-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
CHI2013 Reviews Summary
jhincapie edited this page Nov 16, 2012
·
6 revisions
- Meta - 4.0
- Reviewer 1 - 3.5
- Reviewer 2 - 3.5
- Reviewer 3 - 4.0
- (MT) They offer three rather different perspectives on the references and discussion of related work.
- (R1) Several research groups have already explored the problem of providing informative safety cues (obstacle avoidance) but with a focus on those with visual impairments.
- (R1) For example, [ref1] aids users in safe pedestrian navigation by providing support for obstacle avoidance and situational awareness. [ref2] created a system that notifies the user of obstacle information through an acoustic signal interface.
- (R1) It would have also been interesting to read more about how the advances in this other field (navigation support for the blind) could help or influence the design of systems that provide informative safety cues to non-handicapped users. [ref3] has begun to look at what the differences between these two groups are, and how this can affect the design of assistive devices. It might make sense for the authors to integrate these papers in their related work section. For example, it was unclear why the authors chose to utilize visual cues rather than modifying some previously used techniques (audio or vibro-tactile feedback). It seems especially curious given that screen space is already limited on a mobile device.
Response
Say that we are familiar with the work on visual impairments and that we'll add it to our related work section. Say that we'll clarify that audio and haptic alerts were considered by that, as shown by Brown et al., they loose their effectiveness when in the wild, which is our main scenario.
- (MT) Somewhat different views of the presentation (“extremely well written and clear” and “repetitive and needs much better structuring, leaves out too many details”).
Response
Shortening introduction and other parts of the paper as suggested below would give more room for the missing details and information.
- (R1) For one, a whack-the-mole game seems like it would require significantly less cognitive resources than, for example, texting, the activity the participants mentioned attempting to do while on the go.
- (R1) It is unclear that counting the number of times a person looks up is an appropriate measure for where the user’s focus is. In the Color condition especially, it is not necessary to look up to see what is ahead as there is a visual slice at the top of the screen. It therefore seems possible that users could substitute looking up for looking at the top of the screen. The user could also focus entirely on that image slice and instead use their peripheral vision to play the whack-the-mole game.
- (R1) It also appears from Figure 5 that both the Color and Depth conditions had more Nearly Crash events than the control condition. Since a near collision is less desirable than stopping, looking up, or dodging/slowing down, it is odd that this is not addressed within the paper. It is impossible to tell if the difference is statistically significant or if there is some kind of explanation based on observed behavior to mitigate this increase.
# Other
- (R1) It is also unclear how the authors picture this being used in the future. Even if a depth sensor were standard on mobile phones, it seems likely that it would be oriented similar to the camera rather than roughly perpendicular to it. This difference would make the application as it is significantly less useful as the sensor would be more focused on the user’s feet rather than the direction of travel. The authors should also consider how the fact that people hold their phone differently, could affect the system’s functionality.
- (R1) Additionally it might have been interesting for the authors to mention how they envision their work functioning in an actual application. Do they see this as a type of service the operating system would provide, automatically resizing all applications for the smaller screen? Or would this be something that application developers would have to integrate themselves, changing the resolution of their layout to fit the addition of the “safety visualization.”
- (R2) What is fully missing is a longer discussion on why the design has been chosen as it is. What was the reason to realize it as a stripe of the display of the mobile device's display. Why was there no other option?
- (R2) There is no a single reference to a large body of work in off-screen visualizations (Halo probably being one of the most prominet works).
- (R2) Was it fair to normalize the collision handling manoeuvres to 100%? I understand that the different trials have shown different numbers meneuvers. Also it would have been nice to know how many of the maneuvers actually were taking place. How many per time slot? Were there variations depending on the individual path? The empirical results of the study should be elaborated in more detail.
- (R3) A nefarious actor attempted to collide with the participants in a variety of ways, and the study administrator documented participant reaction.