British Inter aces - British Computer Society · Interfaces 59 • Summer 2004 3 RIGHT TO REPLY...

Inter aces59 • Summer 2004

British

Groupwww.bcs-hci.org.uk

1Published by the British HCI Group • ISSN 1351-119XHuman–Computer Interaction

grounded design

technology

point of changeplayful andinquisitive

metalepsis

Text input in PDAsThe role of art in HCIProfessor Evil's guide to HCIplus... reports and reviewsHCI Educators 2004 • Human Centred Technologies 2003UITV 2004 • HEAT 2004 • UTOPIA 2004

genre adaptationchallenging preconceptions

technology

designpoint of change

magic

suspension of disbelief

variability

aesthetics sheer joy

2 Interfaces 59 • Summer 2004

contentsView from the Chair

2 View from the Chair

3 Editorial

4 DeflectionsGilbert Cockton

5 Internet ubiquity or social inequality?Russell Beale

6 Automatic scroll supporting input in PDAsMaria G.C. Pimentel, Dorival L. Pinto Jr,Carlos F.P. Rocha

8 Home and Electronic Assistive TechnologyWorkshop, reviewed

Gordon Baxter

10 In search of UTOPIAJoy Goodman

11 7th HCI Educators Workshop, reviewedRussell Beale

12 Human-Centred Technologies Workshopreview

Alice Good and Jon Rimmer

13 My PhD: In search of High CalibreIndividuals (HCI)

Martha Hause

14 HCI 2004 workshop: Call for participationDavid England

15 Diary of a Student Volunteer at HCI 2003Nadia Pervez

16 Professor Evil’s guide toHuman–Computer Interaction

Gilbert Cockton

17 Interacting with ComputersPapers in the forthcoming Special Issue

18 How might art inform HCI knowledgeand practices

Frode Hegland

20 UITV2004 – you are what you interact withTom McEwan

23 Book reviews

28 HCI Executive contact list

Now is the time for your tears

Time keeps on slipping. This View from the Chair is late,which is a sure sign that I should have found someone else totake on role of Communications Chair by now. In fact severalof the committee have also been feeling too long in-the-saddle and this September we hope to see a bunch of newfaces tearing into service for the community. Pleasevolunteer.

In fact everyone I meet seems to be time-poor these daysand awash with redundant technology. We get seduced bythe packaging only to realise after a few weeks all the thingsit didn’t say. All the freedoms that the technology brings usseem to come at a price and that price is the hours spentconfiguring, installing, maintaining, converting data.

Part of the problem is that design paradigm of infiniteprocessor speed, memory and bandwidth. We have forgottenthe most finite commodity of all. ‘You just kinda wasted myprecious time but don’t think twice it’s alright’ is our acerbiccry, not to feckless lovers but to a design community that forthe sake of creativity, ignores reality.

Time is all we have and it’s loaded with opportunity cost.Now is the moment to realise that the most important aspectof the interface is the user’s time. HCI is a real-time disciplineand if we really want to design for life then we need toborrow as little from the user as possible.

Less is more. I’ve said enough.

Tom [email protected]

The Esteemed Educators: Drs Beale and McEwan

3Interfaces 59 • Summer 2004

RIGHT TO REPLY

Make Interfaces interactive! We invite you tohave your say in response to issues raised inInterfaces or to comment on any aspect of HCIthat interests you. Submissions should be shortand concise (500 words or less) and, whereappropriate, should clearly indicate the articlebeing responded to. Please send all contributionsto the Editor.

Deadline for issue 60 is 15 July 2004. Deadline for issue 61 is 15 October 2004. Electronic versions are preferred:RTF, plain text or MS Word, via electronic mail or FTP (mail [email protected] for FTP address) or on Mac, PC disks; butcopy will be accepted on paper or fax.

Send to: Interfaces, c/o Laura Cowen, Mail Point 095, IBM United Kingdom Laboratories, Hursley Park, WinchesterHampshire, SO21 2JNTel: +44 (0)1962 815622; Email: [email protected]

and copy email submissions to Fiona Dix, Interfaces production editor; email: [email protected]

PDFs of Interfaces issues 35–58 can be found on the B-HCI-G web site, www.bcs-hci.org.uk/interfaces.html

Interfaces welcomes submissions on any HCI-related topic, including articles, opinion pieces,book reviews and conference reports. The nextdeadline is 15 July, but don’t wait till then – welook forward to hearing from you.

NEXT ISSUE

with thanks to commissioning editors:Book Reviews: Sandra Cairncross, [email protected] PhD: Martha Hause, [email protected] Contributions: Nadia Pervez, [email protected]

To receive your own copy of Interfaces, join the BritishHCI Group by filling in the form on page 27 and sending itto the address given.

Photo credits: pages 2, 11: Sandra Cairncross; page 6: MariaPimentel; pages 8, 9: Julia Brant; page 10: Joy Goodman.Photo credits Interfaces 58: Andy Smith, David Benyon,Cassandra Hall, Laura Cowen

I know everyone intensely dislikes automated telephoneanswering systems (“If you are human, press 1; if you wantto speak to a human, press 2; if you are not sure, pleasehold…”), and I’m no exception. A certain postal service,which I’ll call PackagePressure, has one such system.

PackagePressure tried to deliver a parcel yesterday but,unsurprisingly, I’m at work during the day. So I phone theircustomer service line. Without listening to all the options ontheir answering system, it’s not clear which one I shouldchoose. When I select the ‘arrange to get off your backsideand collect your own parcel at an inconvenient time so youhave to drive at breakneck speed across town at rushhour’option, I’m treated to a rundown of PackagePressure’scompensation policy. Why? I don’t know.

Eventually, someone answers and, after listening to meexplain that I want to collect my parcel from my local postoffice, informs me that, actually, I don’t want to collect theparcel; I want to redeliver it. Helpfully, he doesn’t transfer meto the correct department and, instead, bounces me back tothe main menu with instructions to press 4 then 2. Actuallyit’s 2 then 4 then 2 but I manage all the same.

In the ‘redelivery’ option, it’s all so different. I find myselfin a dialogue with a very helpful voice recognition system. Acheerful voice (without the usual supercilious BBC-styleinflections) asks a series of questions to which I, mostly, haveto respond ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Occasionally, answers get morecomplicated, such as ‘my local post office’ and my postcode.Nonetheless, the system isn’t fazed and confirms each of myresponses with an upbeat ‘Okay’. This impresses me ashuman customer service representatives usually have troubleunderstanding my oop-North accent. The only failure iswhen the system asks me to give the date on whichPackagePressure had originally tried delivering the parcel. It

doesn’t indicate what format I should use so, after a couple ofattempts, the system apologises for not understanding andasks me to use my phone keypad to enter the four digitsrequired. Even so, the system was so nice about it that I washappy to oblige. So it is possible to configure helpfulautomated telephone answering systems after all.

In this issue of Interfaces, Maria da Graca Pimentel andcolleagues describe a text input system for PDAs which, likePackagePressure’s redelivery phone system, improves thenaturalism of human–computer interaction. Frode Heglanddiscusses the possibility of approaching human–computerinteraction from an artistic, rather than scientific, perspective,and Gilbert Cockton considers the many varied disciplinesthat contribute to the field of HCI.

As you can see from the opposite page, this issue containsmore than its usual clutch of conference and workshopreports. The idea is to share experiences between regularattendees and, also, to give occasional or non-attendees,including students, a feel for what these events are like.

Nadia Pervez, the Chair of Student Representatives on theBritish HCI Group Executive, has been working hard toencourage HCI students to contribute to Interfaces. So, in thisissue, Jackie Brodie reviews an HCI text book from a student(i.e. user) perspective, and Nadia describes her experiences asa Student Volunteer at HCI 2003.

Speaking of which, HCI 2004 is just around the corner. Allthe submissions are in and you’ll have received a copy of theAdvance Programme with Interfaces. So, volunteer if you’re astudent; register if not, then get along to Leeds this September.

EditorialLaura Cowen

Laura [email protected]

http://www.bcs-hci.org.uk/interfaces.html


Over the last millennium, new technologies have beeninvested with magical powers, from spectacles in the Renais-sance, through the steam engine in the Industrial Revolution,to the motor car in the Twentieth Century. As people becomefamiliar with technologies, they understand the interactions –both good and bad – between artefacts and their usagecontexts. Thus few would argue that a chair’s featuresconjure up inherent strength. We expect chairs to be strongenough to sit (and stand?) on, but we expect few to survivetank tracks. Strength rather expresses expectations ofbehaviour in relevant contexts.

We are still in the magic phase with computers. Accessibil-ity and usability are now seen as separate feature-determinedproperties in some current e-government guidelines. Onceagain, technology becomes magic through feature power.

Weaning people off feature magic will take time. We areup against another foe in the separation of usability andaccessibility. Key figures such as Jakob Nielsen and GregVanderheiden have noted (respectively) that accessibilitywithout usability is of little value, and that accessibility tendsto bring improved usability. So, usability and accessibility areconnected, but different. For Nielsen (the usability guru), youcan have accessibility without usability. For Vanderheiden(the accessibility expert), you get usability from accessibility.

These can’t both be true all of the time. We get differentviews from different camps. For decades, accessibility wasthe preserve of small groups of disconnected specialists inoccupational therapy, rehabilitation engineering and a rangeof medical specialisms, plus a few HCI people. My work withEamon Doherty and colleagues on brain–body interfacesbrought us into contact with all four communities. As an HCIgroup, we made rapid progress against the ‘old schools’ inworking with brain–body interfaces.

Rehabilitation engineering tends to focus on the artefactand not usage. We encounter wildly impractical systemsarchitectures that are never tested on users (pre-processed‘test’ data tends to be used). Medical researchers tend tooperate in a similar gadget-centric mode, only some get todrill holes in people’s heads as well. One-off (partial) tasksuccesses are enough for publication. The idea of usability inreal usage contexts is extremely rare in both researchtraditions.

For many accessibility researchers, usability is not onlydifferent, but something that they need not bother with.Jakob Nielsen can thus easily find examples of assistivetechnologies with very poor usability (and yet as I argued inmy previous Deflections in Interfaces 58, this does not meanthat they are without value). So where is Vanderheiden’sknock-on from accessibility to usability?

Alan Newell in Dundee regularly reminds us of inventionsthat began as assistive technologies but are now ubiquitousaids for all: the tape cassette, remote central locking, theremote control (and when my children were toddlers, Iwould add disabled toilets, which keep a young girl and boy,plus buggy and shopping, in one socially acceptable place –unlike the Gents). So, knock-ons exist, but they are notautomatic (there are some dreadful remote controls with novalue).

A more certain link between accessibility and usabilitymakes them one and the same. Disability only arises incontexts where a functional impairment prevents someonefrom achieving something. It is the context that disables, notthe functional impairment. Accessibility is thus about thecreation of usage contexts that do not disable, even in the faceof a wide range of functional impairments.

So, accessibility is simply a question of designing interac-tive devices that make no demands that disable any user.Which is pretty much what usability is about, except for theaddition of ‘a wide range of functional impairments’. How-ever, when designing for most user populations in HCI, wecan and should expect a range of functional impairments(e.g., colour blindness gets considered in display design). Ifaccessibility is only distinguished from usability by consid-eration of a wide range of functional impairments, then thereis something badly wrong with usability.

Most interaction design – in both research and everydaysystems – proceeds with no proper consideration of humanability, impaired or otherwise. When designing accessibletechnologies, we must design for what people can do.Unfortunately, most functional impairments are researchedfrom a medical perspective that does not tell us, for example,what arthritic people can grasp. Designers of accessibletechnologies have almost no data to inform universal design.Without data on how physical, perceptual and cognitiveimpairments relate to demands placed on users by interactivesystems, we cannot properly ground accessible design.However, we also lack data on ‘normal’ capabilities.

There is no sharp line between the able-bodied and the‘disabled’. We instead need data on the capabilities of allindividuals. Measurements will range from the impressive,through typical, to the most impaired. Subranges may (not)correspond to medical conditions. However, the ability toassociate ‘groups’ of functionally impaired people withranges of capability measures is key to being able to recruitan appropriate range of test users.

Given that the abilities of individuals with the samecondition (e.g., especially cerebral palsy) are so diverse, auser panel of one blind, two deafs, three lames and fivegeriatrics cannot be considered as balanced unless we knowtheir actual capabilities. So, not only do we have little basisfor analytical accessibility, we also have little for empiricalaccessibility.

After almost three decades of HCI we do not havecomprehensive basic data on human capabilities, either at thekeystroke level of device interaction, or at the dialogue levelof complete task interactions. We lack data for the able andthe impaired. Without data, we cannot really design or testfor usability or accessibility. With it, we can design and testfor both.

To assemble this data, HCI researchers need to work withthe ‘old school’ of accessibility, especially key medicalspecialists and occupational therapists (who rely on standardtests of capability for service delivery). The distinctionbetween usability and accessibility will disappear. A usablesystem must be usable across its intended audience. To call

DeflectionsAccessibility is usability

Gilbert Cockton


one usable but inaccessible is nonsense. It is simply unusablefor a specific (and perhaps substantial) part of its intendeduser base. Similarly, a system cannot be accessible butunusable.

Usable must be accessible and vice versa. Designing forfunctional impairment shows just how poor our current datais when designing for humans. Fashion designers useextensive measurement data. While this does allow design foronly sizes 8 to 16, it need not. That is a commercial choicewith measurable consequences. While we may not like this,HCI will have advanced immensely if we can reach the same

position of being able to knowingly design well for only 80%of an intended user base and understand the risks associatedwith the other 20%.

ReferencesDoherty E.P, Cockton G., Bloor C., Rizzo J. and B. Blondina, 2002. Yes/No or

Maybe – Further Evaluation of an Interface for Brain-Injured Individuals, inInteracting with Computers, 14(4), 341–358.

The internet is everywhere, so it is claimed. It is certainlyavailable within 30 minutes of most people’s locations.Whether it is in the home, or at work, or in the library, or inpublic kiosks, or internet cafes, most people can access theweb if they really want to. But the digital divide gets in theway, this invisible yet substantial barrier, between the havesand the have nots, the ‘ones’ and the ‘zeros’. Some peoplehave the internet and others don’t. Surely these concepts areincompatible? How can the internet be everywhere and yetaccessible only to some? Why is it that parts of our communi-ties are cut off from the resources and opportunities openedup by the internet?

Part of it is education: many people simply do not realisewhat a great resource it is. And if you’re new to the internetnow, it is indeed hard to see what all the fuss is about –everywhere you go is either commercial, adverts, or pornog-raphy – it is hard to get beyond that to the actual interestingstuff, if you’re not expert in where to look and what scams toavoid.

Part of it is financial: many people cannot afford theluxury of a computer at home, and work in jobs that have noneed for computers or internet access. And the cost of goingto the public library is prohibitive for it to become a regular,integrated part of their lives.

Part of it is accessibility: if you’re disabled, then manysites are not available to you and you cannot read or interactwith them effectively. Recent changes in the law haveimproved things to a limited extent, and should stop the UKsituation deteriorating further. To get an idea of how badmany sites are, open them in Lynx, the text-only browser; thismimics what a screen-reader program can see and hencewhat a partially sighted person may hear if the site is read tothem. Far too many sites are unusable.

However, we need to review this list: education, financial,disability. All these are discriminatory factors within ourwider society already. It is less that there is a digital divide,more that we already live in an inequitable system, in whichtraining, money and full abilities are inordinately valued. Thedigital divide is primarily an instantiation of a wider socialproblem. This is important, as there are arguments thattechnology is bad because it is widening the gap, and yet ifthis gap is an effect, not a cause, of social problems, then thatargument is misplaced. It is the gap that is the problem, notthe technology.

One can argue that the internet can improve education,can increase people’s mobility, flexibility and personalincomes, that it can transcend disability and make all equal inthe eyes of the web. This may be true – it should be one of thegoals of responsible scientists to make this the case. Otherscan also argue that the social problems are too large to betackled effectively, and things that reinforce the differencebetween one sector of the community and the other areinherently not good – and they would have a valid point too.

