Chi2014 thematic summary

Related Work

• Comparison of transparent display approach with alternatives, such as Anoto or camera-mediated AR (R1)
• Especially for Active Reading approach (R1)
• All techniques could be implemented on an iPad by involving a camera (R4)
• 12/42 references are either to web sites or patents (R1)
• Mike Elgan as a technology columnist, it seemed somewhat out of place to characterize him as an "expert" in an academic paper and then use his web article to make your point (R1)
• • Reason is innovative nature (R3)
• • The paper does a great job in situating the work by providing a thorough discussion of the related work in this area (R3)

Unclear explanation or descriptions

• Elicitation of interaction techniques by user centered design approach
• Explain what this implicates (R1)
• Rich enough details on the study methodology (R1) !
• Surface capture interaction
• Not understandable (R1)
• Avoid all the acronyms for the conditions (R1)

Ideas

• Many basic ideas proposed (R1)
• Interactions in this submission as "somewhat, but not too interesting." (R2)
• They appeared somewhat uninspired and like a laundry list of things you could do on first thought (R4)
• A taxonomy or design space should be the product of extensive analytical reasoning by the authors themselves (R5)
• • Many interesting ideas are proposed (R5)
• • Potential value in this type of paper is that it can quickly bring the community up to speed and inspire broader use of the involved technology (R2)
• Dual-display input
• • Very interesting (R1)
• Difference to LucidTouch or back-of-device interaction unclear (R1)
• • App switching by flipping is useful (R1)
• • Tap&flip is fairly new (R1)
• Cite Tilt&Touch-in-Motion

Reasoning

• Discussion and ideas why one technique outperformed another (R1), why the differences occurred (R1)
• Description why the hypothesis or theory is that there are differences in the first place (R1)
• Discuss 1-2 techniques the authors think of as most innovative (R2)
• The authors should have continued where they stopped and questioned their results (R4)

Structure

• Advanced Transparent Display Capabilities as Future Work in a separate section (R1)
• • The introduction is very well written (R3)
• • The paper starts with a very good motivation to point out what makes transparent displays different and useful.

Reviewers

• “I could see giving it the higher score” “waffling between a 3.0 and a 3.5“ (R1)
• “I this lean slightly towards an accept.” (R2)
• “I am sure that it would be an interesting and valuable addition to the CHI conference” (R3)

Possibly Omit

• First paragraph of the software section (R1)
• Capture based registration and its evaluation (R1)
• Discussion about color mixing as it is in the related work (R1)
• The implementation section takes up a lot of space, but discusses things that are well-understood and explained in the related work already. (R4)