HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTIONPROJECT OVERVIEW
Professor Bilge MutluComputer Sciences, Psychology, & Industrial and Systems Engineering
University of Wisconsin–Madison
CS/Psych-770 Human-Computer Interaction
GROUND RULES
GOALS
Explore a problem area in depth
Theoretical and empirical understanding
Create generalizable knowledge
Apply empirical research methods in HCI
Design and conduct exploratory and experimental studies
Prototype user interfaces
Write up findings — hopefully publish (CHI, HRI)
Work in groups (optional)
PROJECT PHASES
PHASE 1: IDEA/HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
PHASE 2: PLANNING
PHASE 3: CONDUCTING
PHASE 4: WRITING
PHASE 1:IDEA/HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENTIdentifying;
Significant but unexplored phenomena
Opportunities for greatest impact
Form a research question
Contextualize your question in previous work
PHASE 2: PLANNING
Goal: Answering your research question
Design a observational study to understand phenomena
Seeking a deeper and richer understanding of a phenomenon of interest
Prototype an interface and design an evaluation study
Evaluate alternative designs or against existing systems
Design a laboratory study to test hypotheses
Testing theoretical manipulations in human-computer interaction
Seek IRB approval
PHASE 3: CONDUCTING
Conducting a study
Field studies, prototyping and evaluating, experimentation
Collect data from real participants
Analyze data, draw conclusions
PHASE 4: WRITING
Project report
Six-to-two-page account of your project progress
Written as a short conference paper in ACM format
Poster presentation
Publicly announced to a wide audience
Marjorie H. GoodwinUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Participation
In order for human beings to coordinate their behavior with that of their
coparticipants, in the midst of talk participants must display to one
another what they are doing and how they expect others to align
themselves towards the activity of the moment. Language and embodied
action provide crucial resources for the achievement of such social order.
The term participation refers to actions demonstrating forms of involvement
performed by parties within evolving structures of talk. Within the scope
of this essay the term is not being used to refer to more general membership
in social groups or ritual activities.
When we foreground participation as an analytic concept we focus on
the interactive work that hearers as well as speakers engage in. Speakers
attend to hearers as active coparticipants and systematically modify their
talk as it is emerging so as to take into account what their hearers are doing.
Within the scope of a single utterance, speakers can adapt to the kind of
engagement or disengagement their hearers display through constant ad-
justments of their bodies and talk. This is accomplished by speakers through
such things as adding new segments to their emerging speech, escalating
the pitch of their voices or the size of their gestures, changing their facing
formations, or possibly abandoning their talk.
In his early statement concerning the components of speech acts, Dell
Hymes argued that "participant" was perhaps the most critical dimension
necessary for an adequate descriptive theory of ways of speaking; a focus
on the individual speaker or at best a speaker-hearer dyad (as elaborated
in information theory, linguistics, semiotics, literary criticism, and sociol-
ogy), he argued, was inadequate. Notions of the inadequacy of traditional
models of speaker-hearer role structure were further elaborated in Erving
Goffman's essay on "footing." Goffman argued that in addition to the con-
cepts of ratified or unratified participants (overhearers), we need to consider
forms of "subordinate communication" across the principal talk on
the floor—byplay, crossplay, and sideplay. The concept of "participation
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(l-2):177-180. Copyright © 2000, American Anthropological
Association.
177
Footing In Human-Robot Conversations: How Robots
Might Shape Participant Roles Using Gaze Cues
Bilge Mutlu1, Toshiyuki Shiwa2
, Takayuki Kanda2, Hiroshi Ishiguro2,3
, Norihiro Hagita2
(1) Human-Computer Interaction Institute Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA [email protected]
(2) ATR Intelligent Robotics and Communication Laboratory 2-2-2 Hikaridai, Keihanna, Kyoto, Japan {yamaoka, kanda, hagita}@atr.jp
(3) Faculty of Engineering Osaka University 2-1 Yamadaoka, Suita City, Osaka, Japan [email protected]
ABSTRACT During conversations, speakers establish their and others’
participant roles (who participates in the conversation and in what
capacity)—or “footing” as termed by Goffman—using gaze cues.