The digital divide is not a causal phenomenon – it is aneffect of the social system we are in. Its one advantage overmany other forms of progress is that it does have the abilityto transform the societies in which we live. We must there-fore concentrate our efforts on providing systems that areavailable, accessible, understandable, and integrative. Societywould agree with us; it should be the role of those who haveto support those who have not.

Gilbert [email protected]

Internet ubiquity or social inequality? Russell Beale

Russell [email protected] Interaction GroupUniversity of Birmingham

Preliminary Call for Papers

3rd International Workshop onTAsk MOdels and DIAgrams for user interface design

TAMODIA 2004

Prague, Czech Republic • November 15–16, 2004

http://liihs.irit.fr/event/tamodia2004/

This workshop is aimed at examining how multiple forms oftask expressions can significantly increase or decrease thequality of user interface design as a process.

Deadline for paper submissions: 15 July 2004

Call for Position Papers

First workshop onDESIGNING FOR ATTENTION

at HCI 2004, The 18th British HCI Group Annual Conference

Leeds Metropolitan University, UK • 6–10 September 2004

http://www.ac.aup.fr/roda/attention

We would appreciate receiving expressions of interest with atentative topic/ title as soon as possible. We will acceptparticipants until Thursday August 12, 2004 on the basis ofthe submission of a position paper (1 to 5 pages) outlininginterests, views, or research in attentional processes.

http://liihs.irit.fr/event/tamodia2004/

http://www.ac.aup.fr/roda/attention


The use of small devices such as Personal Digital Assistants(PDAs) brings many advantages for the mobile user. Theiruse has been reported in hospitals [4], classrooms [8] and inheritage-oriented educational games [1], to name a few.

As far as output is concerned, recent investigations haveevaluated users while accessing information on small screensin tasks such as web search [3], search in large tables [9] andreading using rapid serial visual representation (RSVP) [6].

As the usability of PDAs increases, they become moreattractive to the general user. However, the size of the screenis one of the most critical limitations of such devices, inparticular when users have to access and interact with largeamounts of information.

As a result, scrolling becomes a need in many cases, eventhough it may be disruptive and is usually not recommendedfor desktop applications (in particular in the Web [5]). Inmost PDAs, the scrolling may be operated by means ofphysical buttons or virtual scroll bars in the touch sensitivearea that also presents the information. Although verticalscroll is more common, horizontal scroll may also be neces-sary. For instance, it is common to scroll a map or a photobigger than the viewing area of the PDA.

Yee [10] has proposed Peephole as an alternative totraditional scrolling by taking into consideration the move-ment of the device itself in 3D-space, the tracking beingachieved by means of specialized hardware.

The idea is that the non-dominant hand controls naviga-tion so that the dominant hand is free for pursuing interac-tion. His studies for both input and information presentationhave been successful in terms of the interactions needed, butalso highlighted the current limitations in tracking themovements of the PDA.

While building a system to allow students to make notesin PDAs and have those notes integrated with materialautomatically captured from the instructor’s interaction withan electronic whiteboard [7], we designed a tool with whichstudents can make their annotations in a virtual area biggerthan the original PDA writing surface (see Figure 1). Towardsbeing able to write in the larger area, we have implementedboth the traditional grab-and-drag scroll (such as the one in

Adobe Acrobat Reader) and a novel automatic scrolling, thelatter being available when the user is in the writing mode.

The novelty of automatic scrolling is in the availability, inPDAs, of both horizontal and vertical scrolling in the writingmode. As the user reaches the end of the visible area of a line,the next writing area is positioned automatically. The newwriting area can demand either only horizontal scrolling, asis the case when the beginning of the ‘hidden’ area is shown,or both horizontal and vertical scrolling when the far rightside of the virtual writing area has been reached and theleftmost corner of a lower portion is to be shown.

It is relevant to observe that two features have beenimplemented to orient the user in identifying the area wherethe automatic scrolling is active. First, in Figure 2, the hori-zontal lines that delimit the writing area have a point ofdiscontinuation at their right hand-side. This discontinuation,visible only in the writing mode, indicates when theautomatic scroll is active.

Second, on the top-left corner of each window in Figure 2(to the left of the work Task), the outermost square indicatesthe whole of the virtual area, the dashed lines indicate its fourquadrants, and the innermost square indicates which portionof the virtual area is shown in the visible area at the moment.This information is updated on the fly while the user iswriting.

The automatic scroll can be turned on and off and the sizeof the writing area is configurable, as is the amount ofscrolling that occurs at each scrolling step. This can be seen asa more general approach of that adopted in today’s iPaqs,such as the H5500, which implement an automatic scroll intheir Notes application so that a new page is activated whenthe user reaches the last visible line [2].

We report on a study carried out with our implementationrunning on a Palm M130. The results indicate that the use ofautomatic scroll allowed users to perform the input tasks inless time and with more accuracy. The prototype has beenwritten to run on SuperWaba (a Java Virtual Machine forPDAs), and has been successfully installed on a HP iPaqH5500.

Automatic scroll supporting input in PDAsMaria G.C. Pimentel, Dorival L. Pinto Jr, Carlos F.P. Rocha

Figure 1 Visible writing area inside the larger virtual area; theautomatic scrolling is activated when the virtual vertical line isreached.


Experiment designTowards investigating the impact of the scrolling, we elabo-rated four activities to conduct the experiment:

• writing on top of a straight guide line (Figure 2a)

• writing on top of a long sine-shaped guide line(Figure 2b)

• writing on top of three sine-shape guide lines(Figure 3a)

• free writing of ‘Feliz Natal e Prospero Ano Novo’,the Portuguese for ‘Merry Christmas and Pros-perous New Year’ (Figure 3b)

The first task (drawing on top of the straight line) was carriedout as a training task, so that the users would understandhow each of the two different scrolling operations wouldwork.

We compared the performance of the users while usingthe automatic scrolling and using the grab-and-drag scrollingto execute the four tasks above. Therefore each user executedthe four tasks twice. To keep the experiment balanced, halfexecuted the tasks with automatic scrolling first, half thegrab-and-drag scrolling first.

We had 14 subjects, students from several undergraduateand graduate courses. We also wanted to check whetherexperienced PDA users would perform differently from new-to-PDA users, and we had half of the users in each category.

Our objective was to verify the influence of the automaticscrolling on user performance. So, we defined four factors:

• User (novice or expert)

• Activity (line, one sine-shaped guide line, threesine-shaped guide lines, free writing)

• Automatic scrolling or grab-and-drag scrolling(AS, for automatic scroll)

• Order (whether the users started the tasks withautomatic scrolling or not)

The result variables we have defined are:

(a) Average distance along guide lines and the pixelsdrawn by the users

(b) Average time to complete the task

ResultsWe obtained a Pearson correlation between Average Distanceand Average Time of –0.104 (p-value = 0.274). Given that thep-value is bigger than 0.05, we rejected the hypothesis thatthe variables were correlated, which allowed us to carry outan individual analysis of each variable.

We used ANOVA to analyse the influence of the indi-vidual and combined factors in the Average Time for execut-ing the tasks. The results (as indicated in Figure 4) indicatethat three variables have influence on the Average Time:

Order (F=8.19 and p=0.005)

AS (F=20.11 and p<0.001)

Activity (F=38.32 and p<0.001)

The impact of Activity was most expected, since the fourtasks are quite different. The influence of Order suggests thatusers had more difficulty using the grab-and-drag operationto scroll after using the automatic scroll than vice versa. Inother words, we can say that, after using the automatic scroll,the use of the more traditional scrolling was more difficult(no matter what the previous experience of the user was).

Finally, the use of the automatic scrolling (AS) itselfimplied a significative impact on Average Time. This is avery important result with respect to offering (or not) thistype of operation on PDAs.

In our study of the Average Distance, we defined distanceas being the distance, in pixels, of the line the user had drawnrelative to the corresponding guide line. Therefore this doesnot apply to the free writing task.

We used ANOVA to analyse the influence of the indi-vidual and combined factors in the Average Distance forexecuting the task. The results indicate that two variableshave influence on the Average Distance:

AS (F=3.88 and p=0.050)

Activity (F=3.61 and p=0.032).

Figure 2a Writing on top of aguide line.

Figure 2b Writing on top of along curve.

Figure 3a Writing on top ofthree curves.

Figure 3b Free writing task.

Figure 4 Automatic Scroll (AS), Order andActivity had influence on the Average Timeto complete the tasks.


Figure 5a shows the difference in Average Distance underthe influence of AS. This means that, independently of theorder or the experience of the users, when the tasks werecarried out with automatic scroll the user was more likely tomake a more precise drawing over the guide lines.

Figure 5b shows the difference in Average Distance underthe influence of the three tasks. The training task was theeasiest and allowed the users to keep very close to the guideline. When the users had to draw over the curved lines, theirprecision was not as good.

Final remarksConsidering all tasks, the use of automatic scroll allowedusers to perform input tasks in less time and with moreaccuracy.

It is also interesting to observe that, when performing thefree writing task, only one of the users did not choose towrite on the virtual area. This is a very important result withrespect to offering the virtual area in both dimensions,regardless of the use of automatic scrolling or not.

We plan to implement our system so as to allow users tocreate private notes that integrate with public materialpresented by instructors in traditional classrooms. We also

want to evaluate the use of the automatic scrolling in particu-lar, and the virtual area in general, in other common tasks.

References[1] F. Bellotti, R. Berta, A. De Gloria, E. Ferretti, and M. Margarone, 2003.

Vegame: Exploring art and history in Venice. Computer, 36(9), 48–55.[2] HP iPAQ. HP iPaq pocket pc h5500 series summary, January 2003.

http://welcome.hp.com/country/us/en/prodserv/handheld.html[3] M. Jones, G. Buchanan, and H. Thimbleby, 2003. Improving web search on

small screen devices. Interacting with Computers, 15, 479–495.[4] M. A. Muñoz, M. Rodríguez, J. Favela, A. I. Martinez-Garcia, and V. M.

González, 2003. Context-aware mobile communication in hospitals.Computer, 36(9), 38–46.

[5] J. Nielsen. Top ten mistakes in web design, May 1996.http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html

[6] G. Oquist and M. Goldstein, 2003. Towards an improved readability onmobile devices: evaluating adaptive rapid serial visual presentation.Interacting with Computers, 15, 539–558.

[7] M. G. C. Pimentel, Y. Ishiguro, B. Kerimbaev, G. D. Abowd, and M.Guzdial, 2001. Supporting educational activities through dynamic webinterfaces. Interacting with Computers, 13, 353–374.

[8] D. Tatar, J. Roschelle, P. Vahey, and W. R. Penuel, 2003. Handhelds go toschool: Lessons learned. Computer, 36(9), 30–37.

[9] C. Watters, J. Duffy, and K. Duffy, 2003. Using large tables on small displaydevices. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58, 21–37.

[10] K. Yee, 2003. Peephole displays: pen interaction on spatially awarehandheld computers. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems, pages 1–8. ACM Press.

Assistive Technology systems are increasingly regarded aspart of the solution to this problem, and are now regularlydeployed in people’s homes as a way of enabling them to liveindependently whilst maintaining their quality of life.

For the end users, EAT systems have a critical nature inthat if they fail they can leave the user without the ability tocarry out everyday tasks or, at worst, without access toessential (emergency) services. The net effect is that EATsystems need to be dependable. The HEAT workshop was setup to discuss some of these dependability issues, drawingtogether people from all the different areas involved indeveloping, deploying and using EAT: end users (peoplewith disabilities and the elderly); carers; social services staff;occupational therapists; health trust workers; systemsdevelopers (including designers and installers); and academicresearchers.

Figures 5a and 5b Automatic Scroll (AS) and Activityhad influence on the Average Distance from the guidelines.

Maria G.C. Pimentel, Dorival L. Pinto Jr, Carlos F.P. Rochamgp,leao,[email protected] of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of São Paulo

Carlos Rocha and Maria Pimentel acknowledge grants from CNPq.The work is part of an international cooperation project sponsored byCNPq and FAPESP in Brazil and by NSF in the U.S.

Home and Electronic Assistive Technology Workshop, reviewedKing’s Manor, University of York, March 16–17, 2004 Gordon Baxter

The United Nations recently forecast that by 2050 there willbe more people in the world over sixty than there will beunder the age of fifteen. The corollary of this is that there willbe more elderly people requiring care, even though careprovisions are already stretched by current loads. Electronic

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html


The first HEAT workshop was held in the HuntingdonRoom of the historic King’s Manor buildings at the Univer-sity of York in March 2004. The workshop attracted around50 people from several countries (including America,Sweden, and Pakistan). About half the participants wereacademics; the remainder were practitioners.

The first day opened after lunch with Michael Harrison(University of York) giving an overview of the DIRC project(Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration on the Dependabil-ity of computer-based systems) and highlighting the linkbetween dependability and the use of technology in thehome. Roger Orpwood (Bath Institute of Medical Engineer-ing) then gave the first keynote talk, describing howdependability issues affect the design of smart houses. Rogeris probably best known for his work on the Gloucester SmartHouse, which was designed to support people with dementiaand their carers. His talk drew on those experiences andsubsequent work in designing EAT, highlighting theimportance of giving proper consideration to the complexityand variability of the end users.

The formal part of the day concluded with a paneldiscussion, chaired by Andrew Monk (Centre for UsableHome Technology, CUHTec) on the factors that make anelectronics assistive technology system ‘good’. The panellistsprovided a good cross-section of the different areas affectedby HEAT-type issues. In addition to the keynote speakers, theother panellists were Jenny Jarred (Age Concern, York),Kevin Doughty (CUHTec) and Guy Dewsbury (University ofLancaster). After each of the panellists had their five minutes,discussions were opened out and there were several contribu-tions from the floor. These discussions continued over theinformal dinner (with ‘A Taste Of Yorkshire’ menu), whichwas held in the King’s Manor refectory.

The second day opened with the second keynote speaker,Liz Sergeant (Aberdeen City Social Work Department). Lizprovided a different perspective on dependability issuesarising in the design of smart homes, from the ground up, forpeople with learning disabilities and autism spectrumdisorders. The presentation was based on experiences ofdeveloping three sheltered housing services in Aberdeen overthe last four years.

The rest of the day was given over to a mixture of longand short paper presentations. The diverse nature of thetopics covered is largely a reflection of the subject of theworkshop: EAT issues in the home also have an impact onagencies and services outside the home. The practicalproblems of making a service that the client perceives asdependable were addressed by Bob Martin (Central RemedialClinic, Dublin), whilst Phil Palmer (ACT, West MidlandsRehabilitation Centre) talked about the broader issue ofmaking the delivery of EAT services dependable.

In the pre-lunch session, Peter Bagnall (Lancaster Univer-sity) talked about exploiting existing tools in developing an

EAT communication for use in a multi-occupancy dwelling.The system is being designed co-operatively with theresidents. This need to involve the critical users was alsoaddressed by Julia Cassim (Helen Hamlyn Research Centre,RCA) before Phil Palmer (ACT) talked about using thePsychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) as ameans for evaluating (and eventually predicting) theoutcome of using environmental control systems.

The papers in the afternoon mostly addressed morefuturistic issues. Mark Rouncefield (Lancaster University)talked about the development of a community based SMSsystem, whilst Kevin Doughty (CUHTec) and DennisMaciuszek (Linköping University) offered visions on thefuture of telecare, and how dependable virtual companionscan be developed.

In the concluding session Andrew Monk (CUHTec) talkedabout how EAT services and systems can be used in the homewithout necessarily resorting to mechanical robots. The otherpresentation, by Shaun Lawson (Napier University), wasparticularly intriguing. He reported on a project that islooking at what can be learned from dogs that are trained toreliably predict in advance when their owners are about tohave an epileptic fit. The hope is that they will eventually beable to develop an artificial system that can reliably repro-duce the dog’s predictive behaviour.

In the wrap-up session, participants expressed an interestin having another workshop in the future, although no datesand venues were arranged. There was general agreement thatthe workshop had been a useful exercise and many peoplewere pleased that the workshop programme had allowedplenty of time for discussions between participants. Therewas a consensus that an active forum for discussing HEAT-type issues should be established, and it has subsequentlybeen agreed with the list owners that the Assistech Jiscmaillist is an appropriate forum for this purpose.

Gordon BaxterUniversity of [email protected] DewsburyLancaster UniversityCo-chairs HEAT 2004

www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/assistech.htmlA discussion list for AssistiveTechnology professionals

CFP: Web and Aging: Challenges and OpportunitiesSpecial Issue for Universal Access in the Information Society Journal

http://www.springeronline.com/east/journal/10209/

Deadline for submission of papers: 1 July 2004

Guest editorsPanayiotis Zaphiris, [email protected] Kurniawan, [email protected]

R. Darin Ellis, [email protected]

http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~zaphiri/UAIS-Aging/

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/assistech.html

http://www.springeronline.com/east/journal/10209/

http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/~zaphiri/UAIS-Aging/


‘Will you still need IT when you’re 64?’ ran one of theproposed taglines for this event and, while a bit of a joke, thisdid express a serious point. Despite the rapid ageing of thepopulation, many believe that older people just do not needor use computers. Yet, with the over-60s due to comprise 27%of the UK population by 2025 and with increasing numbers oftechnologically literate older people, this is a viewpoint thatno longer holds water. We need to consider how the needsand desires of this important group can be met in technologydesign.

This workshop addressed these issues, discussingmotivations, methods and user characteristics to considerwhen designing for this age group. Over 100 people attendedthe all-day workshop, which provided a rotating programmeof concurrent sessions to allow delegates to ‘pick and mix’activities. It included a variety of formats, from talks andpanel sessions to a video room and interactive workshops.

There isn’t room here to describe all of the talks, but adescription of a few may give you a taster. Speakers includedDave Sloan and Lorna Gibson (Digital Media Access Group),talking about legislation and web accessibility. Particularlyinformative were their examples of website accessibilityproblems and their illustrations of how these sites wouldappear to someone with colour blindness or when viewedwith a screen reader. Michael Smith (Fujitsu Consulting)talked about handling application complexity and AlexCarmichael (University of Dundee) discussed whether thereis such a thing as an ‘average’ user, tackling the issue of thevariety in the older population.

Keynote talks looked at older people and ICT from theperspective of Scottish Power and the Scottish Executive’s21st Century Government unit, as well as from the perspec-tive of an older person herself (more about this later).

Interactive workshops provided an opportunity to gainsome experience of what it might be like to have failing sight,hearing, and dexterity, and to learn from this about how tocommunicate better with older people about unfamiliartechnology. We learnt that apparently very clear visual aidscan still be indecipherable and that the addition of clearverbal descriptions is very important. We also found that weoften wrongly assume technical knowledge on the part ofusers – even the innocuous phrase ‘mobile phone’ can causedifficulties for some.

Another workshop allowed participants the chance todesign a product that considered older people’s needs.Delegates were divided into small groups and given a brief todesign a device to help families coordinate their activities andpass information around. A great range of ideas wasproduced, addressing issues such as security, aesthetics andentertainment. The needs of older people tended to beconsidered as part of an inclusive design, rather than a focuson their own.

Throughout the day, a series of videos was run, illustrat-ing some of the difficulties that many older people have withtechnology. By displaying scenarios based on real experi-ences, these helped to make some of the issues come alive.

These sessions generated interest in a variety of issues

discussed in the panel sessions. There was a consensus thatwe need to focus on users, tasks and incentives rather than onthe technology, and that designing for the older population ismuch more than just ticking a set of technical check-boxes.Delegates also discussed whether older people need specialattention or whether we should simply be sensitive to specialneeds that older people may share. While conclusive answerswere not always reached, interesting ideas and issues wereraised.

The workshop finished with a fascinating talk from arepresentative of the older population, Mamie Bruce-Gardyne.She spoke about how she set up and runs a computer groupin a rural Scottish area, and challenged those who teach olderpeople to consider the pace at which they go, the jargon thatthey use and, importantly, the attitude that they displaytowards these older learners.

All in all, the workshop proved to be a very productiveday, challenging preconceptions about the older populationand encouraging the participants to consider older people indesign.

In search of UTOPIAUsable Technology for Older People, Inclusive and Appropriate

Joy Goodman

A still from one of the videos shown at the workshop.

Mamie Bruce-Gardyne

Joy [email protected]

The workshop took place on 20th April 2004 in Edinburgh. Theworkshop was organised by the UTOPIA project, funded by SHEFC.It was supported by BCS HCI.


Held on 1st and 2nd April at the University of CentralLancashire, the HCIE’s theme was Effective Teaching andTraining in HCI, but it is probably better characterised by thenotion of ‘Try Something Different’. And for those that werethere, the sight of a couple of long-haired rednecks doingAmerican deep south chicken impressions whilst belting outPeggy Sue at top volume to each other and overwhelming thebad pub singer will be their abiding memory of an entertain-ing couple of days. Alan and Tom, step up to the mike andtake a bow. It was the matching checked shirts and trousersthat did it for me – that, and the hair-tossing and ham acting.

At the conference itself, held in a decent seminar roomenhanced by some bright sparks bringing the tea and coffeedown from the upstairs refreshment area, relatively informaland entertaining presentations characterised the friendlynature of the conference. A theme soon emerged, of using theweb in a number of different ways; Shailey Minochapresented early-stage work on developing pedagogies andevaluations for web-based environments to try and identifylearner–teacher mismatches. Gavin Sim and Matthew Hortondiscussed the good and bad points of online assessmentinterfaces, concluding that WebCT wasn’t the fantastic toolthat central University administrators tell us it is – now wehave some data to fight them off with.

Jonathan Crellin and John Rosbottom presented theirexperiences of using a web-based approach to manage,monitor and provide feedback on students’ practical work,making their teaching more efficient. Peter Lonsdale and Italked about pushing students towards independent learningby using the web as a portal resource and using lectures only

to outline material and motivate them, whilst Janet Readshowed us in her reviews of student behaviour that manystudents don’t work that hard outside of lectures and so wewere doomed to fail. (Exam results are not in yet, so watchthis space.) Sandra Cairncross and Tom McEwan presentedwork on developing a framework for designing and evaluat-ing learning objects, placing them into the wider context ofthe curriculum and the context of use.

These experiences showed us a number of revealingthings: that, as computing academics, we are struggling withlarge classes and many unmotivated students, that we aretrying new ways of using technologies to assist both thelearning experiences and the management of classes, that weare engaged in deep reflective practice ourselves, and thatteaching HCI is fundamentally hard. This was exposedfurther by both Paul Englefield of IBM and Stephen BoydDavis who presented their experiences of introducingusability and HCI into courses; generally good experiences ofboth teaching and learning were reported, with envy-inducing class sizes of single or low double figures.

Complementing the presentations were the keynotes:Barry Day discussed how pressed he was as the sole HCI/Usability evangelist within the NPSA (National Patient SafetyAgency), and how difficult it was to judge the quality ofpotential HCI professionals for want of a clear qualificationsframework, whilst Jonathan Earthy discussed currentlyunfulfilling efforts to move towards accreditation of HCIprofessionals. Scepticism of the real need for this by someacademics was balanced by the clarity of industry’s demands– where this goes next is hard to see, but it’s not for want ofeffort. Alan Dix provided his usual entertainment, reinforc-ing the notion that HCI is hard and that we need some moretheories to underpin practice. His views of theories are notthe scary mathematical models of some but simple, usablegeneralizations.

Hosted by Barbara McManus and Janet Read, the HCIEwas its usual friendly exchange of ideas and approaches.Copious tea and coffee and cakes, and a broad buffet spreadfor lunch on both days, enhanced the exchange of ideas andallowed people to mix well. Internet access was provided forthe email junkies, either in a lab just down the hall, or fromone particular seat at the back of the seminar room where thewireless network from the building across the road wasreflected and concentrated onto just one hotspot …

A problem shared is a problem laughed at by many, butthose newer to the field reported finding the new conceptspresented helpful and motivating. Talks were of a highstandard: interesting, often unusual and entertaining, andenlightening. It was a fun conference, and one thing is clear –we need a jamming session at HCI itself.

7th HCI Educators Workshop, reviewed Russell Beale

Russell [email protected] Interaction GroupUniversity of Birmingham


At the end of 2003 the University of Sussex held its seventhannual International Human-Centred Technologies work-shop. This year’s theme was Square pegs in round holes? Therelationship between empirical research and theoretical frameworks.This two-day event was sponsored by the British HCI Group,and brought together PhD students from around the UK,mainland Europe, Brazil and Australia with a commoninterest in Human-Centred Computing Technology. Thediverse and interdisciplinary nature of this area can restrictopportunities available to students, at their own universities,for peer review, feedback and discussion of their work or theprocess of completing a thesis. These workshops give suchstudents a chance to discuss their work and also hear presen-tations from leading academics at the forefront of this field.

Professor Ben du Boulay led the workshop and gave apresentation on the ‘Process of doing a PhD’ and a finalsummary of the papers at the end. The invited speakers thisyear were Professor Peter Cheng who is researchingrepresentational systems and in particular the use ofdiagrams in scientific discovery, and Dr GeraldineFitzpatrick who presented many of the themes that hademerged from her extensive industrial work.

Students presented their work and took questions frompeers and received feedback from academic staff: BeateGrawemeyer talked about her research into different styles ofexternal representations of knowledge; Jon Rimmer about hisstudies into the language gap between the system and theuser; Simon Li presented his work on post-completion errorsin tasks; Mirja Lievonen delivered a talk on the need for therepresentation of information within hybrid environments;Fatima Mansour is researching the usage of visualisationtools in assisting the collaborative decision making process;Barbara Crossouard talked about ways of developing online

learning; Alice Good discussed how adaptive navigationaltechniques that supported user needs could improve accessi-bility to web-based information; Shaleph O’Neill’s talklooked at the development of a semiotic model of interactionthat focuses on interactive systems; Tom Hamilton talkedabout the role of technology in enhanced creativity; SallyannBryant’s research looked at themes of representation andproblem solving within the analysis and design stage; LeneNielson delivered a talk on creating a model for personas andscenarios to represent user needs; Amanda Harris presentedher research on increasing children’s linguistic awarenesswithin collaborative learning environments; Rowanne Fleckdiscussed the application of technology to support reflectionwithin the learning process; Diane Brewster gave a talk onresearch that investigates student ownership of digitalresources; Alison Elderfield discussed the concept of enchant-ment from the usage of mobile technologies; Thom Heslopgave an overview of the future of intelligent interfaces forservice composition and, lastly, Jon Matthews demonstratedhis ‘Snapshot’ tool to enable the visualisation and planningof tasks such as weddings.

During his concluding talk, Professor Ben du Boulayhighlighted the interdisciplinary nature of papers presented.The diagram below illustrates the diversity of students’research and its integration into opposing methodologies andmultiple disciplines. Students are identified by their initials.

Breakout sessions in the afternoon discussed hypothesistesting and methodologies. These were excellent opportuni-ties to get to know each other and discuss work issues. Also,the workshop dinner, Spanish tapas in Brighton’s Laines, wasa lively affair with surprisingly few headache sufferers thefollowing morning. Everyone enjoyed themselves, learned agreat deal and, of course, forged links with like-minded

researchers – see you nextyear!

To find out more aboutthe Human-CentredTechnologies group atSussex and to read any ofthe papers from thisworkshop, go towww.cogs.susx.ac.uk/lab/

hct/

Human-Centred Technologies Workshop reviewAlice Good & Jon RimmerSquare pegs in round holes?

Sociology, humanities,

Anthropology & cultural studies

Founded, inferential,applicative & “neat”

Psychology, computerscience, pedagogy

Wicked,descriptive/ theoretical,“scruffy”

A.EL.N

G.FM.L

J.M

T.HD.B

S.B S.LJ.R

A.G

S.O

R.FB.G

Interdisciplinarity Illustrated

Jon RimmerUniversity of [email protected] GoodUniversity of [email protected]

http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/lab/hct/


New course: MSc in Human-Centred SystemsThe Centre for Human-Computer Interaction Design is pleased to launch a new course at City University: the MSc inHuman-Centred Systems. We are London’s largest research group in human-computer interaction with well-established links to industry, charities and government agencies, and with an international reputation and a wideportfolio of grants.

The course is suitable for applicants with a background in computing and programming, but limited exposure to thetopic of human-computer interaction or user-centred design. It synthesises strong theoretical foundations with practicalskills and activities, and will equip you with the theory and techniques from computer science, software engineering,cognitive science, and psychology relevant to human-centred computing.

Modules:

� Human-Computer Interaction Design � Requirements Engineering � Systems Specification

� Professional and Research Skills � Inclusive Design � Multimedia Design

� Advanced Human-Computer Interaction � Evaluation of Systems

You will gain excellent skills in advanced human-computer interaction design, requirement analysis and design, designingand conducting complex evaluations of new or existing software computing systems, and unique expertise in designingand evaluating systems for disabled and elderly people.

For further details and to apply online visit www.soi.city.ac.uk/pgcourses/ or phone 020 7040 0248 or email: [email protected]

The University for business and the professions

I am currently looking for PhD students who would like towrite, for Interfaces, a small article (from 500–800 words) ontheir PhD work. The article should explain the ‘what’, ‘why’and ‘how’ of your PhD research in very simple terms. Ideally,the article should be HCI-related. However, if it isn’t strictlyHCI, describe your work and state how it relates to HCI.Describe what you are looking for (your focus), your plansfor the next few years, and what you have done so far.

It doesn’t really matter what stage you are in at themoment. You can write about what stage you are in, yourresearch focus/interest, your research design (if you know itat this point), any analyses you’ve conducted, what yourresults are, your plans for further work, and the impact ofyour work in the field.

Adding a bit of info about you personally and some witand humour is always good. In fact, wit and humour areboth welcome and recommended.

It is a very informal piece. In true HCI style, it should be‘user friendly’ and understandable to most people. It is bestto use language that is not too full of jargon or too technical.,pretty much as if you were explaining your work to yourmum, dad or granny. As column editor, I would be happy tohelp you with the format.

Being a PhD student myself and having written a previousarticle on my work, I can tell you that this is a helpful experi-ence in several ways. First of all, it helped to focus my workand be able to explain it in a way that even I could under-stand. It also put my ideas, thoughts, plans and concernsabout my PhD research in a platform where people couldknow about it and generate further ideas. And then, ofcourse, there is the prestige of publishing an article inInterfaces.

I am looking for PhD students in any and all stages of yourresearch. If you are interested or would like to know more,please contact me at [email protected]. I look forwardto hearing from you, as will your readers.

In search of High Calibre Individuals (HCI)My PhD Martha Hause

Martha L. HausePhD ResearcherMathematics and ComputingThe Open UniversityEast Anglia regionCintra House12 Hills RoadCambridge CB2 1PF, [email protected]

http://www.soi.city.ac.uk/pgcourses/


BackgroundA great number of frameworks and models of interactionhave been conceived from a cognitivist background out of thenotion that people engage with technologies in order toaccomplish work tasks and improve efficiency in completingeveryday activities.

These origins of the majority of Human-ComputerInteraction work to date have emerged to produce resultsincongruent with the ways that many more people now usecomputers for fun, enjoyment, and engagement with wideraspects of everyday living and connecting with people. Asthe purposes for using technologies have augmented, so toohas the variety of spaces that they are used in – from desktopto handheld – and the amount of time spent interacting withand through technologies. HCI is moving and growing toaddress this new landscape of ubiquitous computing woveninto the fabric of everyday living and working.

In particular, researchers in HCI have been increasinglyseeking inspiration from other disciplines that may offeralternative metaphors, paradigms and frameworks forunderstanding human interaction and the relationships androles that characterise and shape it. A number of events havesuccessfully brought together researchers keen to explorehow areas such as the creative arts, critical theory, literarytheory and philosophy may help HCI to move beyond itsorigins. In particular, workshops at HCI 2002, HCI andLiterary Theory; CHI 2004, Reflexive HCI: Towards a CriticalTechnical Practice; and the University of York, HCI, the Artsand the Humanities, have set a successful and exciting prec-edent in this area – see www.arts-hci.org/events.php

While a richness of related work is emerging, previousevents have so far raised as many questions as they sought toanswer. Within the arts and humanities there is an existingwealth of understanding about questions now being placedunder scrutiny in HCI:

What characterises human interaction?What is creativity in design?What is aesthetic experience?What is involved in creating and perceiving an

artefact or artwork?

