Fundamentals of HCC Final Exam

Bowman, Hodges, 1997-Three principle results from the study 1. Naturalness is not always a necessary component of an effective technique 2. Physical aspects of users were important in their evaluation of the techniques. 3. Most important finding-That grabbing and manipulation must be considered separately for overall usability.

1. A movement being natural is not always the most necessary quality in a effective technique, because of this many other evaluators preferred other techniques that weren't the go go method. 2. Physical characteristics of individuals affected their perception of the techniques and their usefulness. Those with short arms tended to not prefer the go-go techniques. 3. Grabbing and moving stuff around are two distinct actions that depend on different things and thus must be evaluated separately. For example, everyone said that grabbing stuff was easy with ray-casting and none said they liked it for object manipulation.

Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke & Wensveen, 2002 1. What is a phicon in terms of direct vs semantic? 2. What is the authors objection to phi cons? 3. What is a problem with a lot of inherent feedback? 4. What is a major problem regarding the idea of interactive design? 5. How does inherent feedback fix this? 6. What can't inherent feedback do.

1. A phicon is still semantic because even though it is tangible it is still relying on a metaphor. 2. Is that they were not designed to have meaning for itself. Limiting the designer's possibilities, both conceptually and aesthetically. 3. It is very loose, having no relationship between the action, its purpose and the feedback. 4. There is no relationship between the appearance of the control, the action and then the feedback. Limiting the value of the feedback entirely. 5. In inherent feedback there is a tight coupling between action and feedback. Because the feedback is a natural consequence of the action, like a pair of scissors gives haptic, auditory, and visual feedback as a direct result of the user action. 6. It cannot be added as an afterthought.

Caine, Hannania, 2013 1. What does the fair information practices (FIP) state? 2. What is the overall objective/idea of this paper? 3. Principles of the FIP 4. Those principles based on individuals are... 5. Stated goal of the study

1. A series of documents containing practices/principles designed to ensure that the use of technologies sustains and does not erode, privacy protections relating to the use, collection, and disclose of personal information. 2. Conducts a series of experiments in survey/interview/card sorting methodologies. Specifically targeting what information from their electronic medical record they would want shared with certain individuals in the healthcare community. 3. Individual access, correction, openness and transparency, individual choice, collection, use and disclosure limitation, data quality and integrity, safeguards, and accountability. 4. Access to their records, knowledge of what is in it, ability to correct errors, control over whether information is collected and if collected for how long is it stored, and knowledge of who that information is shared with. 5. Elicit patients' future sharing and privacy goals and aimed to understand their aspirations for data-sharing capabilities and specific privacy concerns related to the sharing of health information.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. What was Georgia Computes 2. What was a big aim 3. Major goals (5)

1. A six year effort to improve the computing education across the state of Georgia. 2. Attract and engage more computing students from underrepresented groups which includes women, blacks, and hispanics. 3. —attract girls into computing with activities in summer camps, weekend workshops, and after-school programs; —offer computing summer camps to students from fourth grade (about 10 years old in the United States) to high school (up to the summer before entering higher education), with a particular focus on underrepresented minority students; —teach high school teachers how to teach computing using motivating examples in cooperation with the Georgia Department of Education; —offer workshops to University System of Georgia computing faculty on new approaches to improve computing education; —support University System of Georgia (USG) computing faculty in offering their own computing summer camps with training, curriculum, and seed funding.

Bowman, Hodges, 1997 1. General Overview

1. A study concerning virtual reality, specifically aimed at giving a brief overview of various techniques used to manipulate remote objects. The positives and negatives of each are listed and then each technique is tested in a user study. From the user study new techniques are postulated which are hybrid techniques or mixes of the best of both worlds of the original techniques.

Rothbaum, Hodges, et al., 1999-Results 1. What were the clinical results from the clinical measures given? 2. Was the patient cured? 3. What were the conclusions of the study

1. All scores saw a decrease from pre to post treatment and were even generally maintained at follow up. 2. No they were still suffering from some PTSD symptoms but there was a decrease in clinical severity. 3. Generalizability is a little hard, but it appears to have worked and made their PTSD a little better even if it was a little bit. It also talked about creating a comprehensive treatment package for PTSD that takes multiple angles and approaches.

Bowman, Hodges, 1997 1. What are the two most common techniques to augment the natural metaphor 2. Describe the first technique 3. Describe the second technique 4. What are some other interesting techniques?