In this paper, we study how a robot can establish the participant
roles of its conversational partners using these cues. We designed a
set of gaze behaviors for Robovie to signal three kinds of
participant roles: addressee, bystander, and overhearer. We
evaluated our design in a controlled laboratory experiment with 72
subjects in 36 trials. In three conditions, the robot signaled to two
subjects, only by means of gaze, the roles of (1) two addressees,
(2) an addressee and a bystander, or (3) an addressee and an
overhearer. Behavioral measures showed that subjects’
participation behavior conformed to the roles that the robot
communicated to them. In subjective evaluations, significant
differences were observed in feelings of groupness between
addressees and others and liking between overhearers and others.
Participation in the conversation did not affect task performance—
measured by recall of information presented by the robot—but
affected subjects’ ratings of how much they attended to the task.
Categories and Subject Descriptors H.1.2 [Models and Principles]: User/Machine Systems – Human
factors. H.5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: User
Interfaces – Evaluation/methodology, User-Centered Design.
General Terms: Design, Human Factors Keywords: Conversational participation, Participant roles,
Participation structure, Footing, Gaze, Robovie 1. INTRODUCTION In the future, robots might serve a variety of informational tasks as
information booth attendants, museum guides, shopkeepers,
security guards, and so on. In this capacity, such robots will have
to communicate using human verbal and nonverbal language and
carry on conversations with people. Consider the following three
scenarios that involve our robot Robovie (Figure 1):
Aiko is a shopper at a shopping mall in Osaka, where Robovie
serves as an information booth attendant. Aiko is trying to find the
closest Muji store and wants to know whether the store also sells
furniture. She approaches Robovie’s booth to inquire about the shop.
This conversational situation is a two-party conversation in which
Robovie and Aiko will take turns to play the roles of speaker and
addressee [11]. There might also be overhearers of this
conversation without the knowledge of neither the speaker nor the
addressee [19]. While Aiko and Robovie talk about how to get to the Muji store,
another shopper, Yukio, approaches Robovie’s booth. Yukio
wants to get a program of this month’s shows at the amphitheater.
When Yukio approaches the information booth, Robovie
acknowledges Yukio’s presence with a short glance, but turns
back to Aiko, signaling to Yukio that he has to wait until its
conversation with Aiko is over and to Aiko that it is attending to
her.
This scenario differs with the addition of a non-participant [11]
into the social situation who is playing the role of a bystander [19].
After Robovie’s conversation with Yukio is over, a couple, Katsu
and Mari, approach the booth, inquiring about Korean restaurants.
Robovie asks the couple a few questions on their dining
preferences and leads them to a suitable restaurant.
This last situation portrays a three-party conversation in which
Robovie plays the role of the speaker and Katsu and Mari are
addressees for most of the conversation. While Robovie converses
in all of these situations, the differences in levels of participation
require it to also provide the appropriate social signals to regulate
each person’s conversational role. When Yukio approaches the
booth, Robovie has to make sure that Aiko’s status as addressee
doesn’t change, but that he also signals to Yukio that his presence
is acknowledged and approved while ensuring that the presences
of overhearers are not acknowledged. In talking to Katsu and Mari,
it has to make sure that they both feel equally respected as
addressees. These situations illustrate different forms of “participation
structures” [20], “participant roles” [24], or “footing” [19]—that
is, the “position or status assigned to a person, group, etc., in
estimation or treatment” [12]. Considerable evidence suggests that,
during conversations, people use gaze cues to perform a social-
regulative process of establishing their and others’ footing
[4,24,37,38]. Research in human-computer interaction has shown
that gaze cues can be effective in shaping participant roles when
used by virtual agents [3,36]. While a robot’s use of these cues is
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee. HRI’09, March 11–13, 2009, La Jolla, California, USA.
Copyright 2009 ACM 978-1-60558-404-1/09/03…$5.00.
Figure 1. Robovie R-2, the humanlike robot we used in our study.