We aim with this workshop to focus attention towards vitalaspects of how we see experience and what value the arts andhumanities can hold for HCI.

In expanding the field of HCI, seeking to understand howinteractions with or through computers may be a meaningfulpart of people’s lives (rather than mere tools of labour), we

are compelled to examine concerns relating to the aestheticand emotional aspects of people’s lives. New approachesadopt a more complex model of people whose richness of lifecan be augmented through the experience of using technol-ogy. In particular, we are in a position to go further and beginchallenging perceptions of users as passive recipients of enter-taining technologies and debate our understanding of what theroles of both designing and using technologies entail.

HCI has tended to work towards making the craft of thedesigner invisible to the user, who perceives the interface asthe ultimate point of interaction. This contrasts with theconception of creative and perceptive roles within the arts,where the role of the creator of an artefact is often central toboth the object itself and the meaning that the object holds forits perceiver. As such, the arts may provide metaphors forexploring concepts like audience, spectator, participator orcollaborator, to augment our understanding of the roles ofuser and designer. In particular, answers to questions like ‘Isit possible and meaningful to accept the role of the interactiondesigner as imaginative and inspired creator rather thantechnician of usable objects?’ become more accessible.

Consequently, should we move to considering computersystems as technological representatives and channels ofexpression for meaningful life experience, as one might aform of artwork? Further, what can the arts, humanities,literary studies and social sciences et cetera do for HCI inhelping to understand how creators and users work togetherand share experiences?

This workshop will seek to bring together contributorsfrom diverse subject backgrounds to discuss and progresswork in this area at an exciting time in the history of HCI andInteraction Design. It is emphasised that the day is aimed atoffering an opportunity for non-HCI specialists from otherfields to meet with HCI researchers to share and debate theissues from broad perspectives.

Format and contributionsThe workshop format will include a presentation by eachparticipant.

Contributions are welcome in a wide range of formatsincluding, though not limited to, position papers (maximum4 pages), demonstrations, videos, installations, creative worksand performance.

These may describe or present case studies, exploratorywork, frameworks, arts/humanities-based critiques, descrip-tions of user experience or user–designer relationships androles, studies on the aesthetics of interaction and creativework concentrated in this area directly.

SubmissionsSubmissions are particularly encouraged to address the waysin which HCI might work together with the arts, humanities andother disciplines towards understanding the roles and relationshipsbetween designers and users of technology.

6 September 2004An International Workshop at HCI 2004 • The 18th British HCI Group Annual Conference

Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

Designer, User, Meaning Maker: Rethinking relationships for a more creative HCIDavid EnglandHCI 2004 workshop: Call for participation

Organising committeeAlan Chamberlain, Dept of Computer Science, LoughboroughUniversityDavid England, School of Computing and Maths, Liverpool JohnMoores UniversitySalvatore Fiore, Dept of Computer Science, University of YorkJohn Knight, User-Lab, Birmingham Institute of Art and DesignAnn Light, HCT Group, University of Sussex

http://www.arts-hci.org/events.php


Please submit your work to: [email protected] the case of non-paper based pieces, please submit a

description of your intended contribution and the format itwill take on the day.

Papers should be received by July 19, 2004. Participantswill be notified of selection by August 2 or 9, 2004.

A related discussion is running at SmartGroups. Subscribe

Thinking of working HCI 2004 as a Student Volunteer? Here, Nadiagives an SV’s insight into her duties at HCI 2003.Before going to the HCI 2003 conference I’m not sure what Iexpected, only that I was encouraged by my colleagues and supervi-sors to apply to be a Student Volunteer (SV) and I was accepted. Itwas an experience I will never be able to forget. It was a good oneand a tiring one.

The conference was held at the University of Bath, from 8th to 12thSeptember. As SVs, we were asked to arrive the day before, onSunday, to be briefed by the SV manager, Dr Jo Hyde, on what wasrequired from us in the week to follow. Each of the 15 SVs weregiven their timetables, outlining what we were to be doing during thatweek.

Throughout the conference, SVs were required at the registrationdesk, in tutorial sessions, and presentation sessions, to assist thedelegates. If an SV was working during the morning then he/shewould have the afternoon off, and if working in the afternoon youwould have the morning off, unless you were in a full-day tutorial.

We were each given five t-shirts (which, of course, we have kept)and a goody bag, which included a copy of the conference proceed-ings. We also got on-campus accommodation. After leaving ourbelongings in our rooms, we had a tour of the campus before Jo tookus into Bath and gave us a brief tour of the town centre. At 8pm, afterthe tour, we went to a curry house for dinner (paid for by HCI 2003).At about 11pm we headed back to our rooms. Oh … forgot the bitabout when we had to stuff the conference bags with flyers and theconference proceedings … this was done sometime between thebriefing on Sunday and dumping our baggage in our rooms.

MondayWe all had breakfast at 8am in the on-campus restaurant and theSVs on duty that morning were to show up at the registration desk for8.30am, for a last-minute briefing. SVs who were booked in forregistration duty started booking delegates in from 9am onwards.The other SVs on morning duty were kept busy shifting boxes fromone room to the other and generally organising things. I was one ofthese.

Everyone on morning duty finished work at 1:45pm. We had lunch oncampus and then went into town sight-seeing. In the evening, we metup with the other SVs for dinner in town. The majority of the SVswent to a Thai restaurant that they recommended highly. Myself anda few others wanted something light to eat so we went to a restaur-ant walking distance from the Roman Baths (don’t quite rememberthe name). I had vegetable soup served with garlic bread andparmesan cheese. The food at the restaurant was very good, a littleexpensive but very good. After dinner those who were tired wentback to their rooms and the rest stayed in town to further exploreBath.

TuesdayA similar sort of a day to Monday but I attended a tutorial all day.There was one SV in each tutorial session in case the presenterneeded anything. We were asked beforehand which tutorial wewanted to attend so that we were working sessions that interestedus.

The tutorial was on Systemic Task Analysis and was presented byProfessor Dan Diaper (of Bournemouth University). It was good toattend the tutorial, which gave me an insight into what task analysisis. Professor Diaper presented a new way of doing task analysis and

during the tutorial the participants were able to put the theory intopractice. I would recommend SVs to attend the tutorials if they can.

After the tutorial session we went to the on-campus buffet dinner,and then to the on-campus bar to grab a pizza.

WednesdayI was on reception duty from 9am till 1.45pm, directing newdelegates to pick up their badges and where to go for the presenta-tion sessions. In the late afternoon, I attended a presentation helpingthe chair of the presentation with time-keeping of each presentationas quite a few people were to give 15-minute presentations. Thepresentation was on Organisational Overviews. I enjoyed the sessionas it was interesting to hear about the HCI work presented by sixcompanies and research institutes from around the world.

In the evening we all (SVs and delegates) went to a social event.There was a buffet dinner and, as entertainment, there were livemusic players and professional jazz dancers. During the evening allthe guests got a dance lesson.

ThursdayI had the morning off so I went into Bath town centre to do someretail therapy. I got back to campus in time to start work at 1pm till4.30pm. I was to look after the marquee where all the commercialexhibitors had their stalls. A barbeque lunch was served in themarquee that day. There were bookstalls, laptop computer sellers,and eye tracking equipment stalls among others.

From 6.30pm until the end of the night, I was on duty for the mainsocial event which was held at the Pump Room in the Roman Baths.The SVs on duty that night had to get delegates on to the busesrunning from campus to the Roman Baths and to check everyone’stickets at the door. There was a tour of the building and then drinksserved around the Roman Bath. A three-course meal was thenserved in the Pump Rooms.

The Roman Baths is a very nice place; if you go to Bath you mustvisit it. There’s a lot to see and it’s amazing to see how the hot waterflows into the main bath from different directions. Tour guides areavailable as well and you can see how the Romans used to keep thebuilding warm with the help of the naturally hot water.

From 10.30pm onwards we started to escort the delegates to thebuses going back to the campus.

FridayThis was the last day of the conference; the tidy-up day for the SVs.We looked after delegates’ luggage after they’d checked out of theirrooms, and tidied up the rooms that we were using for the confer-ence. The day ended at about 2pm and we all departed.

This is the first conference I have ever been to so beforehand Iwasn’t sure what to expect. However, the experience I had exceededmy expectations. Throughout the conference I got to meet all sorts ofpeople from all parts of the country and the world. I got the chance towork in a team and make new friends, as well as attending thetutorials and presentations.

I would recommend students to go to the conference as an SV,especially if you have not been to a conference before. Being an SVis a good way of breaking the ice with other delegates. It also givesyou a chance to experience what a conference is all about and tomeet other people in the field.

I thoroughly enjoyed the whole event and would like to do it again,even though I was completely shattered by the end of the week.

by email: [email protected], or on theweb: http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/lit-hci

A website will be available soon. The address of thewebsite, where the accepted papers will be publishedwill be made available to the authors and on theSmartgroups discussion site.

Diary of a Student Volunteer at HCI 2003 Nadia Pervez

Nadia [email protected]

http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/lit-hci/


Linda Little asked me, on behalf of the BHCIG studentrepresentatives, to write a short introduction to Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) for students new to the field. Ifshe’d asked someone else, she would have got a differentresponse to the one below, but there would hopefully besome overlap.

HCI is a multi-disciplinary area. This means that HCIpeople bring different perspectives from their ‘home’disciplines. It helps to know what these are in order to putsomeone’s position on HCI into context.

I have a Cambridge MA (purchased for £2 off the back ofa Cambridge BA) and a PGCE. This introduces some imme-diate complications, since I studied History for two years,followed by two years of Education with a PGCE (teachingcertificate) threaded through it. I taught History and SocialStudies for two years in an 11–18 comprehensive schoolbefore going back to research. I meant to go back to Educa-tion, but there was more money available in 1983 for Com-puter Science.

So I have a PhD in Computer Science, within which Ifollowed (and passed) the taught part of an MSc in Knowl-edge-Based Systems. After my PhD, I worked on twoapplied industry projects. Six years on from that, I was againworking for a commercial consultancy as well as carryingout independent design work. I became a full-time HCIresearch professor at the University of Sunderland in 1997and have steadily become a not wholly willing manager.

I am now head of the Interactive Digital Media sub-areain Computing and Technology with responsibility forteaching (undergraduate and taught postgraduate), researchand reach out (the ‘third leg’ of working with business andthe community). I direct two large regional reach outprojects (total value of almost £3M) in support of digitalSMEs in the North East of England.

Unusually for someone in HCI, I have a degree in appliedhuman sciences (Education), practitioner experience inEducation, a higher degree in Computer Science and practi-tioner experience in HCI and Software Development. Morerecently, I’ve added an economic development string to mybow. This means that I have a fair grasp of the contributingdisciplines, plus one like History which has yet to influenceHCI (although it does have some overlap with the culturaland literary approaches that are critical to digital media andHCI as communication, lifestyle and culture).

Lastly, my interest in design (work), including a designpresented at an international design exhibition, balances anacademic view of disciplines as the pursuit of truth with adesign science perspective on a discipline as an externallymotivated creative synthesis explained via an explicitrationale.

I strongly suggest that no current research students try allthis at home – at least not at once. I graduated 20 years ago,and looking back I would happily stretch what I’ve alreadydone into 30 or 40 years. However, as an HCI researchstudent you need to understand one key thing:

Different disciplines do different things for different reasonsHCI is quickly divided into several camps on the basis of

reasons below. The human sciences pursue truth, designsciences pursue ‘good design’, engineering sciences pursue

‘buildability’ and improvement, and professional practice(alas rarely backed up by academics) pursues progress in theworkplace.

So, when you’re with a bunch of HCI research students,they will not all share the same view of success. In the humansciences, truth relative to a discipline’s research methods willbe the driving force. In engineering sciences, building thefirst x (or the first x to do y, or if they are really brave the firstx to do y with proven quality z!) is what wins the prizes, andthe biggest ones go (perversely some may say) to the first x,and not to the first thing to do something clearly useful at ademonstrable and relevant standard. That, however, is howinnovation works. Without it, HCI would have nothing tostudy.

HCI is being joined by new arrivals. Design researchstudents are becoming more common. They may bedoing human science, but they may be much closer to acultural studies PhD student, combining designing witha cultural intervention of some sort. Art PhDs in interactivemedia are still very rare, and tend to have a wholly culturalcreative outlook. Practitioner PhDs are also rare, and tend tofollow an action research paradigm where the Hawthorn effectthat human scientists are taught to dread becomes an end initself. If experimental bias can systematically make thingsbetter, then hey, go for it! Anyone with the same bias can getthe same results!

So, if, for example, you are a psychologist, and a fellowresearch student is a psychologist, get stuck straight in anddebate the pros and cons of your research. If, as is morelikely, you come from different intellectual traditions, thebest thing you can both do is develop your active listeningskills. The more we understand each other, the more HCI canmove from a multi-disciplinary hotch potch to an inter-disciplinary mosaic.

In my view, everyone in HCI needs to find some commonpurpose with all their colleagues in the field, regardless ofdiscipline. I’ve been slowly developing a hopefully shareablepurpose called Grounded Design that attempts to deliverquality with value. Here, quality comprises all those things thatpsychologists can readily measure: the efficiency, effective-ness and satisfaction of a user’s interactive experience.

Value tends to come from other disciplines. Engineers anddesigners deliver innovations that may or may not havevalue. Without innovation, there can be no new value, butinnovation without value is possible, as is value withoutquality (indeed, in most software markets, perceived valueremains more of a driver than actual quality).

Value can be commercial, personal, experiential, spiritualor cultural, and I don’t see this list as complete. Dependingon the source of value, different disciplines are needed toproperly understand and express it. Ethnography is wellsuited to understanding goals, needs, practices and structuresin human activities. However, economics, business, or mediaand cultural studies can be better placed to understand, elicitand defend other sources of value. Even theology may have arole as the spiritual world exploits digital media.

So, HCI is a place where psychologists and computerscientists originally came to meet. They were soon joined bysociologists, anthropologists and engineers. Next came the

Professor Evil’s guide to Human–Computer InteractionGilbert Cockton


visual designers and product designers (never confuse thetwo, the latter take very easily to HCI). Now we have culturaltheorists, media producers, economists, marketers, manage-ment scientists and even fine artists joining the party. In theprocess, beached ancestors such as information systems(especially sociotechnical approaches), ergonomics andsystems analysis are becoming effective contributors to whatwe see as HCI. Others remain well beyond the fringes, havingno interest in improving procurement, design, deployment oroperation, but instead following the traditions of other-worldly detached scholars in areas such as Technology and

Society, or Media and Culture. Here you may meet the angrybrigade, for whom nothing will ever get better and design isjust a capitalist device for oppression (or some similarposture). At this point, common purpose becomes unlikely.

What unites us all in HCI is the belief that we can designbetter and that we can deliver better interactive systems as aresult. If you don’t believe this, you aren’t really an HCIstudent.

