CS 7932 — Human-Centered Computing Seminar, Fall 2019
Tuesdays, 2:00–2:50 PM, MEB 3446
Navigation Links: Schedule | Mailing List | Credit | Tips on Reading Papers | How to Access Papers
Havron et al. Clinical Computer Security for Victims of Intimate Partner Violence. USENIX Security Symposium 2019.
Bruns and Burgess. The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. 6th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference, 2011.
Ellison and boyd. Sociality through social network sites. The Oxford handbook of internet studies, 2013.
Nagappan et al. The Influence of Organizational Structure on Software Quality: An Empirical Case Study. Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering (ICSE), 2008.
||Shaurya (Shay) Sahai
Fingerman. Consequential strangers and peripheral ties: The importance of unimportant relationships. Journal of Family Theory & Review 1(2), 2009.
Suchman. Office Procedures as Practical Action: Models of Work and Systems Design. ACM Transactions of Information Systems 1(4), 1983.
||NOTE! This seminar meeting will be in MEB 3167, not MEB 3446 as usual. Talk title: HCI of AI. Talk abstract and related readings sent out via email.
(Back in MEB 3446 as usual.) Darzentas et al. Card Mapper: Enabling Data-Driven Reflections on Ideation Cards. CHI 2019.
Burke et al. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. CHI 2011.
||Note change from discussed plan. Türpe et al. Penetration Tests a Turning Point in Security Practices? Organizational Challenges and Implications in a Software Development Team. 2nd Workshop on Security Information Workers (WSIW), 2016.
||Chat with Prof. Suresh Venkatasubramanian
||Selbst et al. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT*), 2019.
||Louise Barkhuus. The mismeasurement of privacy: using contextual integrity to reconsider privacy in HCI. CHI 2012.
||Voronkov et al. System Administrators Prefer Command Line Interfaces, Don’t They? An Exploratory Study of Firewall Interfaces. SOUPS 2019.
All communications for the seminar go through the hcc-seminar mailing list. You can sign yourself up at http://mailman.cs.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/hcc-seminar.
Students may enroll for one (1) credit. Although the University lists the course as “variable credit,” the two- and three-credit options are not currently available.
Students enrolled in the seminar are expected to read the papers prior to the seminar. Additionally, students are expected to sign up to lead the discussion on one or more seminar meeting. Leading the discussion means:
Preparing a 7-10 minute summary of the paper and its pertinent points;
Familiarizing yourself with the paper so that you can answer questions that may come up;
Preparing potential discussion points if the discussion needs prompting.
Tips on Reading Papers
Some tips that might help on reading, understanding, and analyzing papers:
- How to (seriously) read a scientific paper
- Keshav and Cheriton. How to Read a Paper.
- The following questions (some of which are pulled from Writing for Computer Science) can be useful to keep in mind when reading a paper (although not all questions will apply to all papers):
- What phenomena or properties are being investigated? Why are they of interest?
- Has the aim of the research been articulated? What are the specific hypotheses and research questions? Are these elements convincingly connected to each other?
- To what extent is the work innovative? How does it differ from past work?
- What are the underlying assumptions? Are they sensible?
- What forms of evidence are used?
- How is the evidence measured? Are the chosen methods of measurement objective, appropriate, and reasonable?
- What compromises or simplifications are inherent in the choice of measure?
- To what extent do the results persuasively confirm the hypothesis?
- What are the likely weaknesses of or limitations to the approach?
- Which results are the most surprising?
- What is the main contribution of the work?
- Are appropriate conclusions drawn from the results, or are there other possible interpretations?
- Could the results be verified?
- Do the results have applicability to other problems or domains?
- Do the title, abstract, and introduction appropriately set the context for the work?
- Is there anything unusual about the organization of the write-up, and, if so, is there a reason for this organization?
- Are the Tables and Figures clear and useful?
- Are the results of practical applicability, or are they more theoretical in nature?
- What are the main strengths of the paper? What are its weaknesses?
- If you were to cite this paper, what kinds of things might you be citing it for?
- Are there interesting future directions for work that the authors have not discussed?
- Are there particular steps in the methodology or presentation that you would have done differently?
- Are there any methodological decisions that seem to have been motivated by restrictions on time or resources, rather than absolute feasibility?
- Are there any ethical issues associated with the paper, and if so, how were they (or how weren't they) dealt with?
- Writing for Computer Science, by Justin Zobel, is available online at the library and contains a fair amount on other aspects of research such as how to review papers, how to select a research topic, etc. The table of contents:
- Getting Started
- Reading and Reviewing
- Hypotheses, Questions, and Evidence
- Writing a Paper
- Good Style
- Style Specifics
- Graphs, Figures, and Tables
- Other Professional Writing
- Statistical Principles
How to Access Papers
Some papers are free to access, while others are behind paywalls. The university has a paid subscription to most of the libraries where those papers can be found. There are several ways to access those papers: