- Spent the first few days adjusting to the noise level in my house, which I had apparantly forgotten about
- Had 5 (five) wisdom teeth removed. Important note: always get your pain medication before the Novocaine wears off. If the wait time at the pharmacy is longer than an hour, get the doctor to call in the order ahead of time. Most unpleasant two hours ever.
- Acquired 1 (one) head cold from either family members at Christmas eve party, or mobs on boxing day. Just in case an aching, pounding pain in your jaw bone isn't enough, here's two more aching, pounding pains: one in your head, and one in your throat!
- Sub-par productivity levels, which I'm blaming on the codine.
- Modem feels the need to reset/crash about once every 5 minutes
Monday, December 29, 2008
Relaxing Christmas Break
My relaxing Christmas break is coming to an end, and not a moment too soon. Just to recap:
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Migration Woes
Spent some quality procrastination time this afternoon migrating all of my disparate google services to be owned by my shiny new gmail account. Simply switching ownership account wasn't an option, so I had to create a new calendar, reader, and blog with my gmail account, export everything into xml files, then import them into the new services. Everything looks pretty much seamless, with the exception of this blog, which now has two authors, both named Rory Tulk. Oh well, can't win 'em all, I guess.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Power Laws in Software
A good paper explaining Power Laws, and the 80-20 observation. Some of the correlations between the distribution and actual data are a bit loose, but the authors provide error measures (r squared) for all datasets presented, and in some cases make mention of some poor fits. Overall, very helpful.
Couple of tangent thoughts while reading this:
static dependancy analysis with Java reflection sounds like fun :)
"... only a few reusable components can be reused profitably [Glass 1998]" look into this further. Does this correlate with the previous paper on code reuse?
Couple of tangent thoughts while reading this:
static dependancy analysis with Java reflection sounds like fun :)
"... only a few reusable components can be reused profitably [Glass 1998]" look into this further. Does this correlate with the previous paper on code reuse?
Jogging Over a Distance – Supporting a “Jogging Together” Experience Although Being Apart
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~khai/classes/csc2526-fall2008/readings/09-mueller.pdf
The authors have created a simple audio communication system for use by joggers. As reported in a survey they conducted, joggers enjoy the company of others while jogging, for conversation and encouragement. However, finding a jogging parter of similar ability and availability is not always possible. To this end, the Jogging Over a Distance system links two joggers who are not physically collocated. Each jogger is equipped with a cell phone, wireless headset, and small computing unit. Joggers hear the conversation of their partner though the headset, augmented to seem localized in space around them based on their partner's speed (ie. If their parter is faster, they will sound farther ahead).
Jogging Over a Distance insightfully a market of users which seem to be in a very receptive position for this device. As the study points out, 54% of surveyed participants said they engage in conversation while jogging. Also, the proposed design retains all the mentioned benefits of conversation while jogging (socializing, motivation, fun, encouragement) while lessening the barriers presented by running in pairs (differing pace, differing geographic location). In addition to this, the 3D audio positioning is an extremely creative, novel way to indicate to the user the relative speed of their jogging parter. This clearly seems to be influenced by research done in the area of ambient/passive displays.
I feel there are several areas in which this system could be improved, or concerns addressed. The device's form factor seems overly cumbersome, especially given the wide availability of mobile phones with adequate computing power for managing both calls and audio positioning. This was pointed out by the authors as an issue which will be addressed, but I wonder why it wasn't a hard requirement since design inception. Also, in relation to the audio positioning, I was surprised to read that off the shelf quadraphonic headphones were unable to give the users proper discrimination between sounds in front and behind them. The solution proposed, to have the forward axis tilted to a 1:30-7:30 orientation, seems undesirable. It would be interesting if the authors could study this orientation with respect to the route runners take, to see if it leads them on a series of gradual right-hand turns (as one runner follows the virtual runner in front of them). Also, if the audio location features were omitted, how is this technology different than a simple cell phone and head set? In this case, the merit of the authors' work is not the technology, but the sociological study they can perform with it.
This brings me to my next line of thought, which is concerned with the marketability of this 'device'. If a jogger typically jogs for an hour, once a week, and uses the Jogging Over a Distance to effectively make a one hour phone call to someone who is too far away to run physically with them, will this not present a large associated cost for the jogger? For the purposes of research, this is not an issue, but if it were to be a consumer product, this would have to be solved.