Elizabeth KeatingUNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
Space
Space is an integral part of social life and language events and is an
important resource in the ordering of social experience. The distribu-
tion of space can instantiate particular systems of social control, for
example, conventionalizing differences between people, and making such
delineations material and substantive, as well as anchoring them within
historical practice. Space is central in the creation and communication of
status and power relations in many cultures; Michel Foucault analyzed the
role of space in social disciplining, for example, in restricting the mobility
and access of certain members of society. Space and its phenomenological
counterpart place are used widely in the construction of gender relations,
as feminist geographers and anthropologists have described. Limitations
on access and mobility are directly related to the acquisition of particular
knowledge domains and often to participation in political process; certain
spatial configurations can make linguistic participation by some members
impossible.In investigating the social uses of space, the relationship between place,
participation, and particular speech practices is important. Who can speak
here? What kinds of communicative interactions are appropriate here? How
do individuals organize themselves temporally and spatially in an event?
Charles Frake's discussion of the Yakan house in the Philippines is emblem-
atic of some of the culture specific complexities of spatial arrangements and
their relation to linguistic practice. He shows that a house, even a one-
roomed Yakan house, is not just a physical space, but a structured sequence
of settings where events are understood not only by the position in which
they occur but also by the positions the actors move through, the manner
in which they make those moves, and the appropriate language practices.
Communicative interaction takes place in particular places, and language
practices are partly defined by the spatial boundaries within which they
occur.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(l-2):234-237. Copyright © 2000, American Anthropological
Association.
234
Marietta PandolfiUNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL
Body
Over the centuries the history of the human body—especially inWestern cultures—has been characterized by an ever-increasingseparation between matter and spirit, between flesh and soul. Incultures where the relation between human beings, deities, and nature isinterpreted as a harmonic and constantly interpenetrating rapport of thehuman with the sacred, the experience of the body has been different. Suchis the case in the scholarly traditions of Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine,as well as the bodily practices that derive from them: Yoga, Shiatzu, Tai JiQuan, Qigong, or acupuncture. Such practices imply complex cosmologiesthat view the human body as intimately interconnected with cosmic forcesand tensions. For these traditions the body is not merely a mechanismentirely controlled by biology, but a site where signs of harmony or dishar-mony can be read. From Asia to Africa different religions and philosophieshave developed ritual practices whereby the social body and the individualbody are placed in a common vision of human reality. Symptoms andillnesses at the level of the individual are thus interpreted as expressions oftensions within society, while all suffering is contextualized in a wider fieldof forces more complex than the purely biomedical etiology. Diagnoses andtherapies entail, then, the reorganization of individuals' roles in the socialorder. In these cultures the social identity of each human being is strength-ened or modified through specific ritual practices that underscore theindividual's growth and the ensuing transformation of his or her social role.Initiation rituals, therapeutic rituals, and rites of passage are all symbolicpractices that transform the human body into an altar that mediates themetamorphosis of the personal identity and the equilibrium of the socialbody. The body as altar is a means to re-establish social order after an illnessor a witch attack; it creates the symbolic space that allows human beings,ancestors, and gods to communicate with each other. Becoming a shamanor a healer, being possessed or sick, the transition from puberty to adult-hood—are all processes whereby the body is endowed with symbols and
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1-2):16-19. Copyright © 2000, American AnthropologicalAssociation.
16
Proxemic Interaction: Designing for a Proximity and Orientation-Aware Environment
ABSTRACT In the everyday world, much of what we do is dictated by
how we interpret spatial relationships. This is called
proxemics. What is surprising is how little spatial
relationships are used in interaction design, i.e., in terms of
mediating people’s interactions with surrounding digital
devices such as digital surfaces, mobile phones, and
computers. Our interest is in proxemic interaction, which
imagines a world of devices that has fine-grained
knowledge of nearby people and other devices – how they
move into range, their precise distance, and even their
orientation – and how such knowledge can be exploited to
design interaction techniques. In particular, we show how
we used proxemic information to regulate implicit and
explicit interaction techniques. We also show how
proxemic interactions can be triggered by continuous
movement, or by movement in and out of discrete proxemic
regions. We illustrate these concepts with the design of an
interactive vertical display surface that recognizes the
proximity of surrounding people, digital devices, and non-
digital artefacts – all in relation to the surface but also the
surrounding environment. Our example application is an
interactive media player that implicitly reacts to the
approach and orientation of people and their personal
devices, and that tailors explicit interaction methods to fit.
