Book Reading #4: Opening Skinner's Box

Ch. 1 - Opening Skinner's Box: Chapter one discusses the the life and experiments of B.F. Skinner. Lauren Slater definitely has a unique style of writing and explaining this experiment. She is very loose with her stories and I am still not sure what is truth and what is her imagination. It is very hard to get over her flowery and very verbose manner of explaining. Beyond Slater's style though, I did find the thoughts on Skinner pretty entertaining. It definitely made me want to explore more about him and his experiments. It is interesting how people have such opposite opinions on Skinner's life and experiments. It definitely is intriguing to consider what life would be like if punishment was removed and only positive reinforcement was used to guide people. The idea of always being guided by something and never having your own free will is also a scary thought. I would of liked more insight into his actual experiments.

Ch. 2 - Obscura: Considering that we just finished reading Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority, I found this chapter quite interesting. Although it was explained rather poorly, it was nice to get a different vantage point of the obedience experiments. It was good hearing about some of the participants from someone besides Milgram. Hearing their thoughts on the experiment and how it affected their life really added another dimension to the experiment; it becomes more real and you realize that real people had to endure the effects of this experiment. Also, the aftermath of the experiment on Milgram himself was something I did not know about. He ended up losing his job and future jobs because of the harshness of his experiment. Milgram's wife gives up a nice point of view that Obedience to Authority does not even hint at.

Ch. 3 - On Being Sane in Insane Places: This chapter discusses Rosenhan and his experiment of going to psychiatric wards and implying being psychotic by claiming to hear a voice. This experiment pretty much destroyed the field of psychiatry because it proved that the doctors could not tell him and his sane friends from the other "insane" people that also were admitted to these hospitals. I think that this study did good to bring light to some problems in the field, but I do agree with some of its disputers in that if you pretend to be "sick" and ask for help, then the doctors are going to try to help you. I think it is good that Spritzer made the DSM more strict, and that nurses and doctors treat patients more kindly because of this experiment. I do also agree, however, with Rosenhann's claim that doctor's have trouble just saying "I do not know" and will go with prescribing instead of deferring in most situations. This is a problem that I think Rosenhan helped to fix with his experiment.

Ch. 4 - In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing: Chapter 4 discusses the experiments of Darley and Latane which tries to explain the reason people do not react to emergencies. According to their findings, the larger a group is, the less responsible you feel as an individual if a crisis arises. Another find that they found was that you only worry about a problem if others are also worried. For instance, if a fire alarm goes off and no one seems to panic, then you assume that there is not a problem. I think these experiments were all very interesting and definitely true once you think about them. I think it is good to think about these situations because, as Slater points out, a person that realizes that people freeze up in emergencies will most likely not freeze up themselves. Everyone should learn the five stages in order to help prevent crisis situations from going un-acted upon, like the Genovese case.

Ch. 5 - Quieting the Mind: Chapter 5 focuses on the studies of Festinger and cognitive dissonance. The way I understand this is that it is a way to make situations fit your beliefs in order to avoid having to know that you are wrong. In the example of the Great Event with Mrs. Keech, the people that believed changed their belief from the world ending to the idea that they had saved the world by their beliefs. This made it so that they could get through the pain and avoid being wrong, according to Festinger. I do think that this does happen with people and that Festinger is correct to a degree, but I think he applies it to too much. Is there no such thing as faith? Are all explanations just made up and revised to make us feel better and fit our beliefs? It is definitely something worth pondering, but I do feel Festinger's theory is somewhat flawed considering that not everyone follows it.

Ch.6 - Monkey Love: Chapter 6 is about the experiments and theories of Harlow and his monkeys. He initially reported that all that monkeys (and humans) need was touch. His experiments disproved the ideas of love being based on the need to survive (i.e. food, sex). Eventually, as these monkeys with fake mothers grew up though, they went crazy. Without an actual mother to influence how to act properly, Harlow's monkeys went crazy. I feel that Harlow did find out some very important ideas wit his research, even if he was initially incorrect with his theory. His study of the need for touch, face, and play definitely impacted many different facets of the world at the time. I feel that his experiments showed that it is possible to replicate a mother, it is just better to have a real one. As Harlow's adversaries point out, we already knew this, and many monkeys died in search of proving it. Harlow just presented it with a flare of controversy, and so became more popular for it. I do agree with this, but also feel that Harlow did find some unknowns in his research.

Ch. 7 - Rat Park: The experiments that chapter 7 are based on are from Bruce Alexander and are about the causes of addiction. Normally, people think that addiction is caused by the substances. They assume we can not resist taking drugs and there is withdrawal if addicted. Alexander opposed this view, and stated that addiction was caused by cultural or physical constraints, as opposed to pharmacological ones. All the tests that proved addiction were based on rats cramped in cages. Alexander hypothesized that it was because of the rat's situation that they wanted to get high and take the drugs. His experiment of the Rat Park, where there was plenty of space and food and mating, showed that the rats did not choose to take the morphine laced water. They were content living their lives and not being high. I think this experiment is a very good one and definitely uncovered some good data. I do think it is mildly flawed in that there are no places for humans that equate to the rat park, so he might of made it a little too nice. But this extreme did help to better prove his results. In the end, I think we are far from understanding the human brain, and as Slater states, causes of addiction are still inconclusive.

