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 bilge@cs.cmu.edu

(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 ishiguro@ams.eng.osaka-u.ac.jp

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

till@ballendat.info, [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