Writing (HCI) Research Papers

First developed by Duke Hutchings November 28, 2005.

I was greatly aided by - Gregory Abowd - Keith Edwards - Beki Grinter - Elaine Huang - Jeff Pierce

Focus: conference papers (though most topics apply to journal paper writing too)

Typical Paper Layout

Abstract summarize your results and contributions

Introduction motivate the reader and frame your goal or problem

Related Work indicate what others did prior to your work

Your Work state what your work is

Future Work what should be tackled next?

Conclusion summary of work and implications

References listing of past and related work

Paper-writing is a people business

Conference structure: paper chair(s) paper committee reviewing system You need to make sure that - the paper gets into the right hands - you satisfy your reviewers - you are aligned with the right conference

Abstract and the Paper Chair(s)

You need to make sure that - the paper gets into the right hands In the abstract, briefly state - the general research area that you address - the main result(s) that you produced - the method(s) used to achieve the results - the impact your result(s) will have on people Dont put yourself halfway out the door

An example abstract (is this good?)

(see http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~hutch/papers/hutchings2004revisiting.shtml)

Most modern computer systems allow the user to control the space allocated to interfaces through a window system. While much of the understanding of how people interact with windows may be regarded as well-known, there are very few reports of documented window management practices. Recent work on larger display spaces indicates that multiple monitor use is becoming more commonplace, and that users are experiencing a variety of usability issues with their window systems. The lack of understanding of how people generally interact with windows implies that future design and evaluation of window managers may not address emerging user needs and display systems. Thus we present a study of people using a variety of window managers and display configurations to illustrate manager- and displayindependent space management issues. We illustrate several issues with space management, and each issue includes discussion of the implications of both evaluations and design directions for future window managers. We also present a classification of users space management styles and relationships to window system types.

Reviewers
You need to make sure that - you satisfy your reviewers This can take an unlimited number of forms - did you talk about your reviewers work? - does your reviewer, an expert, understand your approach? - does your reviewer, a novice, understand your approach? - does your reviewer like the topic, style, method, etc.? - do your terms and descriptions match the reviewers?

Lets focus on writing about related work

Related Work and Reviewers

Why do people often fail to mention related work? - it sounds like the work has already been done - it looks like lots of people are already working on it - it makes the work sound more unique Actually, a thorough related work section accomplishes those objectives. A weak related work section allows your reviewer to immediately dismiss you as uneducated and ignorant. When mentioning related work, dont bash it - your reviewer may have done that work - your reviewer might think youre a jerk A better approach is to show how your work differs from past work and avoid any characterization of that past work as weak or bad.

An example opening to related work

(see http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~hutch/papers/hutchings2004display.shtml)

More users are opting for multiple monitor systems, and initial lab research indicates that multiple monitor systems can help users be more productive [4] but that multiple monitor systems could stand to gain from advances in hardware and software design [17]. These important findings motivate field work such as ours in order to understand actual management practices that people employ..

Related Work dont overdo it

You have only so much space in which to describe past work. Pick 12 20 pieces of the most relevant related work and compare or contrast pieces of that work with your own. Generally, - 8- is too little - 25+ is too much Note: for journals, you can spend more time on related work

A quick note on et al.

First et al. is short for et alia, Latin for and others.

Second, whenever possible, avoid the use of this phrase. Would you like to be referred to as some other person when an author references your work? In general, et al. should refer to papers with 4 or more authors.
Third, never under any circumstances use et al. in the references section of your paper. List every author from the paper, whether there are 2 or 20. Fourth, its not et. al. (two periods). Its et al. (one period)

Related Work where is it?

Um I new at this. How do I find out what the related work is?

- Ask someone (actually, ask several people) - Use the ACM Digital Library or IEEExplore - Use Google Scholar or CiteSeer - Check DFAB

Reviewing like your 6750 project

Most conferences use the same reviewing format from year to year or even publish the reviewing for to be used for the current year. Find out what the typical reviewing form looks like and write your paper accordingly.

Picking your spots

You need to make sure that - you are aligned with the right conference Positive answers to these questions bode well for you: - Does this conference have a history of papers on my topic? - Does this conference have a history of papers using my approach or method? - Does this conference have a recent history of my topic? - Does this years conference committee have an expert on my topic? - Is this conference becoming interested in my topic? A note about conference themes typically only a small number of papers actually address it, so dont target it.