Universal usability revisitedM. Zajicek & A. EdwardsSuccessful and available:interface design exemplarsfor older usersDr. M. ZajicekCapturing tacit knowledgefrom young girls Dr. M. IsomursuA system for automaticstructure discovery andreasoning-based navigationof the webProf. E. PontelliAbstract representations asa basis for usable userinterfacesDr. S. TrewinApplying heuristics toaccessibility inspectionsDr. C. Paddison

Most downloaded articles(December 2003 –January 2004)This computer responds touser frustration: Theory,design, and resultsJ. Klein, Y. Moon and R. W.PicardInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 119–140What is beautiful is usableN. Tractinsky, A. S. Katz andD. IkarInteracting with Computers 13(2000) 127–145Designing interactiveinterfaces: theoreticalconsideration of the com-plexity of standards andguidelines, and the differ-ence between evolving andformalised systemsI. AlmInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 109–119Interaction design andchildrenP. Markopoulos and M.BekkerInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 141–149What is this evasive beastwe call user satisfaction?G. Lindgaard and C. Dudek

Interacting with Computers 15(2003) 429–452Using conversational agentsto support the adoption ofknowledge sharing practicesC. Roda, A. Angehrn, T.Nabeth and L. RazmeritaInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 57–89Computers that recogniseand respond to user emo-tion: theoretical and practi-cal implicationsR. W. Picard and J. KleinInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 141–169Web navigation and thebehavioral effects ofconstantly visible site mapsD. R. DanielsonInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 601–618Human error and informationsystems failure: the case ofthe London ambulanceservice computer-aideddespatch system projectP. Beynon-DaviesInteracting with Computers 11(1999) 699–720User interface guidelinesand standards: progress,issues, and prospectsP. Reed, K. Holdaway, S.Isensee et al.Interacting with Computers 12(1999) 119–142Frustrating the user onpurpose: a step towardbuilding an affectivecomputerJ. Scheirer, R. Fernandez, J.Klein and R. W. PicardInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 93–118Investigating the usability ofassistive user interfacesA. Sutcliffe, S. Fickas, M.Moore Sohlberg, L. A. EhlhardtInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 577–602Prototype evaluation andredesign: structuring thedesign space throughcontextual techniques

Gilbert [email protected], British HCI Group

Interacting with Computers: Papers in the forthcoming Special Issue

A. Smith and L. DunckleyInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 821–843Trust in informationsources: seeking informa-tion from people,documents,and virtual agentsM. Hertzum, H. H.K. Andersen,V. Andersen and C. B. HansenInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 575–599Understanding interactionwith mobile devicesF. PaternòInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 473–478Universal usabilityD. G. Novick and J. C. ScholtzInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 269–270Multi-agent systems supportfor Community-BasedLearningY. Lee and Q. ChongInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 33–55Developing adaptable userinterfaces for component-based systemsJ. Grundy, J. HoskingInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 175–194Developing a practicalinclusive interface designapproachS. Keates, P. J. Clarkson andP. RobinsonInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 271–299Adding cultural signposts inadaptive community-basedvirtual environmentsE. M. Raybourn, N. Kings andJ. DaviesInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 91–107A methodology and tools forapplying context-specificusability guidelines tointerface designS. HenningerInteracting with Computers 12(2000) 225–243Improving web search onsmall screen devices

M. Jones, G. Buchanan and H.ThimblebyInteracting with Computers 15(2003) 479–495The effects of frame layoutand differential backgroundcontrast on visual searchperformance in Web pagesP. van Schaik and J. LingInteracting with Computers 13(2001) 513–525Scenarios and the HCI-SEdesign problemDavid Benyon and CatrionaMacaulayInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 397–405Visual gesture interfaces forvirtual environmentsR.G. O’Hagan, A. Zelinsky, S.RougeauxInteracting with Computers 14(2002) 231–250

Call for Papers

6th IEEE Workshop onMobile Computing

Systemsand Applications

2–3 December 2004English Lake District, UK

http://wmcsa2004.lancs.ac.uk/

Continues the series ofhigh-quality, interactiveworkshops focused onmobile and ubiquitousapplications, systems, andenvironments, as wellas their underlying state-of-the-art technologies.

WMCSA's small workshopformat makes it ideal forpresenting and discussingnew directions orcontroversial approaches.

Submission Deadline15 June 2004

(no exceptions!)

http://wmcsa2004.lancs.ac.uk/


An exploration of how art might benefit HCI, as a counterpoint tohow much of HCI is currently seen as being increasingly scientificand rigorous; following rules and measuring user performance.What can we learn by sometimes being a little less scientific, alittle less rigorous?

Prefix: basic definitions

Nice definition, but it omits one powerful and widely helddefinition of art: the pursuit of understanding of nature, theself, and our relationship with nature and each other.

If I didn’t think what I was doing had something to do withenlarging the boundaries of art, I wouldn’t go on doing it(Claes Oldenburg)

In other words; what’s between.

Dealing with each other, through some sort of an interface,either added on top of the elements or resulting from theinteraction itself.

InterfaceArt can be seen, in many ways, as human–human interface orhuman–world interface with another human acting as co-interface (the artist) with the medium of the art.

A key understanding of what an interface is, is that it is apoint of change. When there is no transference, no move-ment, when information is stored, there is no interface, thereis no change. When information (or control) moves from onemedium to another; air to water, person to person, anything,it passes through the meeting of those two media, theinterface. And it changes.

The interface is not the handle on the blade. It is not themouse connected to the computer. It is both what is betweenthe hand and the handle, the hand and the mouse, and whatis behind the hand, the person, and what is inside the compu-ter, the information processing system.

It changes because it has to change. It cannot not change.This is a great opportunity.

ArtMany of the components of art, science and of human–computer interfaces are the same; typography, colour, etc.That’s in the realm of shared technique.

Art is made to disturb. Science reassures (Georges Braque)What’s unique to art? Learning to work like an artist, to

see like an artist, through study, contemplation, explorationand creation is pretty much all that the artist has which isunique. We can all paint. To a point. And sculpt. It’s theapproach, the ‘vision’ – or intent. In other words, it’s theprocess that places the artist in a separate category.

I found I could say things with colour and shapes that Icouldn’t say any other way – things I had no words for(Georgia O’Keeffe)

It is the process that is important in art. It’s not about theart pieces.

Art is contemplation. It is the pleasure of the mind whichsearches into nature and which there divines the spirit ofwhich Nature herself is animated(Auguste Rodin)

The process of artWhat is the process of creating art?

Artists in various fields are always the first to discover howto enable one medium or to release the power of another(Marshal McLuhan)

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the process

How might art inform HCI knowledge and practices? Frode Hegland

What good are computers? They can only give you answers(attributed to Pablo Picasso/JFK/Various)

art (ärt) n.1 Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the

work of nature.2. a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds,

colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a mannerthat affects the sense of beauty, specifically the productionof the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

b. The study of these activities.c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty

considered as a group.3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of

beauty; aesthetic value.4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.6. a. A system of principles and methods employed in the

performance of a set of activities: the art of building.b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and

methods: the art of the lexicographer7. a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the

art of the baker; the blacksmith’s art.b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-

criticism is an art not many are qualified to practise” (JoyceCarol Oates).

8. a. Arts. Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.b. Artful contrivance; cunning.

9. Printing. Illustrative material.Middle English, from Old French, from Latin ars, art-. See ar- inIndo-European Roots. Synonyms: art, craft, expertise, knack,know-how, technique. These nouns denote skill in doing orperforming that is attained by study, practice, or observation: theart of rhetoric; pottery that reveals an artist’s craft; politicalexpertise; a knack for teaching; mechanical know-how; a precisediving technique.

in·ter·face (n r-fs) n. 1. A surface forming a common boundary between adjacent

regions, bodies, substances, or phases. 2. A point at which independent systems or diverse groups

interact: “the interface between crime and politics where muchof our reality is to be found” (Kroll).

3. Computer Science.a. The point of interaction or communication between a

computer and any other entity, such as a printer or humanoperator.

b. The layout of an application’s graphic or textual controls inconjunction with the way the application responds to useractivity: an interface whose icons were hard to remember.

in·ter·ac·tion ( n t r- k sh n ) n.1. a. The act or process of interacting.

b. The state of undergoing interaction.2. Physics. Any of four fundamental ways in which elementary

particles and bodies can influence each other, classified asstrong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.

in·ter·act ( n t r- kt )To act on each other: “More than a dozen variable factors couldinteract, with their permutations running into the thousands” (TomClancy).


of creating art in detail. Suffice to say that the artist brings aperspective and a different way of looking at the world, andat the way we look at the world. The different perspectiveand processes can both help in the creation of the interfaceand in providing the user more of an opportunity to directlybenefit from the process of the creation of art.

I just feel that I’m in tune with the right vibrations in theuniverse when I’m in the process of working (LouiseNevelson)

Sometimes our comprehension of a total experience ismediated by a metaphorical symbol because the experience isnew, and language has words and phrases only for familiarnotions … But the symbolic presentation of subjectivereality for contemplation is not only tentatively beyond thewords we have, it is impossible in the frame of language(Suzanne Langer)

HCI knowledge and practicesUsing the process of art to create better interfaces. Simplyhiring an artist to work alongside the HCI professionals mayopen the HCI professionals up to other perspectives andopportunities that they would not have considered. In theearly stages of HCI design and specification writing, anartist’s perspective can question many of the assumptions ofthe HCI professional who has been there many times beforeand may, therefore, take known, but sub-optimal routes.

Professionalism is environmental. Amateurism is antienvironmental. Professionalism merges the individual intopatterns of total environment. Amateurism seeks thedevelopment of the total awareness of the individual and thecritical awareness of the ground rules of society. Theamateur can afford to lose (Marshal McLuhan)

So that’s the HCI professional taken care of. What aboutthe user? A key understanding from both the introspectiveand the enquiring nature of art is that we are our owninterface to the world and to ourselves – we are as muchshaped by the outside as the inside. It is the process thatdefines us. Not the logic. The logic is but one tool of under-standing and communication. Art approaches the processdifferently from the academic, the logical, the business‘sense’, the ‘common sense’.

Until a man has expressed his emotion, he does not yet knowwhat emotion it is. The act of expressing it is therefore anexploration of his own emotions (Collingwood, R.G.)

Montage in cinema, or the use of quick cuts and rapidediting, was supposedly a shock to the viewer’s normalperceptual patterns and rhythms. Benjamin thought that itbroadened the human perceptual power in ways sought bythe Surrealist filmmakers like Dali and Buñuel(Cynthia Freeland)

The more you look at something, the more you stare at it.The more you look at it and transform it, from looking topainting, or from looking to talking about it, for example, themore you don’t just ‘see it in a a new way’ but you are betterable to describe it from memory later – and to reproduce itshould that become necessary.

I feel as though I haven’t seen an object until I actually startpainting it (Janet Fish)

The HCI practice which can come out of this understand-ing is that, sometimes, when making a process easier is notthe goal, it can be useful to make the user actually do somework. If the point of a system is for the user to learn some-

thing or to find patterns and information, making the userwork more, or encouraging the user to get the job done, is notnecessarily a bad thing; for example, showing users the samedata set in different forms to avoid cognitive tunnelling andrigidity of mental models. Maybe also making the useranswer random questions when doing a diagnostic.

Vision is information processing, not image transmission.At every stage in vision, neurons perform calculations basedon their input signals, so that the end result is informationabout what is out there in the world, and how to act on it –not a picture to be looked at (Margaret Livingstone)

We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us (WinstonChurchill)

That is one of the ironies of good HCI: a good interfacemight let the user interact with information/people/environ-ments so easily that they lose depth and understanding. Theartist’s process allows a series of questions such as: When is itappropriate to slow people down?

Always design a thing by considering its next larger context– a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in anenvironment, an environment in a city plan (EeroSaarinen)

A case study of art informing HCI is the Cynapse Project(www.Cynapse.org), which takes as a model the abstractedartist’s work environment, where the artist can shape his orher work at will, where through training a simple twist of thehand can send the work in a whole new direction, like asculptor can. The implemented system builds heavily onhidden links (for high-resolution addressing) and the use ofdynamic pop-up menus. The process of creating the initialsystem was very much loose, playful and inquisitive. Thetesting and moulding is much more a standard HCI testingprocess.

ConclusionArt might inform HCI knowledge and practice through theprocess of artistic enquiry and creation (as discussed here andin the section on art quotations), with science (methodologi-cal activity, discipline, or study) providing the measurementsand testing, while design (creating or contriving for a particu-lar purpose or effect) delivers the final product.

The movie, by sheer speeding up of the mechanical, carriedus from the world of sequence and connections into theworld of creative configurations and structure (MarshalMcLuhan)

The scientist, the technician, and the engineer are able tospeed up the computer, the networks, and provide us withnew capabilities, but it will be the artist who opens up thedoors to how we can use the capabilities and what they meanto us – and how we relate to each other.

ReferencesCollingwood, R. G. quoted from Philosophical Issues in Art (1984) by P. Werhane.Dewey, J. (1934) Art As Experience.Freeland, C. (2003) Art Theory.Langer, S. Problems of Art, as quoted in Art And Interpretation by Eric Dayton

(1998).Marshal McLuhan quotes: http://www.liquidinformation.orgArtists’ quotes: http://www.aenj.org/links/quotes.htmlDictionary references: http://dictionary.reference.com

Frode [email protected]

http://www.Cynapse.org

http://www.liquidinformation.org/

http://www.aenj.org/links/quotes.html

http://dictionary.reference.com/


The second joint symposium between the British HCI Groupand the ScotlandIS Usability Forum attracted forty delegates,split equally between practitioners, academics and students.The practitioners were fairly evenly divided between privateand public sector (such as the BBC, Scottish Enterprise),while the academics covered the range from knowledgetransfer to pure research. The majority were from Scotland,but a quarter had travelled from England or Belgium. This isa smaller audience than its predecessor, the sold-outUUML2002, but a creditable achievement for organiser IanSmith in the current climate; all in all, a good result.

The day itself, as in 2002, was so rich that it’s difficult tosqueeze it all into a few pages here. The nine presentationsthemselves are usefully archived [1]. Seven were from thosebased in universities, but while there was a sound theoreticalbasis to all of the work, there was also an immediacy andrelevance that is all too often missing in conference sessions.A tenth speaker (from industry) had to withdraw at the lastminute, which ensured that the typical over-running didn’tcompromise the schedule. (Note to myself, and all speakersat future events: always assume each slide will take you 2–3minutes to deliver! When you have 20 minutes, plan 8-10slides, not 15).

That iTV fellowJames Stewart from the University of Edinburgh kickedthings off with a review of how far we’ve come since hisiTV96 conference. Many would see this as the first stirrings ofa UK interactive TV industry, as opposed to the existing TVand multimedia industries defined in the early nineties. Hisslides are on the website, but he didn’t actually use them onthe day! He was our interactive presenter.

For James, iTV has always been about the combination ofutility (retrieval of media assets) and engagement, with thelatter more significant. He reminded us that in 1996 we had avision of interactive media for the masses, a centralisedsystem (as suited the centralised providers of content) thatwould tame the Internet (perceived as too complicated for themasses) and sell repackaged existing content.

What then emerged had been driven by the largely state-owned telecomms companies on the one hand, and theconsumer electronics industry on the other. These interestsdidn’t converge very much – the former’s business modelsare centralised and revolve around charging for textualcontent – initially information but increasingly communica-tions – for example Minitel. Meanwhile, the latter sought to‘free the living room from centralised control’ – with VHSallowing the consumer to manage their own access to con-tent. Arriving late at the party, the broadcasters have builttheir business models less on what the set-top box mightoffer in interactivity, and more on what James calls ‘chan-nelled interactivity’ – such as SMS income, as is typical ofreality TV shows.

Looking at the users’ needs and wants, James concludedthat TV users want to switch off from life, possibly to learn,and to have conversations with family members (but onlywhen they are in the mood!). These contradictory objectives

brings formidable challenges for iTV designers. (The follow-ing week’s Sunday Times echoed this with a review of theplight of iPod widows – those whose spouses have discon-nected from family activity because first they spend all theirtime trying to get content onto their iPods, then they are cutoff while they listen to it).

In the course of his talk, James ran through a completehistory of iTV, pointing out how the potential uses of themedium had all been pretty well established in the 1940s,trialled and found wanting in the 1970s (CUBE) and thatunexpected (mis)uses of the technology for erotic purposeslurk behind some of the success stories. His challenge to thecommunity was twofold – to define and use creatively whathe termed megachannel TV – which is more than simplycamera angles at a sports event, but involves the creative useof multiple channels – and to come up with content and usesfor mobile interactive TV.