ACM Classification: H5.2 [Information interfaces and
presentation]: User Interfaces. - Graphical user interfaces. General terms: Design, Human Factors Keywords: Proximity, proxemics, location and orientation
aware, implicit interaction, explicit interaction INTRODUCTION Spatial relationships play an important role in how we
physically interact, communicate, and engage with other
people and with objects in our everyday environment.
Proxemics is Edward Hall’s theory of these interpersonal
spatial relationships [8]. It describes how people perceive,
interpret and use distance, posture and orientation to
mediate relations to other people, and to the fixed
(immobile) and semi-fixed (movable) features in their
environment [8]. Proxemic theory correlates physical
distance with social distance (albeit in a culturally
dependent manner): intimate 6-18”, personal 1.5-4’, social
4-12’, and public 12->25’ distances. As the terms suggest,
the distances lend themselves to a progression of
interactions ranging from highly intimate to personal, to
social and then to public. Each distance also defines a close
and far phase that affects that interaction [8]. Hall emphasizes the role of proxemic relationships as a
form of people’s implicit communication – a form of
communication that interactive computing systems have yet
to understand. In spite of the opportunities presented by
people’s natural understanding of proxemics, only a
relatively small number of research installations – usually
within Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp) explorations –
incorporate spatial relationships within interaction design. Yet these installations are somewhat limited. For example,
a variety of systems trigger activity by detecting the
presence or absence of people within a space, e.g., reactive
environments have devices in a room react to presence [3],
or digital surfaces that detect and react to a device within a
given range [14] [15]. While useful, this is a crude measure
of proxemics, as it only considers distance as a binary
value, i.e., within or outside a given distance. True
proxemics demand fine-grained knowledge of people’s and
device’s continuous movement in relationship with each
other, and how this would affect interaction. Two projects
stand out here [11] [21]; both have a vertical digital surface
Cite as:
Ballendat, T., Marquardt, N., and Greenberg, S. (2010)
Proxemic Interaction: Designing for a Proximity and Orientation-
Aware Environment. Research Report 2010-962-11, Department of
Computer Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N
1N4.
Figure 1. Proxemic interactions relate people to devices, devices to
devices, and non-digital physical objects to people and devices.
Till Ballendat, Nicolai Marquardt, Saul Greenberg Department of Computer Science
University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada
[email protected], [nicolai.marquardt, saul.greenberg]@ucalgary.ca
SPEED-DATING
FRAMEWORKS
Conceptual frameworks governing human-human interaction
Explore human-computer interaction using these frameworks
Laura M. AhearnUNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Agency
The term agency appears often in academic writing these days, but
what scholars mean by it can differ considerably from common
usages of the word. When I did a keyword search in our university
library catalogue for agency, for example, the system returned with 24,728
matches. (And that's just books, not articles.) Among these were books
about travel agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency, social service agen-
cies, collection agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the
European Space Agency. Few, if any, of these books use agency in the way
scholars do: as a way to talk about the human capacity to act. In fact, ironically
enough, the commonsense notion of the term in English often connotes a
lack of what scholars would call agency because the everyday definition of
agent involves acting on behalf of someone else, not oneself.
The concept of agency gained currency in the late 1970s as scholars across
many disciplines reacted against structuralism's failure to take into account
the actions of individuals. Inspired by activists who challenged existing
power structures in order to achieve racial and gender equality, some aca-
demics sought to develop new theories that would do justice to the potential
effects of human action. Feminist theorists in particular analyzed the ways
in which "the personal" is always political—in other words, how people's
actions influence, and are influenced by, larger social and political structures.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, sociologist Anthony Giddens first popu-
larized the term agency and, along with anthropologists such as Pierre
Bourdieu and Marshall Sahlins, focused on the ways in which human ac-
tions are dialectically related to social structure in a mutually constitutive
manner. These scholars, in addition to cultural Marxists such as Raymond
Williams, noted that human beings make society even as society makes
them. This loosely defined school of thought has been called "practice the-
ory" by Sherry Ortner, a theorist who has herself carried forward this pro-
gram of study. The riddle that practice theorists seek to solve is how socialJournal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1-2):12-15. Copyright © 2000, American Anthropological
Association.
