-supported visions of the future of mobile computing; non-traditional topics that bear on mobility; under-represented viewpoints and perspectives that convincingly bring something new to mobile research and practice. Surprise us with something new and compelling.

We seek contribution of ideas, as opposed to convention of form.

If you write a good paper—present clear, well-argued and well-cited ideas that are backed up with some form of compelling evidence (proof-of-concept implementations, system demonstrations, data analysis, user studies, or whatever methodology suits the contribution you are trying to make)—then we want to see your work, and if we agree it is good, we will accept it.

We are not particularly picky about page lengths or the structure of papers. Use the number of pages you need to convey a contribution, no more, no less.

Reviewers traditionally expect about 4pp for shorter contributions, and about 10pp for long-form contributions, but these are simply guideposts of what authors most commonly submit.

If you have a great 10 page paper with an intriguing set of ideas and the references spill over onto page 12, we are happy with that.

If you can convey a solid idea in 8 pages, that is fine too.

Or a four-pager with a clearly articulated nugget of contribution is always welcome.

Finally, keep the “Wow!” test in mind.

We are always happy to consider thought-provoking work that might not be perfect but clearly does inject new ideas into the discourse on mobile interaction, what it is now, what it could be in the future.

We would rather have 10 thought-provoking papers that break new ground in their own unique ways, than that one perfect paper that is dull and unassailable.

Send us your work. If it makes us go “Wow!” we want it. By the same token there is nothing wrong with solid work that advances the state of the art. We are excited to expand the many frontiers of mobility and we need your contributions to help us get there.

You can find full details in the online call for or papers at the MobileHCI 2015 website.

And be sure to spread the word to your peers and collaborators so that we can have a rich conference programme with a great diversity of neat projects and results to showcase the cutting edge of mobility.

Paper: Toward Compound Navigation Tasks on Mobiles via Spatial Manipulation

I have three papers coming out this week at MobileHCI 2013, the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, which convenes this week in Munich. It’s one of the great small conferences that focuses exclusively on mobile interaction, which of course is a long-standing interest of mine.

This post focuses on the first of those papers, and right behind it will be short posts on the other two projects that my co-authors are presenting this week.

I’ve explored many directions for viewing and moving through information on small screens, often motivated by novel hardware sensors as well as basic insights about human motor and cognitive capabilities. And I also have a long history in three-dimensional (spatial) interaction, virtual environments, and the like. But despite doing this stuff for decades, every once in a while I still get surprised by experimental results.

That’s just part of what keeps this whole research gig fun and interesting. If the all answers were simple and obvious, there would be no point in doing the studies.

In this particular paper, my co-authors and I took a closer look at a long-standing spatial, or through-the-lens, metaphor for interaction– akin to navigating documents (or other information spaces) by looking through your mobile as if it were a camera viewfinder– and subjected it to experimental scrutiny.

While this basic idea of using your mobile as a viewport onto a larger virtual space has been around for a long time, the idea hasn’t been subjected to careful scrutiny in the context of moving a mobile device’s small screen as a way to view virtually larger documents. And the potential advantages of the approach have not been fully articulated and realized either.

This style of navigation (panning and zooming control) on mobile devices has great promise because it allows you to offload the navigation task itself to your nonpreferred hand, leaving your preferred hand free to do other things like carry bags of grocieries — or perform additional tasks such as annotation, selection, and tapping commands — on top of the resulting views.

But, as our study also shows, it is an approach not without its challenges; sensing the spatial position of the device, and devising an appropriate input mapping, are both difficult challenges that will need more progress to fully take advantage of this way of moving through information on a mobile device. For the time being, at least, the traditional touch gestures of pinch-to-zoom and drag-to-pan still appear to offer the most efficient solution for general-purpose navigation tasks.

Compound-Navigation-Mobiles-thumbPahud, M., Hinckley, K., Iqbal, S., Sellen, A., and Buxton, B., Toward Compound Navigation Tasks on Mobiles via Spatial Manipulation. In ACM 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, (MobileHCI 2013), Munich, Germany, Aug. 27-30, 2013, pp. 113-122. [PDF] [video – MP4]

Toward Compound Navigation on Mobiles via Spatial Manipulation on YouTube