The authors have created a simple audio communication system for use by joggers. As reported in a survey they conducted, joggers enjoy the company of others while jogging, for conversation and encouragement. However, finding a jogging parter of similar ability and availability is not always possible. To this end, the Jogging Over a Distance system links two joggers who are not physically collocated. Each jogger is equipped with a cell phone, wireless headset, and small computing unit. Joggers hear the conversation of their partner though the headset, augmented to seem localized in space around them based on their partner's speed (ie. If their parter is faster, they will sound farther ahead).
Jogging Over a Distance insightfully a market of users which seem to be in a very receptive position for this device. As the study points out, 54% of surveyed participants said they engage in conversation while jogging. Also, the proposed design retains all the mentioned benefits of conversation while jogging (socializing, motivation, fun, encouragement) while lessening the barriers presented by running in pairs (differing pace, differing geographic location). In addition to this, the 3D audio positioning is an extremely creative, novel way to indicate to the user the relative speed of their jogging parter. This clearly seems to be influenced by research done in the area of ambient/passive displays.
I feel there are several areas in which this system could be improved, or concerns addressed. The device's form factor seems overly cumbersome, especially given the wide availability of mobile phones with adequate computing power for managing both calls and audio positioning. This was pointed out by the authors as an issue which will be addressed, but I wonder why it wasn't a hard requirement since design inception. Also, in relation to the audio positioning, I was surprised to read that off the shelf quadraphonic headphones were unable to give the users proper discrimination between sounds in front and behind them. The solution proposed, to have the forward axis tilted to a 1:30-7:30 orientation, seems undesirable. It would be interesting if the authors could study this orientation with respect to the route runners take, to see if it leads them on a series of gradual right-hand turns (as one runner follows the virtual runner in front of them). Also, if the audio location features were omitted, how is this technology different than a simple cell phone and head set? In this case, the merit of the authors' work is not the technology, but the sociological study they can perform with it.
This brings me to my next line of thought, which is concerned with the marketability of this 'device'. If a jogger typically jogs for an hour, once a week, and uses the Jogging Over a Distance to effectively make a one hour phone call to someone who is too far away to run physically with them, will this not present a large associated cost for the jogger? For the purposes of research, this is not an issue, but if it were to be a consumer product, this would have to be solved.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The Familiar Stranger: Anxiety, Comfort, and Play in Public Places
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~khai/classes/csc2526-fall2008/readings/08-paulos.pdf
The authors present the results of a study conducted to examine the results of two studies conducted to determine the extent to which the Familiar Stranger concept still exists in modern urban scenarios, and whether or not a ubiquitous social networking solution could leverage this effect in a useful way. The first study accurately recreates Stanley Milgram's 1972 Familiar Stranger study, in which photos of a light-rail station at morning rush hour are distributed to individuals at the station, and familiar strangers are determined by labeling the people in the photo. The second study consisted of an urban walking tour, in which participants indicated their level of familiarity and comfort in certain locations based on four dimensions: number of familiar people in the area, degree of familiarity with those people, have familiar people visited this place before, and do the people currently here visit the same places I do? Using these results, the authors propose Jabberwocky, a device used to tag familiar items, locations, and individuals. In this system, Bluetooth connected devices (base stations, cell phones, and iMotes) communicate to provide a measure of familiarity to the user about their current location.
I found this paper to be particularly informative from a purely sociological standpoint. Although the concepts presented cannot be wholly attributed to the authors (Milgram's study was novel in 1972, but not in 2008), they are none the less insightful. One noteworthy design constraint imposed by the authors is that any ubiquitous device which functions based on familiar strangers must not encourage explicit interaction with said strangers. The authors argue that the existence of familiar strangers is an indicator of a healthy urban community, and not a negative or anti-social aspect. Further observations on people's behavior, such as frequently checking one's cell phone in unfamiliar settings, adds a depth of insight to the paper.
The majority of the limitations found with this study are attributed to the technical merits of the device proposed. The Jabberwoky platform seems to be applicable to most of the situations applied in the paper, but using the Motes to tag static objects or locations seems a bit infeasible. For example, leaving these devices attached to public structures brings into question the cost of the device and the possibility of theft. Perhaps a less physically obtrusive solution for tagging familiar locations would be to submit the GPS coordinates of the location to a central server, which can be queried at the same time and with the same frequency of the Bluetooth polling.