Ch. 8 - Lost in the Mall: This chapter really made me think. According to Loftus, everything I remember might not even be true; this bothers me some. In Loftus' experiments, she tried to prove that memories could be implanted, that memories can not be trusted. With simple suggestions from people you trust, you can be convinced that an event happened. Loftus used the idea of convincing a person that they got lost in the mall when they were younger. I think this is rather intriguing and it is pretty impressive that 25% of the people completely made up stories and believed them. Although this is not a majority, I agree with Loftus in saying it is a significant minority. When applied to accusations (such as the sexual assaults accused to parents), having 25% of those being false is rather troubling. Overall, although no one can agree on whether or not Loftus' experiments are factual, I think it does bother me to realize that my memories might not even be fully true. I realize that memory degrades over time, but the idea that a completely false one can be created is a little strange. People are made up of their experiences and memories, and so this is why I think Loftus is so controversial, she is essentially taking that away from people.

Ch. 9 - Memory Inc.: Chapter nine discusses the works of Eric Kandel. He was intrigued into studying psychoanalysis when he heard the story of a man named Henry (a.k.a H.M.) losing memory because of a lobotomy. Henry's doctor, Dr. Scoville, took out his hippocampus to reduce seizures. The procedure ended up taking away Henry's ability to remember any new things. The failed surgery did prove, though, that memories are indeed saved in the brain, as Milner proved with her in depth study of H.M.
Kandel's main experiment was done on Aplysia snails (large marine snails). He studied the snails and their neurons while he trained them and they learned new tasks. He learned that the synapses, the links bewteen the neurons, grew stronger with more training. This provided an actual molecular model of primitive memory. He discovered the CREB (cAMP Responsive element binding), which is like the velcro of our brain that helps retain our memories. This opens up many possibilities to increase our memory capabilities, or even do the opposite and remove memories.

Ch. 10 - Chipped: The final chapter discusses Antonio Egas Moniz, who is the father of the lobotomy. He came up with the idea of cutting the neurons in the brain to sever the synapses of the neurons. It was very controversial at the beginning of his first procedures because he was operating on humans, albeit mental patients, but still humans nonetheless. It raises the ethical question of whether it is right to operate on people with such an experimental procedure. You are essentially risking the swap of one mental disability for another.
In the end though, the lobotomy has been improved and become more precise. The procedure is still mirky and no one can seem to decide on where it is actually necessary to make the cuts, but there are  reports of success. The downside is that most that are cured end up with less of spark in their life, almost depression in some cases. I am going to be honest and say that I cannot figure out how this relates to Computer Science, and so I am looking forward to class discussion. I can only guess that maybe we can look at Moniz's study and see that the human brain is very complex and even today we do not fully understand it.

Book Reading #3: Obedience to Authority

Chapter Summaries

Ch. 1 - The Dilemma of Obedience: This first chapter serves to introduce the experiment, which, I think is quite an interesting one. After thinking about it, it makes perfect sense. I think it points out a very crucial issues with humans, in that we pass off the blame until no one is held responsible.

Ch. 2 - Method of Inquiry: Chapter 2 is a nice chapter that that explains the procedure of the experiment in greater detail. I like how it tells us the exact steps that were taken. It definitely helps explain how this process was scientific, as I originally thought there would be too many variables due to human interaction.

Ch. 3 - Expecte Behavior: Chapter 3 is a short chapter discussing the expectations of the experiment. Most people predicted that the subjects would stop at the 10th shock level (first demand to be freed). I thought this accurate, because I feel that is what I would of predicted as well.

Ch. 4 - Closeness of the Victim: I found this chapter on closeness to the victim quite a nice twist on the study. It makes sense that the closer the "teacher" is to the victim, the sooner they will disobey. It does seem a tough situation to be in, and I am surprised that some people actually followed through with the close proximity test.

Ch. 5 - Individuals Confront Authority: I think it was very good of Milgram to include some responses from participants in the experiment. This chapter does a good job of giving a "teacher's" point of view. It shows the pain that some of these people went through when obeying instructions.

Ch. 6 - Further Variations and Controls: After reading the first 3 chapters of this book, I was wondering how it would stretch to so many chapters, but now I see that they did many variations of this test. I think this was good, because it was necessary to prove that it was indeed authority. The experiment at Bridgeport was especially interesting to me, as I felt people only followed instructions because the trusted Yale in the initial test. This was obviously proven wrong.

Chapter 7: Chapter 7 just seemed to show the cruelty of the experiment to me. These people seemed quite troubled at the task they obeyed to perform. It seems not quite ethical to put someone through such as scenario. Mrs. Rosenblum seemed especially confused, and Mr. Gino came off as quite cynical with his bragging about "doing his job", even if the man was dead.

Ch. 8 -  Role Permutations: This chapter was quite interesting to me. The one experiment with two authorities and one as a victim really surprised me. It seems crazy that the "victim authority" could lose his role so easily and be treated as any of the other "ordinary victims".

Ch. 9 - Group Effects: The section on the shock administer disobeying early because the rest of the group disobeyed seemed to match my predictions. The interesting experiment was the one where the naive subject does not administer shocks, and so goes on fully with the experiment. It is rather eye opening to think of the real life parallels of such a scenario. People don't stop wrong, but remain accessories to it because they are not directly doing the wrong.

Ch. 10 - Why Obedience? An Analysis: This chapter's in depth look on obedience was an interesting read. It does a good job of explaining why humans would obey and the need for hierarchy. It does make sense -- we need hierarchy and obedience to keep society organized and functioning.

Ch. 11 - The Process of Obedience: Chapter 11 delves into the reasons why people obey. It discusses the social norms and feelings people have when obeying authority. I found the section on anxiety especially true, as it states that breaking social norms is troubling until the break occurs.

Ch. 12 - Strain and Disobedience: This chapter discusses the strain that people go through when they are faced with issues they are uncomfortable with. It also talks about the different ways people reduce their strain, such as passing of responsibility or avoiding the discomfort.

Ch. 13 - An Alternative Theory: Is Aggression the Key?: The author points out the possibility of aggression being the reason for people continuing to shock. As he points out, this is not the case, because as in experiment 11, people chose to shock at the lowest levels when given the option. They were not aggressive, but merely following orders.