12
Marietta PandolfiUNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL
Body
Over the centuries the history of the human body—especially in
Western cultures—has been characterized by an ever-increasing
separation between matter and spirit, between flesh and soul. In
cultures where the relation between human beings, deities, and nature is
interpreted as a harmonic and constantly interpenetrating rapport of the
human with the sacred, the experience of the body has been different. Such
is the case in the scholarly traditions of Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine,
as well as the bodily practices that derive from them: Yoga, Shiatzu, Tai Ji
Quan, Qigong, or acupuncture. Such practices imply complex cosmologies
that view the human body as intimately interconnected with cosmic forces
and tensions. For these traditions the body is not merely a mechanism
entirely controlled by biology, but a site where signs of harmony or dishar-
mony can be read. From Asia to Africa different religions and philosophies
have developed ritual practices whereby the social body and the individual
body are placed in a common vision of human reality. Symptoms and
illnesses at the level of the individual are thus interpreted as expressions of
tensions within society, while all suffering is contextualized in a wider field
of forces more complex than the purely biomedical etiology. Diagnoses and
therapies entail, then, the reorganization of individuals' roles in the social
order. In these cultures the social identity of each human being is strength-
ened or modified through specific ritual practices that underscore the
individual's growth and the ensuing transformation of his or her social role.
Initiation rituals, therapeutic rituals, and rites of passage are all symbolic
practices that transform the human body into an altar that mediates the
metamorphosis of the personal identity and the equilibrium of the social
body. The body as altar is a means to re-establish social order after an illness
or a witch attack; it creates the symbolic space that allows human beings,
ancestors, and gods to communicate with each other. Becoming a shaman
or a healer, being possessed or sick, the transition from puberty to adult-
hood—are all processes whereby the body is endowed with symbols and
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1-2):16-19. Copyright © 2000, American Anthropological
Association.
16
Aaron V. CicourelUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Expert
Expertise can be described by reference to the differential way sources
of potential information are perceived and understood by novices
and experts, particularly in the way they use language to authenticate
their status vis-a-vis one another. In clinical medicine, for example, despite
using almost identical technical language, medical history and physical
examination information can be interpreted and processed differently by
novices and experts even when recognizing certain symptoms or measures
(wheezing, blood pressure readings, pulse rate, heart murmur) as relevant
markers of medical problems. A central issue is the language of questions
and answers and their interpretation. The language of elicitation proce-
dures directly affects the kind of memory representations that are likely to
be accessed. The language of the medical record is essential for framing the
patient's symptoms, medical history, physical examination and treatment
plan.Attributing minimal or mature expertise to someone assumes training
and experience associated with a title and a prior credentialing process that
usually includes official certification by a governmental agency and/or pro-
fessional association. The designation of someone as a "novice" or "expert"
can include ritualized activities or ceremonies and particular forms of ad-
dress and clothing. Identifying symbols or outward appearances, therefore,
can allow or restrict access to particular spaces and equipment or artifacts.
Speech events often are the primary resource for understanding activities
in task-oriented environments whose organizational constraints and ex-
pected oral and written representations become the basis for inferring and
attributing expertise to someone. Language, therefore, is central to an un-
derstanding of novice and expert behavior.
Language use also plays a crucial role in activating a "hidden" but es-
sential aspect of expertise: the ubiquitous constraints of memory and the
ability to access a knowledge base that will be perceived as "authoritative."
The content of a novice or expert's working memory, for example, includes
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(l-2):72-75. Copyright © 2000, American Anthropological
Association.