Odds-on design methodsChris van der Kuyl will be little known to the HCI commu-nity, but as a former student of Alan Newell’s he knowsenough to exploit ideas from our field. His company Vis plcwas formed in the early nineties. (Then, I often bumped into himat trade shows and occasionally pitched against Vis for multimediaprojects! A particularly fond memory is at a demo of Philips/Optimage tool set for CD-I production, MediaMogul, at which weboth laid into the vendor for the ludicrous prices of the authoringenvironment and the paucity of authoring features. Happy days!)

In 1996, Chris refocused his company purely on the VideoGames market, and they have since become one of the UK’sgreat international success stories, shipping 1.5 million copiesof ‘State of Emergency’ on the Playstation2 platforms alone,and a recent joint venture with Telewest, VisiTV, is alreadymoving into profit. He now employs around 130 staff.

Vis have a particularly interesting iTV proposition calledIRaces, on channel 431 on Sky, which he demonstrated. Thisproduct provides a litany of examples for teaching purposes,on how to get around constraints. The lack of processorpower (other than the MPEG decompression chip) in thetypical set-top box, the cheap cost of bandwidth, and theviewer’s expectation of high quality visuals all mean that thehigh quality 3D content must be pre-rendered and sent asvideo streams; the lousy latency and bandwidth of the set-topbox return-path demands asynchronous data interactivity,yet the viewer’s interactivity, in terms of engagement, isimmediate, and necessarily very high; the topic and interac-tion is based around the demographic of Sky + Premiumchannels + Horses + Gambling – a convergent demographic,though few were in attendance at the symposium!

The race outcomes are calculated at run-time, based upondetailed models of each virtual horse (a parallel product tocreate, train and maintain the hoofstock has been developedfor non-gambling markets, as in much of the US), the charac-teristics of the course, the prevalent weather in the supposedlocation of the virtual racetrack, and some additionalrandomising factors. Realism is heightened by employing an

UITV2004 – you are what you interact with Tom McEwan


actual TV racing commentator, whose voice is broadcast live,commenting on the race as it is created.

A bank of servers render the realistic race at run-time, andthe resulting data stream is fed to subscribers, whosemicropayment wagers (typically 50p per horse) are collectedthrough premium rate phone calls from the simple dialupback-channel on Sky’s STB. The take-up ambitions aremodest – some 30,000 users in the UK who might spend £50each month. In TV viewership figures, this is derisory. Yet itis plainly a viable business – most obviously since theproduction costs are only £1500 per hour – a fraction of thecosts of any other form of broadcast TV. Consider the equiva-lent costs for an outside broadcast from, say, Newmarket.

It’s not hard to find worries with the idea in moral terms –encouraging gambling, etc. Yet there are those who squanderthe housekeeping on nags at present (perhaps on a far greaterscale and with what some campaigners might see as detri-mental outcomes for animals). Chris sees this as ‘LCDDesign’ – lowest common denominator. Echoing philoso-phers such as Barnum T Bailey, he suggested: “Never under-estimate the stupidity of users”, and he went on to describethe amount of user error triggered on Sky handsets, bypressing the ‘wrong’ red button for interactivity – the On/Offswitch was also coloured red!

He then summarised the anticipated changes (and conver-gence) in STBs and consoles all the way up to the rich-featured Xbox 3 and Playstation4 that the industry anticipateswill arrive in 2012 – representing a slowing down of technol-ogy push – a doubling of the typical three-year timescalesbetween release of new platforms. This is significant andconfirms a trend I had observed in other technology pushsituations. 2012 sounded quite far away until I realised that,like iTV96, it is eight years away from today.

More fundamental interactionAfter coffee, David Sloan and Dr Alex Carmichael presentedthe University of Dundee perspective on accessibility issuesin interactive TV. From the Digital Media Access Group andthe Division of Applied Computing respectively, theybrought the cumulative research of that community to bearon the issue, most recently from the UTOPIA [2] project. Thestarting point is that the analogue switch-off – requiring allusers to receive TV through digital broadcasts – can’t happenunless and until the STB (and its remote control) stopscontributing to discrimination against the impaired. This is,of course, the cumulative result of several recent pieces oflegislation.

David presented a summary of the different ways currenttechnology discriminates against, for example, those withimpaired vision, hearing and/or cognitive abilities. STBsneeded to have clear, concise instructions available in multi-ple formats and be easy to set up (or to have others do it foryou). The electronic programme guides (EPG) need to beavailable and usable – available in audio format, or in user’schoice of font size, style and colour, and these also need toprovide an easy route to accessible iTV content. The contentitself needs to have captions and subtitles (not always thesame thing) with, again, control over font size, etc., audiodescriptions of text, as well as access to signing displays.

This gets more complicated given the divergence betweendifferent proprietary technologies – Sky and Five have used amore widely available but limited functionality approach,whereas the BBC had richer technology, but only around 60

viewers had access to it. This also requires us to distinguishbetween assistive and usable technologies.

The man from AuntieFinishing the morning, Jonathan Marshall of the BBC alertedus to the fact that digital TV now reached the majority ofviewers, and had a similar level of use to the Internet itself.There were 7.7m homes with digital satellite (DS), 2.5m withdigital terrestrial (DT) and 1.75m with digital cable (DC) witha further 10,000 using digital subscriber line (DSL)broadband. DT in particular has proved to be the fastestadopted technology ever (yet another one!!!). DT and DShave greater capacity for localisation – a key aspect of iTV.

In an entertaining aside Jonathan suggested that weshould all blame Sky for the ‘wrong-red-button’ débâcleChris had described. The first proposal was to use the greenbutton to ‘go’ to interactive content. It was changed at theinsistence of the Sky representatives on the standards body!

The BBC were currently offering two separate forms ofiTV – the Enhanced Services (adding on interactivity toexisting programming) and the 24/7 Services (providing a‘bridge’ – an interactive on-screen menu that can be hidden –to additional services which are delivered on spare channels).

Interactive programming fell into four categories:Dynamic – an example is BBC Sport Interactive where

users can select specific text to be continually updated (eg atext-based account of a particular game). This requires a backchannel.

Multistream – the Wimbledon model, where the availablechannels offer multiple games from the same location,perhaps using reduced bandwidth, though one channel isgiven over to a ‘mosaic’ – a channel that shows a ‘pre-composited’ picture of three other channels in miniature.

Return Path – heavily reliant on the back channel – used toget asynchronous input from the mass audience, for examplein the recent programme The Big Read. However the backchannel can be web, iTV or SMS, and doesn’t require STBreturn connectivity.

Synchronisation – as exemplified by ‘Test the Nation’ – theiTV is closely tied to the linear programming.

Each of these faces considerable challenges, and thecategorisation itself is not hard and fast.

He then went on to analyse where the market is heading,and the message was one of fragmentation and individualempowerment. People would watch fewer complete pro-grammes, and more snippets, controlling and scheduling (àla TiVO) their own viewing experiences – personalisedservices and peer-to-peer and other social activities. Viewerswould watch on a variety of different devices, with localscreen resolutions and bandwidth. This was resulting in theprimacy of metadata over content – difficult for an industryin which content has always been king.

Part 2: the next five yearsYours truly ended up taking over the chair after lunch so thedescriptions here are less detailed for the second half, thoughthe presentations themselves were just as good and interest-ing.

The effervescent Janet Finlay kicked off the afternoonsession, livening up the graveyard slot. Narratology andGenre are becoming increasingly familiar in HCI and ProfJanet presented a succinct primer. If HCI is to cope withaffective and fun aspects of design, then, citing Bazerman’s


view of genre, we need to tap into ways to guide users’expectations. This requires us to distinguish between autono-mous genres (things we consume when we are in the mood)and participative genres – where the fun is in joining in.

Turning to the component parts of narrative, and thedifferent layers of narrative, Janet introduced most of us tometalepsis, and compromising the suspension of disbelief fordeliberate effect. Reader, I learned something! (But, Ohardworking studious one(s), don’t you feel uncomfortablewhen interactivity in the narrative forces us to change from,say, observer to participant? You do, don’t you … admit it?!)OK, that’s enough of my feeble interpretations – Janet hadmuch, much more to say and did so with her usual aplomb –discriminating between agency and interactivity seemsparticularly important. But go and look at her ppt slides foryourselves.

Joemon Jose from the University of Glasgow’s GIST Groupreported on Newsboy: an interactive news retrieval system. Thebasic idea is that users may not be interested in all newsstories, may only want summaries or selected topics, or maywant only the latest news. Anyone who has surfed throughthe 24-hour news channels at 55 minutes past the hour willknow the frustrations Jose was trying to address. When it’snot adverts or weather, it’s a special-interest programme.Half the time I end up switching to teletext!

Employing information retrieval techniques along withpersonalisation strategies, he lets the user’s actions andpreferences dictate the news stories offered. There are someinteresting challenges with granularity, shot segmentationand indexing, but I can think of a number of relatives whowould love the finished result.

Chris Roast from Sheffield Hallam described recentadventures in knowledge transfer, dealing with the con-straints of authoring Interactive DVD. I hadn’t realised justhow dumb the DVD player is – certainly more so than evenCDi all those years ago. Pointing out the shift from passive toactive viewing Chris reminded us that iTV producers arecreating interactive, narrative experiences (and not fornothing do they call them authoring tools). Working with theZoo Digital Group in Sheffield, he had helped them developauthoring tools for their DVD-Extra technology, which addslayers of interactivity to even the lowest-spec players. Thechallenge is to understand the work of DVD and multimediadevelopers – which sometimes includes low-level program-mer-like activities, but at other times is focused on the end-user’s experience. Combining contextual analysis with alightweight cognitive dimensions approach helped the Zoosupply a toolkit that met the users’ needs and would ‘moti-vate novel design alternatives’ – an important aspiration inthose who develop interactive TV programmes, whether onDVD on broadcast.

I noticed that this stuff has recently been very favourablyreviewed in the trade press [3], so clearly Chris has a chanceof one of the ‘knowledge transfer partnership of the year’awards.

Organiser Ian Smith presented his own session onRemediation, Patterns & Interactive Narrative. Starting withthe middle of the three, Ian summarised the relevance andusefulness of patterns – well known to half of those presentbut still a novel concept to the others. Remediation was lessfamiliar – roughly speaking, how media forms re-use aspectsof themselves, and how everything has a heritage (I supposethe Greeks had a word for it!). Whether it was the polygon-

based construction of Lara Croft dating back to Plato’sTimaeus, or Fritz Lang’s debt to Franz Hal, what goes aroundseems to come around. Finally there’s a good introduction toforms and aspects of narrative in Ian’s slides. He concludedby urging us to seek inspiration from design solutions inother media – go forth and remediate – and see that the valueof patterns is not in keeping them in catalogues, but inspotting when they occur.

We rounded off the day with an excellent presentationfrom one of the foremost researchers in iTV. Lyn Pemberton,from the University of Brighton, asked us whether HCIresearch and interactive television had the potential to be abeautiful friendship. It had been a long day filled with manysources of information, but I’m sure I detected a flicker ofmis-response in male delegates when Lyn introduced us toJordan’s Four Pleasures model. No, boys, it’s not what youthink.

Lyn criticised the lack of iTV coverage – only one paper inthe last four years between the CHI, HCI & UIST conferences.Why was this – partly because it’s not (yet) an issue in NorthAmerica. Echoing Chris’s earlier presentation, there was aperceived vulgarity in iTV – reality shows, large rating,simple profits. But also the UCD approach of our communityis fundamentally alien to the world of the ‘Creatives’ –something we come across in the field of Marketing as well.Lyn’s solution is to create the climate for dialogue betweendisciplines, while still doing the usability/accessibility workand simply presenting the results more effectively. As withmost fields, we need to infiltrate – get an Eastenders characterto press a red button (shades of last year’s UsabilityNewsdiscussion about the web arriving on Radio 4’s The Archers).Going beyond usability, we could embrace, on behalf of iTVproducers, approaches from media studies and sociology:cultural probes, household studies, media diaries, appliedethnographies – things that HCI does for other domains.What it boils down to is Jordan’s pleasures which she thenunveiled for us: Physio-pleasure, Psycho-pleasure, Socio-pleasure, Ideo-pleasure. There are lots of examples in herslides, so I shall say no more.

References[1] http://i-media.soc.napier.ac.uk/uitv2004/programme.html[2] http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/projects/UTOPIA/[3] http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=25097

Tom [email protected]

Call For Participation

Games and Social NetworksA one-day workshop on multiplayer games

at HCI 2004, The 18th British HCI Group Annual Conference

Leeds Metropolitan University, UK • 6–10 September 2004

http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~barry/gamesworkshop/

This workshop will bring together researchers andprofessionals interested in the social potential of onlinemultiplayer computer games.

ParticipationInterested parties should submit a position paper of3–4 pages to [email protected] [email protected] by 2 July 2004.

http://i-media.soc.napier.ac.uk/uitv2004/programme.html

http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/projects/UTOPIA/

http://www.filmandvideomagazine.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=25097

http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~barry/gamesworkshop/


I remember beginning my PhD andthinking that it would be helpful toread a book that offered a conciseoverview of the most importantusability issues in HCI at that time. Idecided that a good direction to startin would be to look at some of thebooks my supervisor used to helpteach his interactive design module toundergraduates. On this reading list,hiding under the traditionally foundclassics of HCI, I found XristineFaulkner’s Usability Engineering book.

On starting to read this small butperfectly formed book (only 256pages), I was immediately struck byhow accessible Faulkner’s writing styleis for those not yet immersed in thelanguage of HCI. Don’t get me wrong,her book addresses some difficult ideasabout usability engineering, yet she hastried to make them as clear and asinteresting as she could to anyone whohappens to pick up the book.

I loved the idea of the spanner inthe works sections. At certain pointswhen you are reading the book,thinking a method or viewpoint is aperfectly valid way to conduct usabil-ity engineering research, she suddenlyhas a quote from someone famous inHCI reminding us all that usabilityengineering is never as easy as it looks!

Opposing views to the currentgeneral consensus on usability issuesdo exist and need to be seriouslyconsidered when choosing a method-ology for investigating usabilityrequirements. For example, Ben

Shneiderman’s criticisms of involvingthe users in system design are noted.To get a proper feel for the book, then,let us ask, and answer, some importantquestions about it:Who is the book for?The book is for those who don’t knowtoo much about HCI. Perhaps first- orsecond-year undergraduates. Or thosenew to the discipline, coming fromareas such as sociology or psychology.Personally I think it’s a good read foranyone interested in HCI no matterwhat their background is.What is the book about?The important issues in usabilityengineering at the time of writing (thebook was published in 2000). Using amixture of quotes, personal anecdotes,and spanners in the works, Faulknerseeks to give a brief overview of someof the key concepts in usability in a funand accessible way.What is the best thing about the book?It’s short, well written, and you candip in and out – which I frequently do.I love the pictures too since they bringthe ideas expressed in the book to life.My favourite picture in the book is aclose-up of the HCI ’98 pen design!Any drawbacks to the book?Like all books of this kind you have togo back to the other thicker andmeatier text books if you want to havea more in-depth view of the methodsdiscussed, such as ethnography. ButFaulkner offers relevant references soyou always know where to go if amethod strikes you as being worthy offollow-up exploration.Any more important information?Yes. The book costs £19.99. You can seesample chapters on the web at

Edited by Sandra CairncrossBook Reviews

Another set of interesting books to whet your appetite and to help in starting to plan your summer reading.

Firstly we have our first review by a student (Jackie Brodie) of a key HCI text book – Usability Engineering by Xristine Faulkner (familiar tomany as the previous Book Review Editor of Interfaces, amongst other things). A special thanks to Nadia Pervez, Chair of Student Repre-sentatives for organising this. Hopefully this will be the first of many reviews by students of books they use and are asked to use.

Next, a series of three reviews of texts that offer slightly different perspectives on HCI

• Brent McGregor, Vice Principal of Edinburgh College of Art, and familiar to some as one of the keynotes at the Educators workshop lastyear, reviews Windows and Mirrors, in which examples of digital art are explored in order to bring out their relevance to technologists,including HCI practitioners.

• Lissie Davenport shares her thoughts on Tracing Genres Through Organisations: A Sociocultural Approach to Information Design, whichexplores how improvisation and creativity can improve the design of information systems.

• This is followed by Meg Soosay’s review of Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fictions, which takes a multidisciplinary lookinto electronic writing.

And finally, four editions after starting as Book Review Editor (come back Xristine …) I get to review a book: Learning Technology inTransition, produced to mark the 10th anniversary of the Association of Learning Technology (ALT), an organisation with which those of youinterested in educational technology will be familiar.

Sandra Cairncross, Book Review [email protected]

Usability EngineeringXristine FaulknerMacMillan Press Ltd, 20000333773217, £19.99

www.palgrave.com/science/comput-

ing/faulkner/ so you can read twochapters and see the table of contentsbefore you even buy the book from thePalgrave website!Jackie Brodie [email protected]

Windows and Mirrors: InteractionDesign, Digital Art, and the Myth ofTransparencyJay David Bolter and Diane GromalaA Leonardo Book, MIT Press, 20030-262-025450, £19.95

Published by MIT Press, centringitself on digital art work at SIGGRAPH2000, this book comes with seriouscredentials. The acknowledgementsinclude Richard Dawkins, Deleuze,Donna Haraway, Heidegger, theFrankfurt School, Lacan andBaudrillard. All this before we get topage one.

The bibliography is similarly heavyduty, including such diverse visualculture and digital theory heavy-weights as Alberti, John Perry Barlow,John Berger, William Gibson, E. H.Gombrich, Brenda Laurel, Ted Nelson,Jakob Nielsen, Donald Norman,Howard Rheingold, Sherry Turkle andRaymond Williams. On first superfi-cial inquiry one asks: How will they fitit all into 188 uncrowded and well-designed pages?

What we get, rather than the heavytheoretical tome which the acknowl-edgements and bibliography mightsuggest, is a study which is ‘about thecraft of and the material engagementwith digital art and design’ (p. x–xi)with a disclaimer from the authors that‘we believe theoretic literature often

www.palgrave.com/science/computing/faulkner/


authors admit in a later chapter, isbreaking down as stereotypical codewriting, colour blind, design free,information junkies begin to see thatthey might be able to learn somethingfrom the creative art and designcommunities who are themselves nowdoing more than using Flash to makethings flash for the sheer joy of it.

Ignoring for the time being that theword Structuralist means somethingvery different to academics in linguis-tics and literary theory going back tothe days of the mainframe, the argu-ment works to lead the reader into lessoppositional reflections which help tomove the debate onwards. It may beimpossible to really get up to date,thorough and definitive in thesematters but nevertheless it is better tomake some comment rather thandeclare that it is too early to say.

We should welcome the attempt torelate to new work, particularly in theearly chapters. The overview of digitalmedia in Chapter 9 is a bit of a highspeed run through. There is a sentenceeach for Glorianna Davenport and LevManovich while the whole field ofliterary hypertext, including the workof Michael Joyce and Shelley Jackson,has to make do with one sentence(p.155).

The digital age may have moved onfrom producing drawings in the sandand it may have started to produce itscave paintings but it is certainly a longway from finding its Picasso or itsRothko. We don’t yet know who will dofor digital media what Eisenstein andGriffith did for film art; the equivalentsof Welles, Kurosawa or Hitchcock arealmost certainly not yet born.

Whether this book will turn out tobe an historic record of seminal workor a fascinating footnote of the future,it’s too early to say. In the meantimesee it as a fascinating snapshot of thestate of play at the millennium (re-member that).Brent [email protected]

Clay Spinuzzi’s objective is ambitious:to shift the balance of power in HCIfrom designer to user, and undo therhetoric of the ‘user as victim’ that has

distorted our understanding ofparticipative design. His first chapterreviews a number of popular texts on‘user-centred’ and ‘contextual’ design,and shows that these are biased insubtle, but different ways.

Spinuzzi quotes Cooper & Bowersto expose the role of ‘compassionatediscourse’ in HCI: ‘it is not so muchthat users are angry, frightened, anddifferent from designers, it is morethat, for this way of legitimizing HCI,they have to be’ (Cooper & Bowers,1995, p. 51). In most cases, Spinuzzicontends, users are not ‘waitingaround to be rescued’; instead, theysubvert information systems, invent-ing their own ways to turn them totheir needs, and there are ‘manythoughtful studies of the unofficialunpredictable ways in which workersassert their own agency’ (p.3).

The ‘victimhood trope’ (p. 5) is partof a ‘totalizing’ rhetoric that pitchesuser-centred design against the ‘strawperson’ (sic, p. 6) of system-centreddesign. This dichotomy masks thecentralizing tendency of many user-centred design approaches that do notin fact support the subversion by usersof official design but counteract it.Such ‘fieldwork-to-formalization’approaches (p. 11) often bypass ad hoclocal practice to provide models thatare suitable for generalizing, standard-izing, regularizing, idealizing, andmanaging work, and there are manyexamples of this in accounts of contex-tual inquiry; ethnographic work andJoint Application Design (JAD)

Though these approaches aim tomake the everyday practices of workvisible, the motives of those involvedmay differ. Spinuzzi cites Engestrom’sobservation that, at most, workersenjoy functional empowerment withthese methods, rather than democraticempowerment. This is often due to afailure to take work-arounds seriouslyas sources of innovation and develop-ment in the workplace.

In JAD, for example, facilitators arenot encouraged to examineworkarounds and they are not trainedin fieldwork. Those who undertake‘light’ ethnography often interpretactivity with the assumption that thereis an underlying work structure andthat workers’ adjustments are symp-toms of problems with that structure.Beyer and Holtzblatt, for example,reflecting on the place of users, state

Tracing Genres Through Organizations:A Sociocultural Approach to InformationDesignClay SpinuzziMIT Press, 20030-262-19491-0, £22.952003

strays too far from practice to be usefulfor our purposes’ (p. xi).

So the theoretical heavyweights areacknowledged (to keep AcademicPress peer reviewers happy?) but thenthe authors move on to ground thebook in actual work to illustrate anargument rather than simply reflectingon the digital age and its infinitetheoretical possibilities.

One of the problems with the bookis that the theory may have a longshelf life, but works from SIGGRAPH2000 were almost out of date from theminute they were selected for exhibi-tion. This is through no fault of theartists/designers/developers inquestion or the selectors/curators, butsimply a reflection of the way in whichthe speed of innovation in digitalmedia production makes it virtuallyimpossible to keep up with develop-ments.

The creative products of the digitalage are evolving so quickly that anycritical analysis based on these worksbecomes very nearly impossible assaid reflective work is potentially outof date before it is published. It takesuntil 2003 to write and publish aserious book about SIGGRAPH ArtShow 2000 by which time the workselected for the 2004 Show is alreadyold hat to some.

This constant change can leadalmost inevitably to the kind of freefloating theorising, without anyreference to actual products, that theauthors have rightly tried to avoid. Asearly as the second page they make itclear that the book ‘is written fordigital designers and technologists ingeneral’, describing ‘what digital arthas to offer to its vast community’ (p.2). The following pages interweave theclassic history of computing and theWWW with reflection on the selectedSIGGRAPH 2000 works by way ofillustration of their central thesis.

The authors posit a distinctionbetween those people who believe theinternet and digital technologies arefor the sake of transmitting informa-tion and therefore should be asefficient at doing this as possible andthose, on the other hand, who thinkthat the new medium is one that can beused to display creative skills. Theytalk about the opposition betweenstructuralists (a usage borrowed fromDavid Siegel) and designers.

This dichotomy is useful forpurpose of discussion but, as the


that ‘It’s their job to do their job, not todesign systems’ (1998, p. 371).

‘Beating the formalism’ is a con-tinuous and recursive process forworkers, according to Star, but it issomething that we need to understandto design developmental systems thatworkers can modify. Drawing onBakhtin’s distinction between centrip-etal and centrifugal tendencies indiscourse, Spinuzzi proposes that weinvestigate the ‘ways in which workersrescue themselves’ (p. 23) with a freshapproach (‘genre tracing’) that pro-vides a way to ‘highlight users’experiences with official and unofficialgenres and to compare them acrosscommunities and workplaces’ (p. 22).

Activity Theory (AT) allowsresearchers to examine in an integratedway three levels of analysis (activity,actions and operations) and discernhow they interact … and ‘how innova-tions at any given level affect the otherlevels’ (p. 27). Spinuzzi exploresvariants of the tripartite approachthroughout the text and devotes muchof Chapter 2 to a discussion of theterminology that is used in AT analy-sis. Genre tracing combines AT withtechniques for genre analysis andoffers a historical dimension that ismissing in traditional task/artefactanalysis, as the genre provides a‘sociocultural understanding of theartefact’ that offers an ‘integrated-scope’ unit of analysis and a set ofheuristics for integrating researchscope. (p. 29).

Artefacts (and genres) in ActivityTheory are crystallizations of histori-cally developed activity; they embodysocial rules that allow the subject toappropriate the tool’s operations bydeveloping his or her own activities/genres as ‘culturally and historicallygrounded ways of seeing and concep-tualizing reality’ (p 41).

Genres thus carry traditions ofproducing, using, and interpretingartefacts, and work in a dialogicfashion: each user/speaker is arespondent as a genre ‘representsothers’ “thinking out” of problemswhose dialogue has been preserved inthe genre’ (p. 43). As a result, ‘genrememory’ and ‘genre addressivity’ (asspeakers use genres to address specificsocial actions) are important analyticconcepts that can help us understandhow workers cope when faced withcontradictions that arise when activitysystems throw up contradictions. A

breakdown in practice at the level ofthe mouse click, for example, may be amanifestation of a discoordinationacross functions that, in turn, hasemerged because of contradictions inwork practice produced by a systemupgrade.

Spinuzzi takes the reader through adetailed working demonstration ofgenre tracing. This takes the form of anextensive longitudinal case study of ISdevelopment in the Iowa Departmentof Transportation. Chapter 3 is anhistorical account of the mutations ofthe ALAS (Accident Location andAnalysis System) from pre-automationto mainframe, to PC-based to GIS-based.

Spinuzzi describes the process bywhich existing genres are ‘drawn into’subsequent genres (p. 66), and showshow contradictions in activity give riseto unofficial localized innovations. Hesuggests that the art of genre manage-ment depends on the ability to coordi-nate interrelated genres in an ‘ecology’so that they co-mediate activity;breakdowns and mistakes occur whena worker finds that the present inter-pretation of an artefact is inadequatefor the task at hand (p. 70).

Pages 79 –111 provide a compellingreconstruction of genre adaptation assystems are adjusted and replaced:‘Over the span of four decades, anecology of genres has grown aroundthe activity of accident location andanalysis in the state of Iowa. Thisgenre ecology serves to mediate thetransformation of accident data intoanalyses, analyses that are then used inmediating other activities. Within theecology, genres serve to mediate theuse of other genres: mainframe ALASrequest forms, and later PC-ALASdialogue boxes mediated between thenode maps that workers used and theprinted reports they wanted to pro-duce. The genre ecology constantlydevelops as workers adapt still othergenres to mediate those that alreadyoccupy it’. (p. 110)

Chapter 4 and 5 develop the themefurther, and Spinuzzi suggests thatecological niches are opened up bychanges in activity and that workersinnovate to fill those niches withhybrid and new genres. Hybrid genresmay be a site of breakdowns and dis-coordinations, a topic explored indetail in Chapter 5 in an account oftwo ‘GIS-ALAS’ genre hybrids.Problems arose because the new

system only captured ‘official’ genresand ‘left behind the unofficial centrifu-gal genres and practices that held theactivity together’ (p. 197).

Spinuzzi concludes the book bysuggesting that genre tracing tech-niques can not only support investiga-tion of existing practice, but can alsoinform design in ways that takeaccount of worker ingenuity.

I would recommend this as a‘demonstrator’ text to graduatestudents and teachers interested insociotechnical methods. Spinuzzi’smethodology and method are plausi-ble, and well grounded in relevantdomain work. His work is consistentwith the philosophy of AT as describedby experienced practitioners such asKuutti: ‘The idea is that humans cancontrol their own behaviour ‘from theoutside’ using and creating artefacts’(Kuutti, 1991, p. 531).

The book, however, reads at timeslike a minimally edited doctoral thesis,as there are details on sampling, thedesign of fieldwork and inter-coderreliability testing that dilute the powerof the mainstream narrative. Spinuzzimakes good use of scenarios andvignettes that involve a consistent setof actors throughout the text and hismany tables effectively model the linksand relationships between the differentelements of activity diagrams. (Hisrepresentation of these is unorthodoxthough it does capture the requiredinformation). He uses specialistterminology appropriately, though attimes assumes an understanding of ATon the part of readers that goes beyondnovice level. His reviews of diversesource materials are succinct andeffective, and the bibliography iscomprehensive.

ReferencesBeyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. (1998) Contextual

design: defining customer-centred systems. SanFrancisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Cooper, G. and Bowers, J. (1995) Representing theuser: notes on the disciplinary rhetoric ofhuman-computer interaction. In P.J. Thomas,ed., The social and interactional dimensions ofhuman-computer interfaces, New York:Cambridge University Press, 48–66.

Kuutti, K. Activity Theory and it applications toinformation systems research and develop-ment. In H-E Nissen, H, Klein and R.Hirschheim (eds.) Information systems research:contemporary approaches and emergent traditions.North-Holland: Elsevier Science PublishersB.V., 529–249.


Star, S.L. The politics of formal representations:wizards, gurus and organizational complexity.In S.L. Star (ed.) Ecologies of knowledge: work andpolitics in science and technology. Albany: SUNYPress, 88–118.

Lissie [email protected]

Twisty Little Passages: An Approach toInteractive FictionsNick MontfortThe MIT Press, 20040-262-134365, £19.95

Learning Technology in TransitionJane Seale (Editor)Swets & Zeitlinger, 200390-265-1963, 75 Euros (£52)

Amidst a flurry of publicity on behalfof multimedia, the written wordsparks images and evokes metaphorsthat get much of their meaning fromthe reader’s imagination and experi-ence. Recently I was asked to review anew book called Twisty Little Passages:An Approach to Interactive Fiction.

My first attempt to review the bookwas an intriguing one. I was expectinga book filled with literary jargon butfound it refreshingly clear to read! It isalso the first book I’ve read that takes awell-researched multidisciplinary lookinto electronic writing; it is clearlywritten, informative and convincingmaking it suitable not only for the IFdiscourse community but also forgeneral audiences.

It was surely a trip down memorylane of playing textual adventurecomputer games in the 1980s wherethe ultimate reward was not justsolving riddles (i.e. find the key/code/magic spell to unlock a door) andwinning, but the whole entertaining,interactive experience.

The book offers in-depth explora-tion of the relationship between storyand games where you play theprotagonist who can influence theprogression of the plot and its ending.Most have the analogy of riddles thatneed to be solved to build the narra-tive. The title Twisty Little Passages isinspired from such a popular analogythat IF is based on. Judging from thenoteworthy references, the book putsforward original insight about IF’sliterary and theoretical context. Theauthor, Nick Montfort knows how towrite – presenting discourse surround-ing electronic literature relativelyjargon-free is a challenge in itself!

He presents a brief history of theriddle, and makes vital comparisonwith IF. He then looks at importantpredecessors to IF and progresses intoa study of different IF game genressuch as Adventure, Dungeons and

Dragons, Infocom and the mostinfluential one, Zork, ranging from themainframe era to the advent ofpersonal computers, which introducedmore commercial IF works, and toonline IF communities in the 1990s.

The book concludes with a discus-sion of the influence that IF has had onother forms of literary and gamingproduction, digital or otherwise, andsome possibilities for the future of IF.Montfort presents IF with a scientific,technological and sociological slant ofcomputer science and cites socialcommentators, playwrights and themakers of video games as among thosemost influenced by IF since theirefforts often take the shape of virtualworlds. It leaves us to contemplate themark this new media genre has madein our culture.Meg [email protected]

As someone who became involved inHCI through an interest in educationaltechnology in general and multimediain particular, I welcomed (and indeedactively sought) the opportunity toreview this collection of papers, puttogether to commemorate the 10thanniversary of the Association forLearning Technology (ALT). Essen-tially the book reviews a decade oflearning technology, the changing faceof that technology, and the changingimpacts these have made, and aremaking, on tertiary education.