Ch. 14 - Problems of Method: This chapter discusses the possible problems the experiment might of had and why they were not in fact issues. The more times and more variations of this experiment just go to show and prove its correctness. People obey authority, even if it is not moral.

Ch. 15 - Epilogue: This chapter goes into the moral aspect of the experiments. It raises a good question of how people can judge the subjects of this experiment with disdain, and then be okay with the killing in wars. The story of the massacre is especially troubling and brings back thoughts of Nazis. It is scary what people will do when they are just obeying orders.

Book Summary

I thought this book was very interesting and did a good job of testing out its initial goal. The goal was to see if most people would obey even if it is immoral. This question was supposed to parallel the obedience that Nazis held during their experiments that killed and harmed people. Although the Nazis operated over a decade long and this experiment lasted only an hour, I feel that it still did a great job of proving the correlation because both tasks involved the same inherent behavior.

I, like most of the people questioned before the tests were run, thought that people would hold to their morals more than the social contract of the experiment. I would not think that a person would continue to shock a complete stranger just because a scientists tells them to. I especially think that screams from the learner would immediately halt the experiment and cause disobedience, but as this book showed, this hypothesis was wrong. It seems quite crazy that so many people went to the full shock value of 450 volts.

Milgram does do a good job of explaining why people obey. Upon further evaluation, you start to understand the position those subjects were in. They volunteered for the experiment and did not want to mess it up. Although they had no reason to trust the scientists, you find yourself trusting such an authority and assuming they are right and that no harm will come of the shocks. The especially interesting point that Milgram makes is the strain that the subjects go through and how they try to reduce it. I can see myself using these same tactics -- avoidance, passing off the blame, "lightly" shocking, etc. -- if I was placed in the situation. Whatever it took to both complete the experiment and not do too much harm to the victim.

I of course hope that I would not go through with the experiment at all, as I can not imagine shocking another stranger for forgetting random word pairs. Of course, the odds would have been against me though, since it appears most people obey, and so I can only assume I would have too. This is a scary thought, and it really makes you wonder. I feel sorry for the subject's that had to learn this the hard way. It seems wrong to inform someone that they are willing to hurt others, without them asking or even wanting to know. Overall though, I guess it was a good experiment and brought to light some important facts about people.

Book Reading: Gang Leader for Day

     Gang Leader for a Day by Sudhir Venkatesh was a very interesting read, and definitely my favorite book in this class so far. Contrary to popular belief, I have never been in a gang, nor have I known anyone that has been, so this was very enlightening. The study might not have been a typical ethnography, but I feel that is what made it such a unique read.

     I think the ethical aspect of the whole study was the most intriguing portion. Sudhir was present for many illegal activities and even the planning of drive by murders. I do not know if I would have been able to watch all of those activities go down. I do think that he definitely got attached to the people in the community and so this was a big reason for letting his morals slide. I know that just from reading the book, I felt sorry for J.T. because his rise was ending and the gang was falling apart. If I, from just reading the story, feel bad that there are no more crack users to help supplement J.T., I can only imagine how attached Sudhir got during his many years there. I think this study was a great one, but it definitely broke the rules of typical ethnographers.

    Another aspect of the book that I found interesting was the way the community as a whole functioned. It was practically its own little city with its own government and hierarchy. There were jobs and taxes and even a punishment system that was separate from the rest of Chicago. Everyone in the community depended on one another, whether it be protection or services or food, in order to get by. They seemed to even have their own currency to go with cash, in that they just trade favors or threats to get what they want. It definitely is a fight to survive for all of the people, always just trying to get by, and doing what is necessary to get what you need. It seems like an endless cycle that can not be escaped.

Ethnography Ideas

My idea for an ethnography at Texas A&M would be to study the Corps of Cadets. I think this would be an interesting study because most students at Texas A&M do not know what life in the corps all entails. I can't say I even know too many corps people personally so it would definitely be a study that is completely new to me. I know they have very strict rules and a busy schedule so it would be interesting to see what that lifestyle is like.

My idea for an ethnography of a group that I am familiar with and think would be an interesting ethnography for another person would be the Texas A&M Football team. I do not know if this is totally a plausible idea (considering access issues), but from being in the locker room and around those guys for my first three years, I think it would be an interesting study. Most of them are not what you think of when you think of college football athlete (although some fit the stereotype very well). It would be interesting to compare the way the media portrays them and how they really are.

Assignment 7: Nonobvious Observation

Blog your response about the videos you created and the nonobvious things you might be able to take note of to determine more about a person

In order to create our videos for this project, we rode our bikes from Rudder Tower to the C-Store by Sbisa. We then bought an item from the convenient store and returned to the tower on our bike. This made for an interesting video for all the group members. Riding our bike down military walk gave ample opportunity for interaction with pedestrians. This gave many changes for observation of the person wearing the camera and quite a fun task of guessing who it was.

After just watching a few of our group's videos, you start to notice many different things that give away who is wearing the camera. For instance, by seeing the path they took and the pace they rode it, you could start to guess who was the rider. The different directions the person looks is also a hint. You can see if the person is focused on the goal or has a wondering gaze. Another nonobvious thing that could be noticed was the way they let pedestrians travel in front of them. Did they cut them off or let them go first, or just totally go around them altogether. These are just some of the hints that could be viewed when analyzing the videos and the process we took.

I now realize how much more there is about people and the way they interact in general. There are many nonobvious things that this assignment helped point out -- things that would not be otherwise noticed without this extra analysis. Just like in Pennebaker's book "The Secret Life of Pronouns", sometimes it is the small things such as pronouns, or hand gestures and head movement (in the case of the videos), that can tell a lot about a person.