1. Arm-Extension Technique & Ray-Casting Technique 2. The arm-extension technique is defined by having the users virtual arm grow to a desired length so that the object can be manipulated with that hand as it would naturally. 3. The ray-casting technique is defined by having a virtual light ray beam out to grab an object with that ray specified by the user's hand. So essentially just pointing out a beam at something with your hand. 4. World in miniature where you hold a small representation of the environment in your hand and manipulate the objects by manipulating the iconic versions in the mini environment.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. What did exposure do? 2. GA Computes assessment 3. A major research question answered

1. Based on case studies it was clear that early exposure to the target population of computing related experiences was key in getting them to later pursue computing as a major and career and sparking interest. 2. On a variety of different measures it was successful. Ruching many students and changing attitudes and knowledge, providing professional education to many teachers and replicating the models at many summer camps offered across the state. 3. Interventions early in the pipeline seem to have effects later in the pipeline.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. What was computer science classified as? 2. What were the implications of that 3. What is the result of working within the PSC & Board of education (defines what to teach & then who can teach it)

1. Business 2. The teachers who were allowed to teach it were mostly business teachers who don't have the proper experience or training. 2b. Business classes only fulfill elective credit and are therefore not seen as necessary by many students. 3. Increases the number of stakeholders that need to be involved and appeased.

Caine, Hannania, 2013 1. Patient criteria 2. What was the highly sensitive health information defined as... 3. Did patients ever want to share their entire EMR with anyone? 4. What are the three big take aways for this RQ

1. Current or recent patients, specifically those with highly-sensitive medical information with a very wide range of demographics. 2. Stuff like STDS, mental health info, domestic violence, genetic info, and substance abuse 3. Neither group unanimously (sensitive/non-sensitive) wanted to share their whole EMR. And those who did want to share all of it did so conditionally, such as they would share it with a PCP but not a EMS official. 4. Participants are more likely to want to share their whole record with some providers than with others. 4b. Participants are less likely to share all their highly-sensitive information than they are to share all their less sensitive information. 4c. Third, participants with highly-sensitive stuff are less likely to share all their information with providers than those with only less-sensitive stuff.

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 Validation of the framework 1. The goal of the paper again 2. OSA definition again 3. SSA's get influenced by what 4. Diversification big finding 5. Feedback finding

1. Describe a generic framework for the user-centric evaluation of recommender systems. 2. Features of a recommender system that may influence the user experience, and as things to manipulate in the studies. 3. Users would notice a change in the OSA's and those observations would be the Subjective system aspects SSA's which mediate the effect of the OSA's on the users experience. 4. Was as effective in improving the user experience as the introduction of a good algorithm. 5. Feedback depends on user trust and privacy concerns

Guzdial, 2013 1. Who was J.C.R. Licklider 2. Major distinction between HCI & HCC 3. How did Guzdial feel HCC helped the field

1. Early computer scientist who had a majority of his degrees in psychology but was able to forsee things like cloud computing and the semantic web. 2. HCI focuses on the boundary (the interactions) between computing and humans, whereas HCC places humans (as individuals and in societies) at the center of the research. 3. He felt it was an excellent way to prepare computing education researchers. Some questions such as "How are people explaining their computerized world to themselves?" are questions that requires knowledge of computer science as well as how people learn and how to study humans and their learning.

Guzdial, 2013 1. What did Erika Poole research? 2. What activity did Guzdial talk about in terms of what Erika did? 3. What was the response of the participants? 4. What is a major takeaway from Erika's research? 5. What are the final comments made by Guzdial on Erika's research? (2 parts)

1. Erika studied how families attempting a variety of technology-related challenges to figure out how they sought out help. 2. Editing a wikipedia page, but when you do that without an account it says that your IP address will be saved onto the pages edit history and they had to determine if this was a problem. 3. One felt like a criminal and gave up, another called a tech savvy friend who said it could be bad and they gave up too. 4. That editing a wikipedia page is a normal act in Lickliders world and to ask the question of whether or not it should be expected for people to know the consequences of releasing their IP address. 5. The internet is super common in our world but a lot of people clearly don't understand some of the basic terms and concepts the technology uses. 5b. Finally, it provides examples of what people understand and don't understand about computing in their lives, informing both HCI designers as well as providing general education designers info on whether or not to hide or educate something like an IP address.

