Asg 2: Term Paper/Project

Objectives:

We covered papers from many CHI 2013 sessions, e.g., gaze, smart tools, smart work, exploring games, etc., any one of these would be a good start.

Your paper should: (a) cover (survey) the CHI subtopic of your choice, meaning that you should provide a review of the background of the field, leading up to the current state-of-the-art, (b) outline the key problems and research directions of the area that have been explored, and (c) conclude with an outlook to the problems that are still open and challenging to this particular CHI subcommunity.

Description:

1. Use the HCI Archive Format for writing your paper (LaTeX and Word templates are provided at the link).
2. Do not alter the HCI Archive Format in any way, meaning your paper should be single-spaced, double-column format, with a properly formatted bibliography.
3. Do not use the Extended Abstract Format.
4. Your paper must be minimum 4 pages in length, maximum 8 pages.
5. Your paper must include at leat 8 papers in the bibliography.
6. Use only archival references, e.g., other papers such as CHI conference proceedings.
7. Do not use online sources for your references (e.g., I should see no references in your paper only containing a URL, and especially not something like Wikepedia).

What to Avoid (Dr. D.'s pet peeves):

1. Do not use ``flowery writing'', e.g., avoid terms such as vast, tremendous, enormous, dramatic, immense.
2. Do not refer to prior publications by number, e.g., ``Following case study methodology of [27] and adapted by [31]...''; instead refer to such prior work by name, i.e., ``Following case study methodology of Stake [27] and adapted by Yin [31]...'' (using APA style citations is also acceptable, e.g., ``Following case study methodology of Stake [1994] and adapted by Yin [1981]...'').
3. Do not hand in papers that have not been spell-checked and revised for typos, widowed lines, other blemishes such as Word's Error! Reference source not found or LaTeX's [?] (these latter two are particularly egregious).
4. Do not leave the Related Work section to the end (this wouldn't make much sense in a survey paper anyway, but I thought I'd mention it just the same).
5. Do not use too many acronyms, and do not leave any poorly defined or undefined ones, e.g., MOOGs.

Notes/Hints/Suggestions:

1. A survey paper is fairly challenging to write, and often quite difficult to publish as a conference proceedings paper (generally, survey papers often appear as journal articles or perahps as STate of the ARt (STAR) reports (at the EuroGraphics conference as an example). However, I do know of a particularly good conference paper example, it is:
   • Majaranta, Päivi and Räihä, Kari-Jouko, Twenty Years of Eye Typing: Systems and Design Issues, In Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (ETRA '02). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15-22. DOI=10.1145/507072.507076
   Do use the above as an example of a well-written survey paper.
2. Do not just write the paper as a book report, merely listing papers you (claim to) have read; instead, one good strategy is to compare and contrast the papers you are reviewing.
   Stated another way, your review should make clear why it is you are including papers in your bibliography, why each paper is relevant.
3. Another good strategy is to look for foundational papers in the topic you are interested in (e.g., who started this topic?), as well as seminal contributions (e.g., a paper that is so influential that it gets referenced a lot).
   An example of a seminal work in eye tracking would be that of Yarbus (1967), in which he showed that eye movement patterns depend on task (Yarbus, A., Eye Movements and Vision, Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1967).