Ethnography Articles Response

eth·nog·ra·phy 
Pronunciation: \eth-ˈnä-grə-fē\ 
Function: noun 
Etymology: French ethnographie, from ethno- + -graphie -graphy 
Date: 1834

: the study and systematic recording of human cultures ; also : a descriptive work produced from such research

              -Merriam-Webster Online

As I was not very sure what an ethnography was before reading these three articles, I found them very informative. The "American Ethnography" and Wikipedia descriptions pointed out many important points in describing what an ethnography is. The Wikipedia article was especially descriptive and discussing the different types of ethnography. Some of these types included Cultural and Social Anthropology,  Sociology, and Communication Studies.

As an example of one the "Cultural and Social Anthropology" type of ethnography, the third article discussed Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Meade. I found this ethnography quite interesting. It is about Meade, at the age of 23, doing field work in Samoa and the information she gathered. She was trying to discover if troublesome adolescence was just an issue in the United States or if it was prevalent in other cultures as well. By going to Samoa and studying young girls, Meade discovered that adolescence was a smooth transition for those girls. This proved that problematic adolescence for children was due to the culture of the United States.

This example of Meade's study in Samoa helped me better understand how an ethnography could be helpful. Before these articles, I just assumed that an ethnography was a way to get to know other cultures. This is true, but what is important is that this information can be used to better our society.

Book Reading #2: Emotional Design

     Chapter One of Emotional Design, by Dan Norman, is a very interesting read. It focuses a lot on how people think and they way design can be affected by emotion. As the chapter is titled, "Attractive Things Work Better", I find it ironic that Norman is the author, due to his adamant stance on functionality over aesthetics in his book Design of Everyday Things. The two books do have some things in common though, as they both seek out finding the best way to interact with users of designs. The two books just seem to approach this matter differently.

     Emotional Design discusses the visceral, behavioral, and reflective ways of thinking by humans. Norman points these out because it is important to think of the state of the user when designing. By placing yourself in the user's situation, you can more effectively plan for improving the user experience. This is similar the point made in Design of Everyday Things -- design with the user in mind.

     In contrast though, Emotional Design focuses on improving design by making it look better, by relaxing the user and having them accept more fault because they are in a better mood. I do agree that this make sense, and the Mini Cooper example is an excellent one for this very scenario. I do think this contradicts Norman's points in Design of Everyday Things though. In that book, he stresses focusing on fixing errors and changing designs as opposed to just covering them up by making them look better.

    While both books seem to have valid points, I think Design of Everyday Things has a stronger case. Attractive designs are important, and Norman's total lack of focus on it in his first book did bother me, but I think it is more important to provide better feedback and visibility as opposed to a more attractive design. Playing on the user's state of mind seems to be too risky when designing because, as Norman points out, people are all different and designing in this way can be a hard way to please everyone.

Paper Reading # 7: Minds, Brains, and Programs (Searle)

     In John Searle's paper, "Minds, Brains, and Programs", he discusses the question of whether or not computers have the ability to understand. Searle, through his thought experiment of the Chinese Room, goes on to state that a computer does not in fact have the ability to comprehend or understand, it merely simulates the ability. After reading Searle's paper and reviewing his arguments and counterarguments, I find that I side with him on the matter. In my opinion, the brain is more than just an information processing system, and Searle does a good job of proving that.

     In order to prove his point, Searle first describes a computer program that takes in Chinese characters, runs them through a program, and outputs a response in Chinese. Searle's claim is that even if a computer can do this so well that it passes the Turing test, it still does not understand Chinese. The next step in his argument is that of replacing the computer with a human. The human does not speak or understand Chinese at all, but has a set of instructions (i.e. the program) that are in English, that tells him what to do with the input Chinese symbols. As can be deduced from imagining this scenario, even if the person can take in the Chinese input and follow the instructions of outputting proper Chinese symbols, enough so to carry on a conversation with a native Chinese speaker, the person still does not understand Chinese.

     With this scenario, it seems easy to be able to differentiate between understanding and merely simulating. The human in the room is merely processing information and not comprehending or realizing what is being communicated. As Searle puts it, the symbols have syntax but no semantics. Just because the person is answering correctly in Chinese, does not mean he knows what he is answering because the symbols mean nothing.

    Now, some proponents of "strong AI" (as Searle calls computer AI that understands) will argue that by this thinking, the human brain does not even understand because it is merely a machine that is calculating input and producing output. I think this is where Searle really makes his strongest point. The human brain is something more than just the informational processing. It does not just sort information but comprehends and understands unlike other "machines" can do. His analogy is that we cannot produce sugar and milk from photosynthesis and lactation simulations, so it seems silly that people assume we can produce intentionality from artificial intelligence. There is something natural about the brain that just can not be reproduced with computer hardware.

Book Reading #1: Design of Everyday Things

Reaction to the Book in General:
     "The Design of Everyday Things" will forever change the way I look at objects and devices and especially doors for my foreseeable future. Donal Norman does a good job of pointing out flaws in designs (maybe too good of a job), and provides a basis for how things should be implemented if we want a more carefree life with our devices. Although it is clearly set in the past, I think his philosophy still applies to design in today's time.
     His principles of design hold true because they capture not an issue with a certain device but a way of designing. His principles of design are:

1. use both knowledge in the world and knowledge in the head
2. simplify the structure of the task
3. make things visible
4. get mappings right
5. exploit the power of constraints (natural and artificial)
6. design for error
7. standardize if all else fails

When you look at that list, you realize that if it was used more frequently in production of today's devices, life would be a bit simpler. 

