Note 1: These are not the official questions. They were from how I remember.
Note 2: This year, students can choose the order of the question.

Questions

Question 1 (Björn Hartmann)

Edwin L. Hutchins, James D. Hollan & Donald A. Norman (1985) Direct Manipulation Interfaces, Human–Computer Interaction, 1:4, 311-338, DOI: 10.1207/s15327051hci0104_2

  • What is Direct Manipulation Interface?
  • What makes an interface considered as Direct Manipulation Interface?
  • What factors do we consider? → Draw a diagram
  • Examples:
    • Given 3D manipulation tasks with mouse vs VR interaction tools, which one is more direct? In which way?
    • Word vs Latex, which one is more direct? In which way?
  • Is ChatGPT a direct manipulation interface? Why?

Question 2 (Björn Hartmann)

  1. Munehiko Sato, Ivan Poupyrev, and Chris Harrison. 2012. Touché: enhancing touch interaction on humans, screens, liquids, and everyday objects. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207743
  2. Karl Willis, Eric Brockmeyer, Scott Hudson, and Ivan Poupyrev. 2012. Printed optics: 3D printing of embedded optical elements for interactive devices. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST ‘12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1145/2380116.2380190
  3. Saul Greenberg and Bill Buxton. 2008. Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357074
  • High Levels of Touche + Printed 3D Optics
  • What are their evaluation methods (or lack of)?
  • Conflict or agreement with Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful?

Question 3 (Eric Paulos)

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

  • High Levels
  • 3 Game Designs
  • Problems with the proposed methods
  • How to solve them?
  • Are the methods obsolete to the current practice?

Question 4 (Eric Paulos)

Vannevar Bush. 1996. As we may think. interactions 3, 2 (March 1996), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/227181.227186

  • High Levels
  • Motivation
  • Memex → explain
  • Difference of accessing information back then vs now.

Feedback

Mick’s feedback from Björn Hartmann

Mick’s answers to these questions were clearly improved from his performance in the previous year - the extra studying paid off and the answers were distinctly above threshold for both of my questions.

He stated a different list of DM aspects than was intended (continuous representation, physical actions, rapid reversible operations); however subsequent discussion showed that he understood the main arguments of the DM paper well. He also correctly categorized the given examples. Towards the end, he was confused for a minute about the question if conversational UIs are DMs but ultimately got the right answer.

For the New Interface Hardware question he was able to describe swept frequency capacitive sensing and printed optics. However, his connection of these papers to”Usability evaluation considered harmful” was a bit more tenuous.