Bainbridge, 2007 1. What 4 things did the NetLab report state about the Web and experiments? 2. What can experiments start to do with effect sizes? 3. What was the example of a experiment in WoW?

1. Experiments could be scaled up in number of participants 1b. Cross sociocultural boundaries and include participants from previously underrepresented groups 1c. Study processes that take a long amount of time 1d. Become a part of the curriculum of undergraduates at non-research universities 2. Most experiments are limited to identifying strong effect sizes because they use so few people. With the internet that can change. 3. When the changes were added to induce more conflict between the two factions rewards are given to everyone instead of the individual player and is thus a field experiment on how individuals can be induced to cooperate in producing public goods. It also introduces a lot of potential for human-AI interaction studies.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. Why did Georgia Computes start 2. Policy impacts of GA computes 3. GA computes role in policy stuff

1. From interested within the state department of education to grow participation in the AP computer science courses. 2. The result was developing standards for four new computing courses. A new CS endorsement, and making CS count towards high school graduation requirements in GA. 3. GA computes lobbied very hard for certain policy decisions and was able to influence the right decisions.

Bowman, Hodges, 1997 1. What two components is the object positioning task made up of? 2. What is the first component defined as? 3. What is the second component defined as?

1. Grabbing or selection, and manipulation. 2. Grabbing refers to the initial phase of the task when an object is picked up, specifying which object to grab, and the center of rotation for the second component. 3. Manipulation is the user moving the object about the environment specifying both position and orientation.

Babu, Suma, Barnes, Hodges, 2007 1. What were the 4 conversational protocol tasks chosen? 2. What were the results?

1. Greeting someone of the same gender & vice versa 1b. Saying goodbye to someone of the same gender & vice versa 2. While both conditions (study guide/VR teacher) did well, the participants in the VR condition scored higher and showed much less variance

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 Study Results 1. EX1 (2) (Design & Results) 2. EX2 (diversification Experiment) Purpose 3. EX2 Results 4. Overall results? of the experiments

1. Had three different sets of list consisting of the top 5 movies and then other set ups etc. There was no difference in the types of lists shown on choice satisfaction. 1b. Personal characteristics like domain knowledge can influence perception of recommendation set variety & quality. 2. Meant to investigate algorithm accuracy & recommendation set diversity on user experience 3. Difficulty of choice can be indicator of performance 3b. Non-diversified popular ones hard to choose from 3c. Diversification doesn't seem diverse to the users. 3d. User individual differences affect the user experience 4. There is a positive effect of diversification on the user experience, The effect is mainly due to a lower choice difficulty and a higher perceived system effectiveness. Interestingly this effect is partially mediated by perceived accuracy, but not by perceived diversity. 4b. Diversification and algorithms increase recommendation accuracy and decrease choice difficulty. These effects are not additive though. 4c. Users personal characteristics do indeed influence their user experience.

Bowman, Hodges, 1997-Hybrid Techniques 1. HOMER Technique 2. Fixes to the limitations of some previous work regarding HOMER 3. Second technique 4. Five advantages over the other techniques 5. Key takeaways

1. Hand-Centered Object Manipulation Extending Ray-casting-This technique allows users to use a light ray to grab an object but then turns the light ray into n extension of their arm for manipulation. Simplest form. 2. The object manipulation is done relative to the users body. The object's position is determined by the vector from the user's body to their hand and the current distance of the object. 3. Indirect-HOMER Technique-The user can now specify the distance themselves using the reeling metaphor. 4. Object grabbing is easier, objects at any distance may be selected with the same amount of physical effort, object manipulation requires less physical effort, objects may be placed at any distance away from the user using the indirect HOMER technique, Object distance is easier to control. 5. The differentiation in evaluating object interaction by splitting it up into grabbing and manipulation. Also how good HOMER is by taking the best of both worlds. Finally, that object interaction is a vital part of VR and clearly deserves this research attention.

Bainbridge, 2007 1. What are some scientific methodologies that would be good for both? 2. What are methodologies that are good for Second Life? 3. Which methodologies are good for WoW?

1. Interviews and ethnographic research 2. Second Life is good for formal experiments in social psychology or cognitive science. This is because the researcher can create facilities that are comparable to a lab. 3. WoW is good for nonintrusive statistical methodologies examining social networks and economic systems, because it naturally generates a vast trove of diverse but standardized data about social and economic interactions.

Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke & Wensveen, 2002 1. Affordance 2. What is hard for affordances in electronics? 3. What was their major argument

1. Invites the user to a particular action 2. They have met their match in terms of electronic products which are characterized by multi-faceted use cases and functions, and novelty. 3. Usability lies not in communicating the necessary action. Instead it is in two other aspects, communicating the purpose of the action, which is feedforward, and the second is strengthening the coupling between the action and the feedback which is feedback.

Babu, Suma, Barnes, Hodges, 2007 1. What are the major research questions of this paper? 2. What was the setup for the experiment like?

1. Is it possible to train users on the verbal & non-verbal behaviors associated with various cultures using multimodal interaction with virtual humans? 1b. How effective is this new method when compared to the use of text only 2. The experiment was setup in a way that had the user watching a projection and having their body parts tracked and one virtual human was a teacher and the other virtual human was the one you were supposed to be practicing on/with.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. What was the effect of professional development for in service teachers 2. What did the workshops cover

1. It was one of the most important ways in which GA computes influenced the state. Teachers stated that they really benefitted from the hands on education and networking and felt more confident in their ability to teach the classes. 2. There was a workshop for each new course and they covered the following topics. 3. —Course. Computing in the Modern World: Introduction to programming and web development (1) Programming in Scratch: variables, iteration, conditionals, and event processing (2)HTML5 and CSS3 (3) Basic network topologies: ring, star, and bus (4) Introduction to binary numbers using a CS Unplugged activity —Course. Beginning Programming: Introduction to object-oriented programming using Alice and the Java version of Media Computation (1) Classes, objects, methods, and parameters (2) Variables, conditionals, loops, arrays, and lists —Course. Intermediate Programming: Games, Simulations, and App Development (1)User Interface design using App Inventor (2) Object-oriented analysis and design in Greenfoot (3) Two-dimensional arrays, stacks, and queues in Greenfoot (4) Software engineering —Course. AP CS A (1) Interfaces and Abstract Classes (2) Recursion (3) Linear and Binary Search (4) Sorting: insertion sort, selection sort, and mergesort

Guzdial, 2013 1. What was Betsy DiSalvo's research on 2. What method did Betsy deploy to research this topic? 3. What did Betsy do to answer/counter this finding? 4. What did Guzdial think Betsy did?

1. Many CS's (white or asian, and male) say they became interested in computing because of video games. No demographic plays more video games than African American and hispanic men. Why don't they become CS's? 2. Explored this question with Ethnographic methods. She would observe these groups playing video games and talk to them about how and why they played. Finding that they played differently than white counterparts, they never modified the game or used cheat codes because they saw the game like athletic competition. 3. Created the Glitch Game Testers project where she was able to successfully engage African American males in CS by training and hiring them as game-testers. These game testers must see games as tech with flaws. These boys learned CS hoping to become better testers. It also kept them involved because it was a paying job. 4. She designed Glitch through a human-focused design process. Didn't design a technology, but a new way for people to think about computing.

Guzdial, 2013 1. What was the premise for Mike Hewner's research? 2. What did Mike do for his research and what was the technique/method he used for it? As well as what he did with that techniques results? 3. What did Mike find? 4. What was the first big surprise Mike found? 5. What was the second big finding Mike found?

1. Mike Hewner conducted the second experiment and the premise is that undergraduates come into the CS major with a poor understanding of what CS actually is. 2. Mike wanted to know what the effect of not really understanding what CS is on undergrads who chose that major. He interviewed 33 students and used that theory to identify themes, create abstractions, and eventually come to a conclusion on how CS majors make educational decisions. 3. Mike found that there were plenty of misconceptions like thinking computer graphics was the study of photoshop. There was also subtle differences such as those that thought theory and software engineering was lower tier and others that saw programming as the end goal behind CS and the theory was in support of the programming. 4. It was found that the different conceptions did not significantly effect students educational choices. Many students didn't even know what would be in their next class and did not care about any specialization within the degree because all the jobs would be the same. 5. Mike found that students used enjoyment as a proxy for affinity for a subject. He found that students committed to something by exploring classes and then going with something they enjoyed as a major. Once in there they would stick with it, the prob is that there isn't a lot of deep thought about why they enjoyed a class such as if it was an 8am they might have hated it etc.

Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke & Wensveen, 2002 1. What does natural mapping not do 2. The creation of meaning 3. Semantic Approach 4. Direct approach 5. What do the authors like and why

1. Natural mapping really doesn't translate to electronics. 2. Two major ways, semantic approach and direct approach 3. The semantic approach relies on the pre-existing knowledge that the user already has. Basically, relying on a metaphor to convey meaning based on a system or environment that the user already has experience with. Often has iconography and representation. 4. Essentially taking behavior and action as the starting point. The basic idea is that meaning is created in the interaction. Tangible interaction is a logical conclusion. 5. The authors **** with direct approach because the sensory richness and action-potential of physical objects as carriers of meaning in interaction. Addressing all the senses allowing for the expression of screen-based elements in weight, material, texture, etc.

Bowman, Hodges, 1997 1. What is the initial metaphor that is used in VR to move about and manipulate objects? 2. What are the limitations of this metaphor? 3. What is the goal of the paper as stated on the first page?

1. Natural metaphor-Specifically referring to the way users are meant to interact with the virtual world in the same manner they would the real world. 2. The physical arm is confined to the immediate space around the user, so you can't pick up far away objects, the area of object movement is restricted as well. 2b. The manipulation of large objects is difficult as the users view is obscured meaning they must back up and then go back to make corrections. 2c. The requirement of the ability to move within a virtual space using the natural metaphor should not be made a requirement. 3. Techniques meant to extend the natural metaphor are discussed, as well as a new alternative metaphor to be used.

Rothbaum, Hodges, et al., 1999 1. Who was the patient/participant? 2. The set up consisted of...?

1. Patient was a middle class, married, 50 year old white male. He was a helicopter pilot in 'nam and met the criteria in the DSM-5 for PTSD, and had tried group based treatment in addition to medication but still suffered greatly. 2. The patient wore a virtual reality head mounted display as well as high quality headphones and the outside world was shut out. Another big part was the "thunder chair" that allowed the simulation of the helicopter.

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 1. This framework does what for HCC 2. The big stick

1. Provides a system for evaluating recommender systems that incorporates and focuses on the human element and not just the performance. 2. This paper has argued that measuring algorithmic accuracy is an insufficient method to analyze the user experience of recommender systems.

Rothbaum, Hodges, et al., 1999-Treatment 1. What did session 1 consist of 2. What did session 2 & 3 consist of 3. What did session 4 & 5 consist of 4. What did session 6-14 consist of

1. Session 1 consisted of an information gathering session, explaining the therapy as emotional processing, familiarization with the equipment and a relaxation breathing method. 2. The patient was exposed to the two virtual environments. They consisted of the Huey and the jungle clearing and included stimuli like explosions, planes, gunfire, men yelling, radio chatter, etc. 3. The patient was exposed to the same VE's as well as triggered memories which were controlled by the patient and to describe them in detail. 4. The patient was exposed to the same VE's as well as imaginal exposure but with their eyes open and those predetermined trigger memories created and replayed in the VR environment.

Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke & Wensveen, 2002 1. What is an example presented in the text about direct approach

1. The alarm clock that has a ball meant to be placed in the base stand. The consequences of putting it next to the stand are different than those of hucking it to the other side of the room. This is consistent with the actions the user has to do to silence it. The further the ball is from the station the more effort it takes to silence it. The fit of the ball into the recess and the idea of covering the loudspeaker inform the user of the consequences of their action.

Caine, Hannania, 2013 1. What was one big design recommendation 2. What were their thoughts on non-provider recipients 3. What do those with highly-sensitive health data do with their information 4. For the most part patients did what with less sensitive data 5. Major recommendation

1. Setting default privacy settings for EMR's. It is super important for sharing settings because users rarely adjust the default settings. 2. They got the least amount of information shared with them and said they needed to be asked first and also felt like they had less of a choice when it came to insurance companies asking them for their EMR. 3. They are wayyyy less forthcoming with their information. 4. They were more likely to share the less sensitive information and was true for all patients 5. That the sharing preferences for particular types of information in an EMR is a clear indication of the need to provide patients with granular control over their information. To ensure that patients get privacy control over the things that THEY think is private information.

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 Theories that served as a bassist's for the framework 1. Theory of Reasoned Action 2. UX 3. Whats the overall goal for the paper/framework?