     The three principles that really stood out to me from this list, though, were "making things visible", "getting mappings right", and "designing for error." Making things visible is so important because, without providing feedback to the user, there is no way for them to know if what they are trying to do is actually being done. A design can only be successful if the the gulf of execution and evaluation is properly bridged. 

     The freezer/refrigerator model of a poor system image that Norman gives is really a great illustration of a system image gone wrong and therefore a poor conceptual model for the user. This can be seen as poor visibility for the user, or as my second favorite point is, it could be poor mapping. I think getting mapping right is so very important and there is often a struggle with that with devices these days due to the "creeping featurism"(the tendency to add to the number of features a device can do). It is getting harder and harder to provide the functions users want, but also make it where they actually know how to use them. I think the dilemma of "more buttons means more complexity", but "less buttons means poor mapping" is a tough one to figure out, but it is just something that designing with the user in mind entails.

    This idea of designing for the user isn't more relevant than with the issue of designing for error. People are going to make mistakes with devices and use them the wrong way, no matter how well you think you designed it. Designing with this in mind though, as Norman states, makes the device much more useable. By making actions easy to undo or permanent actions harder to do, lots of frustration can be avoided.

     Overall, I think the book was a very good read. At points I did get frustrated with what seemed unnecessary complaining from Dr. Norman, as it seemed he exaggerated the problems of objects to prove his point (i.e. the light switches and faucet examples). I do think his principles of design are excellent as has been proven by their stand of the test of time, and, as I said, I will definitely appreciate the design of everyday things a lot more now.

Chapter 1 Reaction:
     This book brought about many new ways of thinking for me. I have only read chapter one so far, but it is already changing the way I look at "everyday things." Norman makes many great points about the complexity of technology these days and how the many functions of our devices are making these harder as opposed to easier. I completely agree with this view and find that there is a definite need for more research of design when a product is created. With so many functions crammed into devices, operating them is becoming less and less intuitive. My parents just bought a new Ford Explorer with all of the in dash video controls and light and A/C adjustments, it makes me feel like I'm on a space ship. If it makes me -- the computer engineer -- feel overwhelmed, then I know they don't stand a chance of using all the functions. I don't necessarily blame the designers for these difficulties, because I know I would find it hard to please the manufacturer, the stores, the customer and deciding between functionality and usability; but I think Norman is on to something when he points out this great problem that affects most of our everyday things.

Chapter 2 Reaction:
     In chapter 2 of "Design of Everyday Things", Norman  discussed the Psychology of everyday actions. He points out that people tend to blame themselves instead of the design of an object when it comes to operating what should be a simple device. I agree with him on this matter and I think the keyboard and secretary example is a great illustration of this problem. The secretaries were inappropriately using the return/enter key on the keyboard, but did not report anything because they assumed it was their fault instead of blaming the design of the keyboard. As Norman points out, a lot of these errors of everyday actions could be fixed with better feedback and visibility built into the designs of everyday things.

Chapter 3 Reaction:
     Chaper 3 got a little philosophical on me, and I was worried he would not tie it back into the design of things, but in the end, Norman brought together how Knowledge in the Head and in the World relates to design. As he points out, if something is out of sight, it is out of mind. You can't expect users to remember arbitrary things (rote learning). One good point that I think Norman made is that "if it needs labels, then you should rethink your design because it is flawed." You can give subtle hints with knowledge in the world (such as the stove top switches having mapping that is equal to location of the burners), but expecting the user to have knowledge in the head about all the devices these days is bad design. (Side note: I did not appreciate how he did not say which penny was the correct version. I had to go look it up because I did not know either.)

Chapter 4 Reaction:
     In chapter 4, Norman starts to talk about "knowing what to do" when it comes to using devices. I think his viewpoint of making everything more visible and with better feedback, but I think in this chapter he takes it a little too far. I think Norman starts to totally disregard style in his designs and aims completely for functionality instead. I just do not think this is a plausible way of doing things. Everything should not have to be completely self explanatory at the cost of everything else. I think he underestimates people and their ability to deduce how an item is used. Just because some people make a mistake every once in a while, does not mean that a component is a failure.

Chapter 5 Reaction:
     Chapter 5 discusses how "to err is Human", which is essentially saying that everyone makes mistakes. Norman discusses how it is the designer's job to make those mistakes less costly. Some good points he makes are putting yourself in the user's point of view and assume that every possible mishap will happen (which is key, because users are not always the smartest when it comes to operating devices). He also talks about making actions reversible, which I think is a great point and also very applicable to CHI and my work in Computer Engineering as a whole. This cannot always be done though, and that is why I think Norman's point of making irreversible errors less costly as a great philosophy.

Chapter 6 Reaction:
I think chapter 6 is one of the chapters that actually starts to point out the difficulties of being a designer. I feel in the earlier chapters so far, Norman has just complained about how hard devices are to use and disregarding style, costs, etc. Chapter 6 references the design challenge and the difficulties of finding the right balance between costs, usability, and style. His take on the computer was very impressive, considering the time written. The amazing thing is that even today, his remarks still apply in the sense that the goal of computing is to make the computer disappear.

Chapter 7 Reaction:
    This final chapter of the book was very thoughtful and somewhat tied everything discussed before it together. Chapter 7 focused on user-centered design, which is essentially what the book is all about -- providing a product the user can use efficiently and learn easily. I found the mention of standardization an important topic and I think Norman addressed it well (as he points out, the keyboard and analog clock have always bothered me with their designs). I also liked the section on deliberately making things difficult, because this is something that is not often thought of even though security and other factors he mentions are very prevalent. The ending to his book also drives home the point of his book. He wants to stop not only bad design, but the support of it. He obviously has a lot of peeves when it comes to designs (as he mentions many), and it has a lot to do with the fact that we keep buying the poorly designed products like he says. I will definitely send weeds to the next designer who doesn't practice good design.