72
Vyacheslav IvanovUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Heteroglossia
H eteroglossia means the simultaneous use of different kinds of speechor other signs, the tension between them, and their conflictingrelationship within one text. The term was coined (from the Greek
stems meaning "other" and "speech": Srepo—vyXooc—nor by MikhailBakhtin in his theoretical work on the novel in the period from 1934 to 1935,and has become extraordinarily popular in literary and anthropologicalworks since the 1980s. Bakhtin had in mind both the stylistic and socialdifferences within the language of any modern developed society, as wellas the intention of writers to recreate them in prose, particularly in thenovel, a medium that could operate with different artistic images of lan-guages and styles Joyce's Ulysses, each chapter of which was written in adifferent linguistic style, serves as an example). Heteroglossia is opposedto monoglossia (the dominance of one language), typical of an ancient citysuch as Athens, and to polyglossia (the coexistence of two languages, forinstance of English and French in medieval England). The spoken languageof a modern society may seem to be more or less unified, but there are notonly different social dialects (such as the variations of New York Englishstudied in modern sociolinguistics), but also individual differences amongspeakers. This peculiarity is reflected in the way a writer of novels charac-terizes each of their heroes. In a novel a main hero usually speaks in a waythat is differentiated from the other characters. Each of the heroes may havehis or her own stylistic sphere. A representative case of heteroglossia isfound in the ironic use of speech forms, particularly in parody. In severalplaces in Ulysses, Joyce suggests a parody of the new Irish drama: "It's whatI am telling you, mister honey, it's queer and sick we were, Haines andmyself, the time himself brought it in " In the chapter "Nausicaa," awoman's magazine style takes over; in the chapter "Eumaeus," a parodyof provincial journalese is introduced. In other parts of the novel there is agrotesque mixture of several styles, as in a mockery of learned English inthe speech of the ghost of Bloom's grandfather.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(l-2):100-102. Copyright © 2000, American Anthropological
Association.
100
GROUND RULES
2+5Two-minute reading + five-minute discussion
Write down research ideas
Move to the next station
Mark your first preference
Mark your second preference
Vyacheslav IvanovUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES
Heteroglossia
H eteroglossia means the simultaneous use of different kinds of speechor other signs, the tension between them, and their conflictingrelationship within one text. The term was coined (from the Greek
stems meaning "other" and "speech": Srepo—vyXooc—nor by MikhailBakhtin in his theoretical work on the novel in the period from 1934 to 1935,and has become extraordinarily popular in literary and anthropologicalworks since the 1980s. Bakhtin had in mind both the stylistic and socialdifferences within the language of any modern developed society, as wellas the intention of writers to recreate them in prose, particularly in thenovel, a medium that could operate with different artistic images of lan-guages and styles Joyce's Ulysses, each chapter of which was written in adifferent linguistic style, serves as an example). Heteroglossia is opposedto monoglossia (the dominance of one language), typical of an ancient citysuch as Athens, and to polyglossia (the coexistence of two languages, forinstance of English and French in medieval England). The spoken languageof a modern society may seem to be more or less unified, but there are notonly different social dialects (such as the variations of New York Englishstudied in modern sociolinguistics), but also individual differences amongspeakers. This peculiarity is reflected in the way a writer of novels charac-terizes each of their heroes. In a novel a main hero usually speaks in a waythat is differentiated from the other characters. Each of the heroes may havehis or her own stylistic sphere. A representative case of heteroglossia isfound in the ironic use of speech forms, particularly in parody. In severalplaces in Ulysses, Joyce suggests a parody of the new Irish drama: "It's whatI am telling you, mister honey, it's queer and sick we were, Haines andmyself, the time himself brought it in " In the chapter "Nausicaa," awoman's magazine style takes over; in the chapter "Eumaeus," a parodyof provincial journalese is introduced. In other parts of the novel there is agrotesque mixture of several styles, as in a mockery of learned English inthe speech of the ghost of Bloom's grandfather.
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9(l-2):100-102. Copyright © 2000, American Anthropological
Association.
100
Research idea 1
Research idea 2
Research idea 3
Research idea 4
Research idea 5
Research idea 6
Natalie Cheng
Sean Andrist
Your name
Your name
THANKS!Professor Bilge Mutlu
Computer Sciences, Psychology, & Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison
CS/Psych-770 Human-Computer Interaction