The authors present the results of a study conducted to examine the results of two studies conducted to determine the extent to which the Familiar Stranger concept still exists in modern urban scenarios, and whether or not a ubiquitous social networking solution could leverage this effect in a useful way. The first study accurately recreates Stanley Milgram's 1972 Familiar Stranger study, in which photos of a light-rail station at morning rush hour are distributed to individuals at the station, and familiar strangers are determined by labeling the people in the photo. The second study consisted of an urban walking tour, in which participants indicated their level of familiarity and comfort in certain locations based on four dimensions: number of familiar people in the area, degree of familiarity with those people, have familiar people visited this place before, and do the people currently here visit the same places I do? Using these results, the authors propose Jabberwocky, a device used to tag familiar items, locations, and individuals. In this system, Bluetooth connected devices (base stations, cell phones, and iMotes) communicate to provide a measure of familiarity to the user about their current location.
I found this paper to be particularly informative from a purely sociological standpoint. Although the concepts presented cannot be wholly attributed to the authors (Milgram's study was novel in 1972, but not in 2008), they are none the less insightful. One noteworthy design constraint imposed by the authors is that any ubiquitous device which functions based on familiar strangers must not encourage explicit interaction with said strangers. The authors argue that the existence of familiar strangers is an indicator of a healthy urban community, and not a negative or anti-social aspect. Further observations on people's behavior, such as frequently checking one's cell phone in unfamiliar settings, adds a depth of insight to the paper.
The majority of the limitations found with this study are attributed to the technical merits of the device proposed. The Jabberwoky platform seems to be applicable to most of the situations applied in the paper, but using the Motes to tag static objects or locations seems a bit infeasible. For example, leaving these devices attached to public structures brings into question the cost of the device and the possibility of theft. Perhaps a less physically obtrusive solution for tagging familiar locations would be to submit the GPS coordinates of the location to a central server, which can be queried at the same time and with the same frequency of the Bluetooth polling.
Augmenting the Social Space of an Academic Conference
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~khai/classes/csc2526-fall2008/readings/08-mccarthy.pdf
The authors present the results of deploying two proactive displays into an academic conference setting: AutoSpeakerID (ASID) and Ticket2Talk (T2T). Both these systems leverage RFID tags that are physically installed into conference attendees' badges, which are paired with an profile containing personal affiliation information and a photograph. The ASID display consists of a RFID reader embedded in a microphone stand and an accompanying large display. In this way, when an attendee approaches the microphone to ask a question, their information is rendered on the display, providing context for their question. The T2T system is of similar configuration, in that it has a display which renders an attendee's profile when they come into proximate context with the display. However, T2T is installed at refreshment stations to promote personal interactions between attendees.
The novel element presented in this paper, as the authors point out, is the close focus on the evaluation of these devices. Each system is examined thoroughly by the researchers, gathering qualitative observational and questionnaire data. These results were used to gauge the systems' performance in the areas of Enhancing the Feeling of Community, Mesh with Established Practices, and Privacy Concerns. Some unexpected, yet somewhat beneficial results were produced when users attempted to 'game' the system buy providing falsified, comical profiles (ie. The Bill Gates profile).
Although the authors focused on qualitative analysis of their displays, I think further investigation is required before coming to definitive decisions on the systems' utility. Although this is clearly a difficult domain to measure, it is generally proposed that user surveys/questionnaires can skew results. For example, the results of the survey for the Ticket2Talk system reported 41% positive feedback and 3% negative feedback, with 66% of the attendees unaccounted for. If we take into consideration a variation of Self-Selecting Respondents, we could propose that the participants who found the system very useful were motivated to fill out the questionnaire, and those who strongly disliked the system were motivated to distance themselves from the system, it would not be a stretch to propose that the majority of the 66% unaccounted attendees had a negative view of the system, and so the results of the questionnaire are invalid.
The authors present the results of deploying two proactive displays into an academic conference setting: AutoSpeakerID (ASID) and Ticket2Talk (T2T). Both these systems leverage RFID tags that are physically installed into conference attendees' badges, which are paired with an profile containing personal affiliation information and a photograph. The ASID display consists of a RFID reader embedded in a microphone stand and an accompanying large display. In this way, when an attendee approaches the microphone to ask a question, their information is rendered on the display, providing context for their question. The T2T system is of similar configuration, in that it has a display which renders an attendee's profile when they come into proximate context with the display. However, T2T is installed at refreshment stations to promote personal interactions between attendees.