5 Examples of Good Design:

Glow in the Dark Light Switch
This light switch is very good design because it's off mode provides both good feedback to the user that it is off as well as a helpful indicator as to where it is. This is great because if a light is off, that means it is usually dark. This was great foresight by the designer for thinking ahead to how the object would be used. This was a very simple but eloquent design feature, not too obtrusive, but jus the right amount of indicator light.







Apple Laptop Charger

The Apple laptop charger is a great device for many reasons and you can definitely tell some serious thought went into what would otherwise seem a trivial device. First off, the plug in is magnetic, so as to aid in the proper placement of the charger; try to plug it into the ethernet port (right by it) and it does not click in. It also has the physical constrains of only fitting two ways, and both ways work. The third reason it is of good design is because of its indicator light. It provides a visual to the user to let them know that the laptop is charging, along with changing from orange to green when fully charged. This way the computer does not even have to be opened to know if it is charging and/or completed charging.

Styrofoam Cooler
This styrofoam cooler is proof that just because something is made to be bought for cheap, does not mean it has to be cheap. Some solid design was put into this simple device, as it has the physical constraint of not opening and spilling while being carried. The handle puts pressure on the lid latches to keep the lid locked. For an object that did not cost a lot, it was designed to prevent error and does a good job of it.




MaroonBike (Chain-less & Air-less)

The maroon bike makers definitely had their users in mind when they were creating their design. With airless tires (solid polyurethane), flats are not an issue. With no chain, there is nothing for your pants to get caught in while riding. It also has a built in bike lock and bike powered LED lights. It just seems everything was thought of when this bike was designed for the casual college student just trying to get around campus, but all these features kept the same operation of a normal bike and very useable.





Helpfully Shaped Key:

This key is a very great design. It solves the problem of keys looking ambiguous and yet only fitting one way. With the black portion, it affords a grip like a pistol, and therefore the correct orientation for insertion into the ignition. This is very helpful at night when scrambling for the key and being able to know that it correctly held for proper placement.














5 Examples of Bad Design:

Ceiling Fan
Which String Controls the Light...and Which Fan Speed am I On?

I think all ceiling fans have this issue and it has tricked me many times over the years. The draw strings seem identical and it is very hard to tell which controls the light and which controls the fan. I have on many occasions pulled the fan string hoping to turn off the lights. You then have to pull the fan string multiple times until you get back to the proper speed. That brings me to my second issue with the ceiling fan -- there is no indication of which fan speed you are currently on -- no feedback. You have to just wait for the fan to either slow down to make sure it is off or speed all the way up and guess by the sound of it that it is at full speed. Poor design that seems to go unnoticed.



Fishing Lure Box

Don't forget to lock before lifting handle...

The fishing lure box is a great invention. You can store all sorts of different lures and hooks and bobbers etc. in it. It conveniently pops out so you can view all of these easily. My complaint is that the handle is on the lid. You may only do this once, because it is so frustrating, but if you ever forget to latch the front lock on the box before picking up by the handle, the lid pops open and spits out everything. The trays are supposed to easily slide out, and so when given this opportunity, they will gladly pop out and spill all contents inside. So while the inside of the box is a great idea, location of the handle could maybe be reconsidered.

Surge Protector

This surge protector has a couple problems in my mind. First off, the 3-prong plugs afford you to plug in your devices vertically. This is great except for when you have a full protector with multiple 3-prong plugs because these types of plugs generally then take up two sockets  because they cover up the second one with where the cord is trailing (or in the case of the Apple charger, the box covers up a socket). I do not know if this is the fault of the surge protector or the plug designers because now there are plugs that point out sideways, and so there now seems to be no fully compatible way to orient the sockets on the surge protector. This seems to be an issue of no standardization. A second problem with this surge protector's design is that the on/off switch is on the same side as the sockets. This gives way to the problem (as illustrated in the picture) of larger plugs completely blocking the on/off switch. It seems this popular version of the surge protector could use some better design.

Toaster Oven

The toaster oven has a two features that I think merit bad design. The first problem is the timer (bottom right knob). In order to operate on times longer than 10 minutes, you just turn the knob to the choice, but to operate for less than 10 minutes, you must first turn the knob to 10 minutes and then back to the lesser value. Nowhere does the toaster indicate that this would be necessary. It just provides a poor conceptual model to the user because no one would think to turn past and then back to the time they want. Also, the feature of having to reach into a small hot oven to get out your food is poor design as well. A possible solution would be to have the oven tray slide out with the door when it is opened so there would be less burning of the top of the hand.

The Wii-Mote = Broken TV Screen

The wii controller is an example of bad design because of it's smooth grip. The designers were obviously focusing more on style instead of thinking about how the device would be used. The smoothness of the controller creates the issue of it flying out of the user's hand because of the rapid movement involved in wii gaming. Yes, Nintendo did try to solve this by adding the strap, but as can be seen in the pictures, it breaks quite easily due to it's thin nature (and that is if the user even takes the time to put it on). This could have been solved with a simple rubber grip, but the designers did not design with error in mind, but instead with style and looks in mind.

Paper Reading #6: ZeroN: mid-air tangible interaction enabled by computer controlled magnetic levitation

Paper Reading #6: ZeroN: mid-air tangible interaction enabled by computer controlled magnetic levitation 

Intro:

• Title - ZeroN: mid-air tangible interaction enabled by computer controlled magnetic levitation
• Reference Information:
  
  

  ACM Classification: H5.2 [Information interfaces and presentation]: User Interfaces.
  General terms: Design, Human Factors

  
  

  Keywords: Tangible Interfaces, 3D UI.