1. Stating that attitudinal and normative factors influence behavior intention, which in turn predicts actual behavior. 2. User experience is being defined as a momentary, primarily evaluative feeling (good-bad) while interacting with a product or service. Good UX is the consequence of fulfilling the human needs for autonomy, competence, stimulation (self-oriented) through interacting with the product or service. 3. This framework is meant to be a starting-point for the evaluation of recommender systems.

Bowman, Hodges, 1997 1. Ray-casting big drawbacks 2. New ray-casting technique that aims to fix some limitations

1. Suffers from the "lever-arm" problem where object is attached at the end of the ray and there is no easy way to rotate an object in place around the axis of the ray itself. It is also hard to control the object's distance from the user. 2. Outfitting ray-casting with a fishing reel metaphor. After an object is selected with ray-casting and then brought closer and further based on input from a mouse. This also allows users to control one more additional independent degree of freedom.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 Major reasons it worked. 1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Support of policy stakeholders and partners 2. High quality and portable resources 3. A goal to replicate 4. A multi-level approach —Support of policy stakeholders and partners. We would not have had nearly this much success without the original Department of Education interest, and support from the Professional Standards Committee and the University System of Georgia. For example, we could not get AP CS to count towards graduation ourselves. The support gave us a legitimacy that we could not have had otherwise. Through partners like Girl Scouts, we were able to reach populations that we might not have otherwise. —High quality and portable resources (including curricula, support materials, models for computing summer camps, etc.). These were not collected resources; starting out, there were too few teachers producing materials for a crowd-sourced approach to work. Instead, we generated materials and made them freely available. Our results suggest that they were high-quality, and that many people adopted them. Those resources increased our reach and impact beyond just those we could touch directly. —A goal to replicate. We always wanted other people to do what GaComputes started doing, even without a lot of funding. We created unusual resources, like business plans for sustainable computing camps. Replicable models were not necessary for GaComputes to run, but were absolutely necessary for others to adopt and adapt what we were doing. —A multi-level approach. While we were always challenged in GaComputes to keep efforts going at all these levels at once, a multi-level approach kept us thinking about the big picture. Once we got kids interested in their pre-teen years, what then? We had our efforts in high schools. And what if kids got interested in high schools? We were also working at the undergraduate level. A focus on multiple levels at once required us to make sure that the whole picture made sense.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. What was the difference in individuals who attended a few vs a lot of workshops 2. All teachers felt what about their students results from their involvement in the workshops

1. Teachers who went to a lot of workshops used more of the material in their teaching and held more pedagogical knowledge while those who went to fewer held more content knowledge. 2. The teachers felt that their students had increased engagement with computing and increased awareness of computing careers.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. One last major sticking point

1. That female and hispanic and black test takers, while their scores are increasing and their participation is up, they still do not perform at the same level

Rothbaum, Hodges, et al., 1999 1. What is the issue seeking to be solved here? 2. Advantages of VRE therapy and the previous study (2 parts)

1. That imaginal exposure to the fear helps only a relatively small amount while using actual Huey helicopters helps more but is not practical for the thousands of individuals with PTSD. 2. Advantages include more control in the therapy by not leaving the office and controlling the stimuli as well as less harm and embarrassment. 2b. The previous study focused on a fear of heights and was able to elicit physical reactions to fear such as weak knees, heart palpitations etc. and was successful in reducing fear.

Caine, Hannania, 2013 1. What were some patient requests 2. Basically says...

1. That they would share parts of their EMR if there was a demonstrated need, and that they would like to give temporary access to certain recipients based on need and that need only. 2. That patients indicated they would share info if it was used for their health benefit but would otherwise not want it shared.

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 1. The framework hypothesis what about users perceiving algorithm accuracy?

1. That users perceive it and consider it in their perception of the experience

Bowman, Hodges, 1997 1. What is the first major arm-extension technique? 2. What is the first alternate arm-extension technique? 3. What is the second alternate arm-extension technique? 4. What is the arm-extension technique that is only slightly mentioned?

1. The Go-Go technique. A way to extend the arm outwards at an increasing rate of speed at a predetermined area. Its major limitation is that it is restricted by some function of the users arm length. 2. The stretch-go-go technique which instituted regions that the arm could be placed in and if the arm is in the middle region then it does nothing, at the outermost region its extends at a constant speed to any point, and in the innermost region it retracts in the same manner. It has an information panel to show which region the arm is in. This technique is however, more cognitively challenging. 3. The last technique has users push a button on a mouse to retract and extend a virtual arm at a constant speed. This gets rid of the natural metaphor though. 4. Fast-go-go where the technique has no local area and a more quickly growing function for the speed of the arm growth.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. What was the fate of the endorsement 2. What were the corse questions of evaluating GA computes (5)

1. The endorsement failed because it was paid for by the teacher and did not increase their pay nor did it allow them to teach extra courses so they were all discontinued. 2. (1) Implementation. Are school teachers and USG faculty using what they have learned through this program? (2) Resources. To what extent are the resources (robotics kits, day camp curriculum, funds to support local workshops) being used? (3) Attitudes. Do students participating in camps express a positive change in attitudes toward computing? (4) Influence and Impact. How has the program influenced and impacted individual institutions and the larger computing community? (5) Enrollment and Retention. How many women and minorities are enrolled in computer- related disciplines in USG institutions? What is the retention rate at each stage toward their degree? Has the program generated an increase in the number of high schools offering AP Computer Science and is there a larger diversity8 of students pursuing and passing the AP Computer Science test?

Bainbridge, 2007 1. Whats the general idea of this paper?

1. The general idea of this paper is that there is a great deal of opportunity and ability to conduct research in virtual worlds like WoW and LoL & second life. There are a lot of cool social interactions to observe and you can even use the worlds to build a lab and conduct studies. This does raise a few ethical considerations though that need to be tackled.

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 1. Objective system aspects 2. Subjective system aspects 3. Experience (EXP)-What is it divided up into 4. Interaction (INT)

1. These consist of the algorithms used by the system, the visual and interaction design of the system, the way it presents the recommendations, and additional features such as social networking. 2. Subjective system aspects, which represent users' perception of the objective system aspects. These include pragmatic characteristics (usability and quality) and hedonic characteristics (appeal). 3. Signifies the users' evaluation of the system. In that way it is closely related to attitudes in TAM, with the addition of hedonic aspects. It is measures with questionnaires. 3b. Divided up into the evaluation of the system, the decision process, and the final decisions made. 4. The interaction is the observable behavior of the user.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. Why did the after school programs end up not working out Results of GA Computes (Statistically) 2. Students who participated in the summer camps stated what about their perceptions of computing 3. The camps did what for content knowledge 4. What recruiting materials did they use to get desired populations and did they work?

1. They didn't work out because none of the kids had a set schedule and it was hard to work out transportation for all the kids as well. 2. The students had more positive attitude towards computing, self efficacy, enjoyability, and less difficult 3. Was able to successfully increase it 4. By partnering with clubs like Girl Scouts, YWCA, B&G clubs, etc.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. What was found with the desired populations once they went to college 2. What was the deal with producing CS majors from HS's with ICE trained teachers 3. What was a new NSF project that came from GA computes

1. They persist as CS majors if they came from a HS that had teachers trained by GA computes 2. They produced more CS majors 3. The glitch game testing

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. The workshops taught what two big things 2. How were the professional development workshops assessed

1. They taught both content knowledge (what to teach) as well as pedagogical knowledge (how to teach it) 2. By interviews with the following questions. What did they learn, how are they using what they learned to transform their classes, and how are students impacted by theses changes made by the teachers

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 1. Personal characteristics 2. Situational characteristics 3. Whats the main takeaway here in terms of interaction 4. Whats a big benefit of this?

1. Things like trust, domain knowledge, and perceived control. 2. Things dependent on the context of the interaction; at different points in time, users may have different choice goals, trust and privacy concerns, and familiarity with the system. 3. They link the objective interaction (INT) to objective system aspects (OSA) through a series of subjective constructs like (SSA & EXP). 4. This framework can be sued as a guideline for controlled user experience tests. Specifically, by manipulating certain system aspects (OSA) in a controlled experiment, people can identify the effect of the aspect on the users' perceptions (SSA), experience (EXP) and behaviors (INT).

Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke & Wensveen, 2002 1. What is the general goal of the paper? 2. What is feedforward

1. This paper means to argue that the big thing in usability should not be in conveying the necessary action but the feedback loop of the system. Feedforward and feedback. 2. Communication of the purpose of an action. Essentially a matter of creating meaning.