General HCI Conferences

You need to make sure that - you are aligned with the right conference CHI Interact HCII GI OZCHI HCI LAHCI The conference Another International HCI Conference Another International HCI Conference A Canadian HCI Conference An Australian HCI Conference A Bristish HCI Conference A Latin-American Conference on HCI

Specialized HCI Conferences

You need to make sure that - you are aligned with the right conference UIST CSCW Ubicomp InfoVis AVI DIS DUX CUU Pervasive IUI Mobile HCI interface software and technology collaborative and cooperative interfaces ubiquitous computing information visualization visual interfaces design design universal usability pervasive computing intelligent interfaces mobile HCI

Conferences with some HCI

You need to make sure that - you are aligned with the right conference C&C Assets CVE DARE DPPI ETRA MM NPVIM PDC SV cognition and creativity assistive technology collaborative virtual environments augmented reality design eye-tracking multi-media information visualization participatory design software visualization

Picking your spots

You need to make sure that - you are aligned with the right conference Papers get accepted for a variety of reasons - they introduce a brand new topic - they make significant improvement to an old topic - they confirm an older result using a new method - they open a very wide line of new research opportunities - they are controversial or provocative (but factual)

By becoming familiar with a set of conferences, you can determine how your work best fits with a specific conference and how it is situated within the community of that conference

Various paper-writing tips

Two good sites to have in your bookmarks:

http://swig.stanford.edu/~fox/paper_writing.html http://www.alice.org/Randy/raibert.htm

Where do I start?
Beginning authors can have a hard time understand how to get started. One of the best approaches is to follow a successful model, as provided by another authors past work. - Find an oft-cited paper that is similar to your work - Follow the leader: intro, related work, your work, etc. Beware: some aspects of that paper may have been negatively reviewed or received by the community-at-large

Try to find a local expert who can not only provide the paper but also provide the reviews of the paper (including any versions that were not accepted at a conference)

Trap: not enough detail

The authors do not explain how their 20 participants were chosen.

Trap: unjustified claims

The authors mention that these participants "are representative of information workers in any company or group", which they provide no evidence for.

Trap: careless use of language

At one point in the paper the authors state that "We witnessed five different ways that participants switched among windows." Yet, they never mentioned that they observed users interacting with their system.

- The difference between does, will, and can is dramatic

Problem Statement dont overdo it

One of the contributors, who has reviewed many papers, had this to say about authors problem statements: Too many papers try to make it sound as though they are solving a problem for which the current solution is completely broken

For example, if you're trying to make a cellphone that will sense if you're in a meeting and shut its ringer off automatically, go ahead and say that remembering to turn it off is a problem and that it can be annoying and disruptive when a phone rings during a meeting. Don't say that this is a breakdown that makes cellphones practically unusuable and is leading to the decay of society.

Using images and screenshots

Images and screenshots can go a long way in helping to explain visual concepts or dense amounts of data. It may be hard to tell where images are best used though because as an author, you are intimately acquainted with your interface or data. Get a friend to read through and ask where pictures would help explain how an interface works or how results compare.

Get proofreaders
Research paper proofreading takes two forms: - traditional proofreading: grammar, spelling, clarity, etc. - content proofreading: will this paper be accepted? While any colleague will do for traditional proofreading, more senior students and professors will have a better grasp of what it takes for papers to be accepted. As a result: Start early: - start writing early - start locating proofreaders early; theyre busy people Misc. traditional proofreading tip: read backwards.

Going backwards: a possible approach

One colleague has said this about paper-writing:

I have started to shape my research such that I write the paper before I do the research. Since the end result of research is typically a conference paper, I work backwards from that. I figure out what I want to be able to say (usually the answer to a research problem I expect to arrive to), then figure out how I can structure my research to arrive at that answer, then do the research. It makes writing the actual eventual paper very easy.

It takes awhile to grasp

Dont feel bad if your first attempt goes horribly wrong. It takes awhile (mistakes) to understand the pitfalls and gold mines. Dont necessarily feel good if your first attempt goes well. Almost always reviewers state concerns about the very best work. Take the concerns to heart and try not to make those mistakes again in future writing. So

Just Do It! The earlier you start writing, the earlier you can move past beginners mistakes.

Im running out of space!

Frequently you find that you cannot fit what you want to write in the allotted amount of space. This could be an indication that you are not being succinct enough. If not, dont forget these tricks: - automatic hyphenation (Word: tools>language>hyphenation) - spacing between lines and sections - typically no one cares if the references are in 9pt instead of 10pt Dont forget though with so many submissions coming into a conference and only a limited number of reviewers available, its easy to automatically reject papers that are improperly formatted.