  
  
• Author Bios - Jinha Lee, Rehmi Post, and Hiroshi Ishii

Hiroshi ishii is a Professor at MIT and leader of the Tangible Media Group, which explores the tangible bits vision to seamlessly couple the dual world of bits and atoms by giving physical form to digital information. Also, has an impressive publication count of 154, dating back to 1990.

Jihna Lee was a graduate research assistant for the Tangible Media Group, and now works at the MIT Media Laboratory.

Rehmi Post works at the MIT Center for Bits and Atoms. He has 4 publications dating from 1994 to 2012.

Summary:

The work of this paper is called ZeroN, a new tangible interface element that can be levitated and moved freely by a computer in a three dimensional space. ZeroN serves as a tangible representation of a 3D coordinate of the virtual world through which users can se, feel, and control computation. This is done by using a magnetic control system that can levitate and actuate a permanent magnet in a predefined 3D volume. There is also optical tracking and display system that projects images on the levitating object.

Related work not referenced in the paper:

1. Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces - B. Ullmer, H. Ishii 
2. The reacTable: exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces - Sergi Jorda, Gunter Geiger, Marcos Alonso, Martin Kalenbrunner
3. Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication - Scott Brave, Hiroshi Ishii, Andrew Dahley
4. A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces - Kenneth P. Fishkin
5. Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling - Danae Stanton, Victor Bayon, Helen Neale, Ahmed Ghali, Steve Benford
6. The actuated workbench: computer-controlled actuation in tabletop tangible interfaces - Gian Pangaro, Dan Mayes-Aminzade, Hiroshi Ishii
7. Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives - Oren Zuckerman, Saeed Arida, Mitchell Rescind
8. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? - Paul Marshall
9. Tangible Query Interfaces: Physically constrained tokens for manipulating database queries - B. Ullmer, H. Ishhii, R. Jacob
10. 3D user interfaces : theory and practice - Doug A. Bowman, Joseph J. Laviola, Ernst Kruijff

The area of Tangible Interfaces and 3D displays with interactions is an area of work that has seen some considerable research. Thera are many different varieties to how the 3D interfaces are depicted. Some use clay or robotics, while others use magnets, like in ZeroN. ZeroN separates itself though, by focusing on achieving a collocated I/O by actuating an I/O object along the 3D paths through absolute coordinates of the physical space. ZeroN also focuses on allowing the user to manipulate computational controlled objects without extra armatures or other physical tethering that related works had to use.

Evaluation:

The authors first evaluated the work of their project by having a user study and getting feedback on how the system felt and operated. This gave some comments and feelings on possible improvements, as well as praises (qualitative, subjective). There was also a technical evaluation of the system. Measurements of the max levitation height and speed of actuation (quantitative, objective). There was also study on the different degrees of freedom and the resolution of the 3D display. Overall, this was quite a systemic evaluation and good test of if the system works or not. This evaluation was appropriate for the context of the work and what the authors were trying to prove. They found the flaws of the system and what the users liked as well.

Discussion:

I think this project is a very interesting work. It has a lot of possibilities for it's future and I think if it can be continued to be improved with better feedback and larger scale implementations, it can be a very useful tool for the audience it is aiming for. The evaluation was appropriate, as this design is still early in the stages. I do think this is a novel idea. There is some related work, but none that does it how the authors in this work do. Finally, I think the pong game would be awesome if it was the size of a room.

Paper Reading #5: KinectFusion: real-time 3D reconstruction and interaction using a moving depth camera

Paper Reading #5: KinectFusion: real-time 3D reconstruction and interaction using a moving depth camera 

Intro:

• Title - KinectFusion: real-time 3D reconstruction and interaction using a moving depth camera
• Reference Information -
  ACM Classification: H5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: User Interfaces. I4.5 [Image Processing and Computer Vision]: Reconstruction. I3.7 [Computer Graphics]: Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism.
  General terms: Algorithms, Design, Human Factors. Keywords: 3D, GPU, Surface Reconstruction, Tracking, Depth Cameras, AR, Physics, Geometry-Aware Interactions
  
  
  
  
• Author Bios - Shahram Izadi, David Kim, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, Richard Newcombe, Pushmeet Kohli, Jamie Shotton, Steve Hodges, Dustin Freeman, Andrew Davison, Andrew Fitzgibbon

 This group works together mainly at Microsoft Research in Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Newcombe and Davison are from Imperial College London in London, United Kingdom though, and Freeman is from the University of Toronto in Canada. They all work in the research of input sensor devices, display technologies, computer graphics, and computer human interaction.

Summary:

KinectFusion enables a user holding and moving a standard Kinect camera to rapidly create detailed 3D reconstructions of an indoor scene. Only the depth data from Kinect is used to track the 3D pose of the sensor and reconstruct, geomet- rically precise, 3D models of the physical scene in real-time. Novel extensions to the core GPU pipeline demonstrate object segmentation and user interaction directly in front of the sensor, without degrading camera tracking or reconstruction. These extensions are used to enable real-time multi-touch interactions anywhere, allowing any planar or non-planar reconstructed physical surface to be appropriated for touch.