Rothbaum, Hodges, et al., 1999 1. What is this article about (general idea)? 2. What is a big part of exposure therapy? (how is VR differentiated from games/multimedia)

1. This study focused on improving exposure therapy (a common treatment where you imagine dealing with your fears or triggers to the point where you are able to deal with them healthily) by getting rid of the imagination part of exposure therapy and replacing it with actual virtual reality so that patients can actually see the fear. This was the first attempt of this kind made on a single subject for treatment. 2. Virtual reality is distinguished from multimedia systems and games by creating a sense of presence. This sense of presence is also vital to exposure therapy because it is aimed at facilitating emotional processing.

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 1. What are two big ways recommender systems derive user preferences?

1. Through both implicit and explicit feedback. Implicit feedback recommenders analyze clicking/purchasing behavior. Explicit feedback recommenders let users rate items, critique them, and assign weights to item attributes so that they can indicate their specific needs themselves

Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke & Wensveen, 2002 1. What are the 4 things the authors felt were important in strenghting the inherency of the feedback in the heat thermostat example 2. What are the important criteria the authors felt were necessary for quality in tangibility

1. Unity of location: The action of the user and the feedback of the product occur in the same location 2. Unity of direction: The direction of the product's feedback is the same as the action of the user. 3. Unity of modality: The modality of the product's feedback is the same as the modality of the user's action. 4. Unity of time: The product's feedback and the user's action coincide in time. 2ish. Feedforward and inherent feedback.

Caine, Hannania, 2013-A desire for granular control 1. What is granular control 2. What is coarse control

1. Wanting to share parts of their record but not other parts with recipients 2. Referring to the sharing of EMR data coarse is referring to the sharing style of all or none.

Bainbridge, 2007 1. What is the deal with identification of the users with their "player" or "character" in SL and WoW? 2. What are 4 suggested categories of studies in Virtual Worlds? 3. Whats the IRB stuff here

1. WoW has them as characters and are generally seen as a possession while SL users may see their character as more of a part of themselves and may recreate themselves in the game. 2. How humans conceptualize their own avatars or characters? 2b. Mutual perceptions during social interaction 2c. How humans react to the current simple AI's 2d. Exploring social cognition by designing more complex and lifelike AI's and watching them interact with people. 3. Ethics of the experiments via the IRB are sketchy as there could be a debate on whether these places count as public or private and what anonymity is available to the users.

Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, Engelman, 2014 1. Did the number of individuals taking the AP exam in Georgia increase? 2. Did the number of desired individuals taking the exam increase? 3. How well do the desired individuals do though

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Not as well

Bainbridge, 2007 1. What else can you do in WoW as a researcher? 2. What is the deal with conducting these studies now and or doing them at all? 3. What else is WoW good for in terms of experimental stuff? 4. Whats an issue facing virtual worlds research efficacy

1. You can join the game and act as a confederate and study social movements. 2. The studies need to be conducted now because the virtual worlds that exist now may not exist in the future. The companies and the people that play them may not exist and events like the plaugelands towers being added only happen once and can't be reproduced. 3. Good for quantitative data because it supports add ons that can be written. 4. Latency is a problem. WoW has graphics user side but they can't build things themselves. SL has them server side so they can build their own stuff, but users have to wait for a new area to download.

Djajadiningrat, Overbeeke & Wensveen, 2002 1. Information distinguishing: Pre-action & post-action 2. What does feedforward do for the user 3. What does feedback do for the user 4. What is inherent feedback

1. information before the user carries out the action-after the user carries out the action. These phrases correspond with feedforward and feedback. 2. Feedforward informs the user about what the result of their action will be. Needs to communicate what the user can expect. 3. Informs the user about the action that is carried out, shows that the system is responding, indicates progress, confirms navigation, etc. 4. Inherent feedback refers to the fact that a user should experience the feedback as a natural consequence of their actions.

Knijnenburg, Willemsen, Gantner, Soncu, Newell, 2012 Study Results 4. FT2 EMIC Results (2) 5. FT2 revealed

4. An increase of effort of using the system decreases willingness to provide feedback. 4b. Privacy & trust affect intentions to provide feedback. Trust in tech reduces privacy concerns, but now also directly increases the intention to provide feedback. 5. That usage over time changes

skip

skip