Note: These are not the official questions. They were from how I remember.

Questions

Question 1 (Eric Paulos)

  1. Steven Feiner, Blair Macintyre, and Dorée Seligmann. 1993. Knowledge-based augmented reality. Commun. ACM 36, 7 (July 1993), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/159544.159587
  2. Weiser, M. (1991). Scientific American. The Computer for the 21st Century. (Sept. 1991), 94-104.

Question 2 (Eric Paulos)

Sunny Consolvo, David W. McDonald, Tammy Toscos, Mike Y. Chen, Jon Froehlich, Beverly Harrison, Predrag Klasnja, Anthony LaMarca, Louis LeGrand, Ryan Libby, Ian Smith, and James A. Landay. 2008. Activity sensing in the wild: a field trial of ubifit garden. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1797–1806. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357335

Question 3 (Björn Hartmann)

  1. Stappers, P. J., & Giaccardi, E. (2017). Research through Design. In M. Soegaard, & R. Friis-Dam (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed., pp. 1-94). The Interaction Design Foundation. (Read Chapter 43 “Research through Design” from 43.1–43.1.15).
  2. Christina Harrington and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2021. Eliciting Tech Futures Among Black Young Adults: A Case Study of Remote Speculative Co-Design. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 397, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445723
  • What are the differences between Research through Design, Research for Design, and Research into Design?
  • Given 3 scenarios, which one is Research through Design, which one is Research for Design, and which one is Research into Design?

Question 4 (Björn Hartmann)

  1. Luis von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2008. Designing games with a purpose. Commun. ACM 51, 8 (August 2008), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378719
  2. Michael S. Bernstein, Greg Little, Robert C. Miller, Björn Hartmann, Mark S. Ackerman, David R. Karger, David Crowell, and Katrina Panovich. 2010. Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST ‘10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1145/1866029.1866078

Feedback

Mick’s Feedback from Björn Hartmann

At a high level, my recommendations are as follows:

  1. It is probably better to quickly state the parts of a paper you can remember, and then pass on parts you cannot recall, so you have enough time to get to all the sub-parts of a question. We repeatedly ran out of time to ask prepared questions last year, which impacted your score.
  2. We are looking not only for recall, but also for the ability to connect the ideas in a paper to other papers or to current topics and events.

The feedback is below:

Q1 [Q3 in this doc] 5/10 pts (Research through Design, Eliciting Tech Futures Among Black Young Adults): Mick was slow to answer this question. He got basic definitions of design and research right and was able to describe 2 out of 3 Research-meets-Design phrases. He was able to file the provided examples into these categories, but only after second-guessing himself multiple times. When asked for connecting these concepts to other readings he gave one confused example and one clearer example. We did not have time to get into the last part of the question, connecting these topics to “Eliciting Tech Futures”, in meaningful detail.

Q2 [Q4 in this doc] 7/10 pts (Games with a Purpose, Soylent): For this question, Mick showed that he was able to correctly recall key points of these two papers. However, it was hard to engage Mick beyond a surface level of recall into interpreting and situating their contributions in the larger HCI landscape.