Related work not referenced in the paper:

1. Poisson surface reconstruction - Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, Hughues Hoppe

2. Towards Urban 3D Reconstruction from Video - Frahm, J.-M. ;  Mordohai, P. ;  Clipp, B. ;  Engels, C. ;  Gallup, D. ;  Merrell, P. ;  Phelps, M. ;  Sinha, S. ;  Talton, B. ;  Wang, L.;  Yang, Q. ;  Stewenius, H. ;  Yang, R. ;  Welch, G. ;  Towles, H.;  Nister, D. ;  Pollefeys, M.  
3. High-quality surface splatting on today's GPUs - Botsch, M., Hornung, A. ;  Zwicker, M. ;  Kobbelt, L. 
4. Data-Parallel Octrees for Surface Reconstruction - Kun Zhou, Minmin Gong ;  Xin Huang ;  Baining Guo
5. Parallel Tracking and Mapping for Small AR Workspaces - G. Klein, D. Murray
6. Real-time vision-based camera tracking for augmented reality applications - Dieter Koller, Gudrun Klinker, Eric Rose, David Breen, Ross Whitaker
7. Scene modelling, recognition and tracking with invariant image features - I. Skrypnky, D.G. Lowe

8. A muscle model for animation three-dimensional facial expression - Keith Waters

9. An image-based approach to three-dimensional computer graphics - Leonard McMillan Jr.
10. Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient - Michael Bajura, Henry Fuchs, Ryutarou Ohbuchi

These areas of study -- active sensors, passive cameras, unordered 3D points, etc -- are highly studied ares of research in computer graphics and vision, but KinectFusion differentiates itself by doing things better with interactive rates, no explicit feature detection, high-quality construction of geometry, and dynamic interaction. KinectFusion is also infrastructure-less with whole room reconstruction and interaction.

Evaluation:

Evaluation for this project was not very systemic. There were no quantitative or subjective evaluation measures done. There was no actual evaluation process, per se, in the paper, but it was more of how they did it and proof that it worked as they said. There were tests of each of the features of KinectFusion run, but there were no hard results other than whether it worked and what problems they ran into. This can be seen as qualitative, and measuring it's completeness. This is appropriate though, as there is no other applicable way to test this work other than to have users try it out and give their subjective opinions.

Discussion:

I think this project work is quite well done. The uses are quite broad as there are many functions to KinectFusion. I thought the physics interaction was the best part, as interacting with a 3D generated room is unique and it is novel in the way they did it. The evaluation could have been a bit more in depth, but they were more in the testing stages of proving it worked and preparing it then creating a prototype that could be tested for specific functions. Overall, I think it is a very worthy contribution and it will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Paper Reading #4: Personalized input: improving ten-finger touchscreen typing through automatic adaptation

Paper Reading #4: Personalized input: improving ten-finger touchscreen typing through automatic adaptation

Intro:

• Title - Personalized input: improving ten-finger touchscreen typing through automatic adaptation
• Reference Information -
  
  

  Author Keywords
  Touchscreen text input, personalization, adaptive interfaces.
  ACM Classification Keywords
  H5.2 [Information interfaces and presentation]: User interfaces—input devices and strategies.
  
  Presented at CHI '12
• Author Bios - Leah Findlater and Jacob O. Wobbrock

Leah Findlater - Attends the College of Information Studies at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland.

Jaccob Wobbrock - He is from the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. He is part of    The Information School and the DUB Group there.

     This is both of their's first paper published in the ACM. As they are both just Graduate students, they are fairly new to the world of CHI.

Summary:

This work focused on introducing and evaluating two novel personalized keyboard interfaced, both of which adapt their underlying key-press classification models. One of the keyboards even adapted the location of the keys visually. Since personalized keyboards are still an emerging area of research, they also outline a design space that includes dimensions of adaptation and key-press classification features. Because of their evaluation, they determine pros and cons of different modes of touchscreen typing through automatic adaptation.

Related work not referenced in the paper:

1. High precision touchscreens: design strategies and comparisons with a mouse - Andrew Sears, Ben Schneiderman
2. ThumbSpace: Generalized One-Handed Input for Touchscreen-Based Mobile Devices - Amy K. Karlson and Benjamin B. Bederson
3. Pressure-based text entry for mobile devices - Stephen A. Brewster, Michael Hughes
4. Adaptive interfaces for ubiquitous web access - Daniel Billsus, Clifford Brunk, Craig Evans, Brian Gladish
5. Adaptive Interfaces and Agents - A. Jameson
6. Machine learning for adaptive user interfaces - Pat Langley
7. Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces - Daniel S. Weld, Desney Tan, Mary Czerwinski
8. Supporting adaptive interfaces in a knowledge-based user interface environment - James D. Foley, Piyawadee Noi Sukaviriya
9. Experience with adaptive interfaces - D. Benyon, D. Murray
10. An empirical appraisal of the effectiveness of adaptive interfaces for instructional systems - John Eklund, Ken Sinclair

The area of touchscreen input is still an emerging research area, but there has been some significant publications on the many possible builds of touchscreen keyboards. The authors took into account the many past evaluations such as keyboard size and individual key sizes and their effect on speed and accuracy. There is also other work in this area of other types of text input besides the typical QWRETY, such as swipe technique and multiple letters per key. The authors' work is focused more in the touch model area though -- the way in which a key press is detected.

Evaluation:

The evaluation process was a controlled three-session study of 12 participants with both the adaptive and non-adaptive personalized keyboards to a conventional touch keyboard. The main quantitative measurements were speed and uncorrected error rate. The words per minute were calculated for each model and this gave a objective quantitative evaluation. Participants were also asked to rank the three keyboards based on ease of use, efficiency, frustration, comfort, how natural the typing felt, and overall preference. This gave a subjective opinion on the work. This gave a systemic evaluation of the touchscreen, as it was tested on efficiency and likability for if it is practical.

 

Discussion:

I think this work is very impressive. Improvement of keyboard is something that could use some work, especially with touch devices. I think their method has promise and should be continued to be evaluated, as it could definitely benefit users during this rise of touchscreen devices. I do not think it was necessarily a novel idea, because it is mainly just improving the keyboard. I do think it is important though and, as the results show, could definitely improve the touch keyboards. The evaluation was appropriate, and I think it was one of the more important parts of this project, as it showed some pros and cons of visual adaptive keyboards.