The novel element presented in this paper, as the authors point out, is the close focus on the evaluation of these devices. Each system is examined thoroughly by the researchers, gathering qualitative observational and questionnaire data. These results were used to gauge the systems' performance in the areas of Enhancing the Feeling of Community, Mesh with Established Practices, and Privacy Concerns. Some unexpected, yet somewhat beneficial results were produced when users attempted to 'game' the system buy providing falsified, comical profiles (ie. The Bill Gates profile).
Although the authors focused on qualitative analysis of their displays, I think further investigation is required before coming to definitive decisions on the systems' utility. Although this is clearly a difficult domain to measure, it is generally proposed that user surveys/questionnaires can skew results. For example, the results of the survey for the Ticket2Talk system reported 41% positive feedback and 3% negative feedback, with 66% of the attendees unaccounted for. If we take into consideration a variation of Self-Selecting Respondents, we could propose that the participants who found the system very useful were motivated to fill out the questionnaire, and those who strongly disliked the system were motivated to distance themselves from the system, it would not be a stretch to propose that the majority of the 66% unaccounted attendees had a negative view of the system, and so the results of the questionnaire are invalid.
A Taxonomy of Ambient Information Systems: Four Patterns of Design
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~khai/classes/csc2526-fall2008/readings/07-a-pousman.pdf
This paper presents the current state of the art in ambient or peripheral information displays. The authors propose four dimensions on which the currently available ambient systems can be measured: information capacity, notification level, representation fidelity, and aesthetic emphasis. Information capacity measures the number of information sources a device can display. Notification level indicates the degree to which the system will interrupt the user, or demand their attention. Representation fidelity measures the level of abstraction in the data representation. Finally, aesthetic emphasis measures how important aesthetics are to the device's designers. Based on these four dimensions, the authors propose four patterns of design in this domain: Symbolic Sculptural Displays, Multiple Information Consolidators, Information Monitor Displays, and High Throughput Textual Displays.
The authors do a very nice job of describing the current areas of research and development in ambient and peripheral displays. The exercise of classifying current projects on their four selected dimensions is quite insightful, and serves greatly to provide organization and structure to the field.
This paper is lacking in a tangible contribution to knowledge, however. In the paper's introduction, it mentions at least one other existing method of categorizing ambient and peripheral displays. I can see no measure that indicates that the new classification system which is proposed here has any advantage over existing methods. Also, these patterns of design have been used to classify existing projects, but how could they be used to facilitate the creation of new products, in much the same way that OOP design patters are used? Finally, it could be suggested that the four patterns proposed are insufficient to categorize all possible ambient displays, since it is incapable of being applicable to all devices in the sample used in the paper. Perhaps there are more than four patterns that can be extracted from the four dimensions of classification proposed by the authors, and perhaps there are even anti-patterns to be found within these four dimensions, that would result in poor ambient displays.
This paper presents the current state of the art in ambient or peripheral information displays. The authors propose four dimensions on which the currently available ambient systems can be measured: information capacity, notification level, representation fidelity, and aesthetic emphasis. Information capacity measures the number of information sources a device can display. Notification level indicates the degree to which the system will interrupt the user, or demand their attention. Representation fidelity measures the level of abstraction in the data representation. Finally, aesthetic emphasis measures how important aesthetics are to the device's designers. Based on these four dimensions, the authors propose four patterns of design in this domain: Symbolic Sculptural Displays, Multiple Information Consolidators, Information Monitor Displays, and High Throughput Textual Displays.
The authors do a very nice job of describing the current areas of research and development in ambient and peripheral displays. The exercise of classifying current projects on their four selected dimensions is quite insightful, and serves greatly to provide organization and structure to the field.
This paper is lacking in a tangible contribution to knowledge, however. In the paper's introduction, it mentions at least one other existing method of categorizing ambient and peripheral displays. I can see no measure that indicates that the new classification system which is proposed here has any advantage over existing methods. Also, these patterns of design have been used to classify existing projects, but how could they be used to facilitate the creation of new products, in much the same way that OOP design patters are used? Finally, it could be suggested that the four patterns proposed are insufficient to categorize all possible ambient displays, since it is incapable of being applicable to all devices in the sample used in the paper. Perhaps there are more than four patterns that can be extracted from the four dimensions of classification proposed by the authors, and perhaps there are even anti-patterns to be found within these four dimensions, that would result in poor ambient displays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)