It has certainly been an eventfuldecade, witnessing the growth of theinternet. It is hard to believe now, butwhen we first set up our multimediaMasters course at Napier in 1993 wedidn’t teach or use the WWW; mainlybecause it wasn’t readily available –something which soon changed andbecame a key part of the curriculumand a tool to deliver that and othercurricula.

In charting these changes, as JaneSeale, the editor, points out, four keythemes are highlighted throughout thebook:

•The individual enthusiast and theirrole in institutional implementation

•The institutional enthusiast andtheir role in local and global e-learning initiatives

•Finding the evidence to justify

enthusiasm and underpin imple-mentation

•Reinventing the individual enthusiastMany of the concerns presented hereare similar to general concerns facingHCI researchers, educators, andpractitioners. I was pleased to notethat the importance of context wasstressed time and time again and thatthere was growing recognition thatfocus has to shift from the technologyto the learner. Indeed the tensionbetween technology and pedagogywas explored in a number of papers.For example, Grainne Conole, in a‘plea’ to senior managers, warnsagainst ‘… buying a Virtual LearningEnvironment to support learningactivities and then decreeing that allcourses must use the system withoutconsidering whether or not this mightbe pedagogically appropriate’, whichis essentially advocating a user-centredapproach to design and recognisingthat we must consider the context inwhich the technology will be used.

Papers are wide ranging. Forexample, to name but a few:

Tom Boyle and John Cook examineissues associated with the reuse oflearning object from a pedagogicalperspective, which will no doubt be ofinterest to many readers of thismagazine.

Grainne Conole, in a paper whichwould be useful to students and othersstarting to carry out research in thisarea, explores some of the key ques-tions and methodological issues.

Martin Oliver’s paper ends the bookby critically asking ‘what we havelearnt from the past, are we question-ing the present and have we consid-ered our role in this?’ and arguing thatlearning technologists need to considertheir ‘role reflexively, not simplyreflectively – we must analyse our ownmotives and practices as well as thosewe work with and work for’. A thoughtprovoking paper in which the ‘we’sabove refer to learning technologists butcould equally apply to HCI-ers.

All in all, a worthwhile book that isof interest not just to those engaged inthe design of learning applications butalso to those using such applications tosupport teaching and learning. I willcertainly be referring to it from time totime as I explore how best to use newlearning technologies.Sandra [email protected]

27Interfaces 40 • Autumn1999C

onta

ct D

etai

ls (

Giv

e a

pers

onal

con

tact

whe

n as

king

for

Cor

pora

te M

embe

rshi

p)

Titl

e ...

......

.. F

irst

Nam

e ...

......

......

......

......

......

....

Las

t Nam

e ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

....

Wor

k A

ddre

ss...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

Tel

. ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..Fa

x....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

E-m

ail.

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

Nat

ure

of th

e w

ork

you

do:.

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

Hom

e A

ddre

ss...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

Plea

se s

end

mai

lings

to:

my

wor

k ad

dres

s ;

my

hom

e ad

dres

s .

Mem

bers

hip

Stat

usC

urre

nt B

ritis

h H

CI

Gro

up M

embe

rshi

p N

o. (

if a

pplic

able

)...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

Cur

rent

Bri

tish

BC

S M

embe

rshi

p N

o. (

if a

pplic

able

)....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

Stud

ent s

tatu

s (i

f ap

plic

able

) ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..

Pro

fess

iona

l Int

eres

ts (p

leas

e in

dica

te u

p to

six

are

as o

f pr

ofes

sion

al in

tere

st)

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

Dat

a P

rote

ctio

n A

ctT

he d

ata

on th

is f

orm

will

be

trea

ted

as c

onfi

dent

ial t

o th

e B

CS.

Nam

es a

nd a

ddre

ss m

ay b

e us

ed,

unde

r ou

r st

rict

con

trol

, for

mai

lings

judg

ed b

y th

e B

ritis

h H

CI

Gro

up E

xecu

tive

to b

e of

val

ue to

the

mem

bers

hip.

Mem

bers

hip

Dir

ecto

ryD

o yo

u w

ish

your

con

tact

det

ails

and

pro

fess

iona

l int

eres

ts to

be

liste

d in

the

Mem

bers

hip

Dir

ecto

ryse

nt to

all

mem

bers

of

the

grou

p? (

We

will

NO

T u

se y

our

hom

e ad

dres

s, u

nles

s th

at is

all

you

have

give

n us

.)

Yes

N

o

Get

ting

Invo

lved

…

We

are

alw

ays

look

ing

for

peop

le in

tere

sted

in c

ontr

ibut

ing

to H

CI

grou

p ac

tiviti

es b

y, w

ritin

g fo

rIn

terf

aces

mag

azin

e, h

elpi

ng r

un th

e an

nual

con

fere

nce

or jo

inin

g th

e ex

ecut

ive.

If

you

are

able

toco

ntri

bute

in th

is w

ay o

r if

you

hav

e id

eas

for

1-da

y m

eetin

gs o

r ne

w a

ctiv

ities

ple

ase

cont

act

Adr

ian

Will

iam

son,

adr

ian.

will

iam

son@

gtne

t.com

Mem

bers

hip

Fee

Mem

bers

hip

clas

ses

and

fees

for

200

3–20

04 a

re:

BC

S M

embe

r £3

0

Non

BC

S M

embe

r £3

5

Stu

dent

£10

£

......

......

...

Cor

pora

te £

235

Cor

pora

te m

embe

rshi

p en

title

s th

e or

gani

satio

n to

8 c

opie

s of

Inte

rfac

es a

nd o

ther

mai

lings

; mem

bers

hip

rate

for

any

4 in

divi

dual

s at

Bri

tish

HC

IG

roup

eve

nts,

as

wel

l as

a fr

ee o

ne-p

age

entr

y in

the

mem

bers

hip

hand

book

.

Jour

nal S

ubsc

ript

ion

to ‘

Inte

ract

ing

with

Com

pute

rs’

The

HC

I G

roup

man

ages

a jo

urna

l, In

tera

ctin

g w

ith

Com

pute

rs, p

ublis

hed

quar

terl

y by

Els

evie

r Sc

ienc

e. M

embe

rs m

ay s

ubsc

ribe

to th

is jo

urna

l at a

red

uced

rat

e (£

52.5

0).

Plea

se s

end

me

Vol

. 16

(200

3/20

04)

of I

nter

acti

ng w

ith

Com

pute

rs (

£52.

50)

£ ...

......

......

Plea

se s

end

me

Vol

s 14

& 1

5 of

Int

erac

ting

wit

h C

ompu

ters

(£1

05)

£ ...

......

......

Plea

se s

end

me

a fr

ee s

ampl

e is

sue

Pay

men

tP

leas

e en

ter

the

tota

l am

ount

for

mem

bers

hip

and

subs

crip

tion

s£

.....

......

....

I en

clos

e a

cheq

ue/p

osta

l ord

er (

in P

ound

s St

erlin

g on

ly p

leas

e), m

ade

paya

ble

toB

riti

sh H

CI

Gro

upor Pl

ease

deb

it m

y A

cces

s/V

isa/

Mas

terc

ard

Car

d nu

mbe

rE

xpir

y

/

/

The

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

on

this

for

m is

to m

y kn

owle

dge

corr

ect a

nd I

agr

ee to

the

cond

ition

s st

ated

.

Sign

atur

e: ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

Dat

e: ..

......

......

.....

Car

d ho

lder

’s n

ame

and

addr

ess

if d

iffe

rent

fro

m a

bove

:

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...

Send

com

plet

ed f

orm

s an

d ch

eque

s to

:

HC

I M

embe

rshi

p, B

riti

sh C

ompu

ter

Soci

ety,

1 Sa

nfor

d St

reet

, Sw

indo

n, S

N1

1HJ,

UK

(Tel

.+44

(0)1

793

4174

17)

Que

ries

abo

ut m

embe

rshi

p ca

n al

so b

e e-

mai

led

to:

hci@

bcs.

org.

uk

Bri

tish

HC

I G

roup

– A

pplic

atio

n F

orm

200

3–20

04 P

leas

e pr

int o

r ty

pew

ww

.bcs

-hci

.org

.uk


Officers and committees

Interfaces is published quarterly by the British HCI Group. © 2003 The British HCI Group (unless indicated otherwise). The opinions expressed represent thepersonal views of the authors, and are not the official views of their companies, nor of the British HCI Group, unless specifically stated.

Quarter page £135Half page £240Full page £44520% supplement for cover or

inside cover pages

Discounts given to corporate members,educational institutions, and charities.

Special rates for job advertisements.Loose inserts £175 + weight allowance if over

10g

ADVERTISING RATES – to advertise, contact the editor.

Chair Gilbert CocktonTreasurer Ian BenestSecretary Peter Wild

Communications Sub-groupChair Tom McEwanPR & MarketingNico McDonald, Catriona Campbell,Nick Bryan-Kinns

UsabilityNewsProject Director Dave ClarkeEditor Ann Light

Website, listserv and online servicesStamatina Anastopoulou, Vaz (Vassilis) Kostakos,Adrian Williamson, Gregory Leplatre,Gerred Blyth,Andy Dearden

Interfaces magazineEditor Laura Cowen

Elaine Campbell

Research Sub-groupChair Dianne MurrayOrganisational Liaison Dave EnglandDigital Library initiative Dale RichardsAlan Dix, Jackie Brodie (SR)

Events Sub-groupChair Chris RoastHCI2004 Chair Janet Finlay

HCI2003 Chair Eamonn O’Neill

HCI2002 Chair Fintan Culwin

Conference Planning Phil Gray

European ConferenceLiaison & Planning Alistair Kilgour

Meetings OfficersColin Venters, Anxo Cereijo Roibás

Student RepsNick Bradley, Sue Jones, Fausto J Sainz Salces

Education & Practice Sub-groupActing Chair Barbara McManusHCI Accreditation SchemeJonathan Earthy

Catriona Campbell, Dave Clarke,Steve Cummaford, Alan Dix, Caroline Jarrett,Ann Light, Alistair Kilgour, Janet Finlay,Shailey Minocha, Ross Philip,John Rosbottom, Helen Sharp,Robert Ward, Jay (Manasawee) Kaenampornpan

Membership Sub-groupChair Adrian WilliamsonIndian Liaison Andy Smith

SIGHCHI Liaison Gilbert Cockton

BCS Liaison Barbara McManus

Regional Liaison Daniel Cunliffe

Organisational Liaison vacant

Linda Little (SR)

British HCI Group committee membersStamatina Anastopoulou • University of Birmingham • tel 0121 414 4334 • fax 0121 414 4291

[email protected]

Russell Beale • University of Birmingham • [email protected]

Ian Benest • University of York • tel 01904 432736 • fax 01904 432767 • [email protected]

Nick Bradley • University of Strathclyde • tel 0141 548 3524 • fax 0141 552 [email protected]

Jackie Brodie • Brunel University • tel 01895 274000 ext 2533 • fax 01895 [email protected]

Nick Bryan-Kinns • Optic Experience Design • [email protected] • www.optic-ed.com

Gerred Blyth • www.amber-light.co.uk

Catriona Campbell • The Usability Company • tel 0207 843 6702 • fax 0207 843 [email protected]

Elaine Campbell • Upstart Training

Dave Clarke • Visualize Software Ltd • tel 07710 481863 • fax 01543 270409 • [email protected]

Gilbert Cockton • University of Sunderland • tel 0191 515 3394 • fax 0191 515 [email protected]

Laura Cowen • IBM Hursley • [email protected]

Fintan Culwin • South Bank University • tel 020 7815 7434 • fax 020 7815 7499 • [email protected]

Steve Cummaford • [email protected]

Daniel Cunliffe • University of Glamorgan • tel 01443 483694 • fax 01443 482715 • [email protected]

Andy Dearden • Sheffield Hallam University • tel 0114 225 2916 • fax 0114 225 [email protected]

Alan Dix • Lancaster University • tel 07887 743446 • fax 01524 593608 • [email protected]

Jonathan Earthy • Lloyd’s Register • tel 020 7423 2304 • fax 020 7423 2061 • [email protected]

Dave England

Xristine Faulkner • South Bank University • [email protected]

Janet Finlay • Leeds Metropolitan University • tel 0113 283 2600 (ext 5158) • fax 0113 283 [email protected]

Phil Gray • University of Glasgow • tel 0141 330 4933 • fax 0141 330 4913 • [email protected]

Martha Hause • The Open University • [email protected]

Caroline Jarrett • [email protected]

Sue Jones • University of Nottingham • [email protected]

Manasawee Kaenampornpan (Jay) • University of Bath • tel 01225 384 432 • [email protected]

Vaz (Vassilis) Kostakos • University of Bath

Alistair Kilgour • tel 0845 458 2928 • fax 0870 130 4825 • [email protected]

Gregory Leplatre

Ann Light • tel 07947 072300 • fax 020 8241 5677 • [email protected]

Linda Little • Northumbria University, Newcastle • tel 0191 2273043 • fax 0191 2274608 • [email protected]

Nico McDonald • Design Agenda • tel 07973 377897 • fax 07976 650257 • [email protected]

Tom McEwan • Napier University • tel 0131 455 2793 • fax 0131 455 2727 • [email protected]

Barbara McManus • University of Central Lancashire • tel 01772 893288 • fax 01772 [email protected]

Shailey Minocha • The Open University • tel 01908 652056 • fax 01908 652140 • [email protected]

Dianne Murray • tel 0208943 3784 • fax 0208 943 3377 • [email protected]

Eamonn O’Neill • University of Bath • tel 01225 323216 • fax 01225 826492 • [email protected]

Nadia Pervez • Staffordshire University • [email protected]

Ross Philip • User Vision • tel 0131 220 8213 • [email protected]

Dale Richards • QinetiQ

Chris Roast • Sheffield Hallam University • tel 0114 225 5555 • fax 0114 225 3161

Anxo Cejeiro Roibás • University of Brighton • tel 01273 642458 • fax 01273 642405

John Rosbottom • University of Portsmouth • tel 023 9284 6430 • fax 023 9284 [email protected]

Fausto J. Sainz Salces • Liverpool John Moores University • tel 0151 231 2082 • fax 0151207 [email protected]

Helen Sharp • [email protected]

Andy Smith • University of Luton • tel 01582 743716 • fax 01582 489212 • [email protected]

Suzanne Stokes

Colin Venters • University of Manchester • tel 0161 275 6046 • fax 0161 275 6071 • [email protected]

Robert Ward • [email protected]

Peter Wild • University of Bath • tel 07779 330 554 • fax 01225 826492 • [email protected]

Adrian Williamson • Graham Technology plc • tel 0141 533 4000 • [email protected]

Jesmond Worthington • Dig Ltd • tel 0131 454 3358 • [email protected]

Editor Interacting with ComputersDianne Murray

Job advertising also accepted for UsabilityNews.com at thesame rates as for quarter-page ad in Interfaces. Book bothfor a 20% discount. Contact Tom McEwan, CommunicationsChair, British HCI Group, 0131 455 2793 [email protected], for further details.

Chair of student representativesNadia Pervez

Interfaces magazineEditor Laura CowenBooks Editor Sandra CairncrossMy PhD Editor Martha HauseProfile Editor Alan DixColumnist Russell BealeProduction Editor Fiona Dix

Chair of practitionersvacant

BCS ContactsSue Tueton (Membership) [email protected],+44(0) 1793 417416 • Nick Webb (Specialist Groups)[email protected] • Bob Hill (Printing) +44(0) 1793417486

The British Computer Society1 Sanford Street, Swindon SN1 1HJ , UKTel: +44(0) 1793 417417Fax: +44(0) 1793 480270Email: [email protected]

British Inter aces - British Computer Society · Interfaces 59 • Summer 2004 3 RIGHT TO REPLY...

Documents

Transcript of British Inter aces - British Computer Society · Interfaces 59 • Summer 2004 3 RIGHT TO REPLY...