-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
UIST 2012 SumReviews
OK- AC- Were other designs evaluated in any way? If so, it would be helpful to know about them.
OK- AC- It's difficult to know whether the design of the CrashAlert visualization is any good relative to other possible visualizations.
OK- AC- Limited scope of the design (and lack of exploration of other design options).
OK- R3- The contribution of this research could be greatly increased by providing alerts about hazards in a 360 degree range around the user.
OK- R3- and also by investigating different modalities of feedback or
OK- R3- including feedback about the direction in which the object is moving.
OK- AC- If possible, include additional information about the study participants (e.g. average walking speed), and additional statistical analysis.
OK- AC- The study as presented offers a null result - the visualizations don't significantly affect performance using the application.
OK- AC- I would appreciate more information about obstacles in the study. How many obstacles did participants encounter beyond the "actor"?
OK- AC- Limited degree of study analysis.
OK- MR- R2 notes that CrashAlert's performance is promising, but questions whether the task was complex enough to be affected by the situational demands.
OK- MR- R2 suggests using a different study task, but it's possible that there may be insights from the current study that shed light on whether the task was too simple to show CrashAlert's effects.
OK- R3- For example, what was the average walking speed of the participants with and without CrashAlert?
OK- R3- The results could also be strengthened by including some statistical analysis of the different maneuvers taken with each visualisation technique.
OK- MR- R3 also requests that additional information about the study be included.
OK- R3- The authors state that there were 4 conditions in the experiment but there were only 8 participants. For the experiment to be fully counterbalanced there should have been 24 participants.
OK- R2- Related to the previous note, it would have been useful if the study included a non-walking condition.
OK- R2- Thus, if a task in the user study requires the user to focus longer than a few seconds, participants might have significantly lower performance in the condition without CrashAlert than the ones with it.
OK- AC- How well does the system detect different types of obstacles (e.g. wires, objects off the ground)
OK- AC- It's hard to get a sense of the overall system from the current paper.
OK- MR- R1 additional screenshots of the system
OK- MR- R1 and a more robust description of how well the system detects various types of obstacles
OK- R3- Tactile feedback was not used because it is limited in providing context and detail information.
OK- R3- However, Brown et al. have already shown that multiple dimensions of information can be encoded in tactile stimuli.
OK- R3- Furthermore, the comments from the experiment participants indicate that feedback alerts would be sufficient and it may not be necessary to provide the ambient visualisations
OK- MR- R1 is generally pleased with the work, but recommends the addition of some related work
OK- R1- Add reference to Zollner et al., 2011: NAVI: A Proof-of-Concept of a Mobile Navigational Aid for Visually Impaired Based on the Microsoft Kinect
OK- R1- Add reference to Kjeldskov and Stage, 2004: New techniques for usability evaluation of mobile systems. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 60, (2004), 317–335
OK- R2- There is an iPhone App called Type n Walk (http://www.type-n-walk.com/). The idea is somewhat similar to this work, but it uses a built-in camera and raw image. I wonder how CrashAlert could be better than it.
OK- R3- There is a great deal of existing research in the area of sensory substitution systems for the visually impaired (NAVI system by Zollner et al, Haptic Helment by Mann et al.)
OK- MR- R3 agrees that the paper is well written and that the system is interesting, but questions the novelty of the technical contribution, and suggests that additional design features (such as tactile feedback and a 360 degree display) could increase the novelty of this system.
OK- R2- My concern is that the user may still have to devote much visual attention to the visualization provided by CrashAlert.
OK- R2- It would be great if the paper can examine more directly how the visual demand to the environment was reduced with CrashAlert.
OK- R1- In the future work section, I also suggest describing the ways in which you could test the interface under more realistic conditions (e.g. outdoor environments) to determine if the system meets users needs.