Paulo meeting

Paulo meeting

  1. Google research agenda… talked about it.
  2. Paper next steps
    1. transactions on computer-human interaction
  3. My research goals
  4. Summer plans
    1. Paulo will dig into emails. 

TO-CHI: Scott Kleimer feedback to Paulo’s paper the survey should be “the means, not the ends”. are these systems representative of a class? what is gained by limiting computing platforms to “for children” and “physical" 

—> How can we help future designers to build new tools?      Does the literacy stuff help with this?      What are the hints forward?           (Are there tools outside the scope of analysis that could hint the way forward?)      A. Case studies approach: Look at a few tools, explain how they could be better ***      B. Explain each tool……..      C. Put this in historical context           -> What Alan Kay was after.           -> Use this to frame the literacy aims           -> Logo: A retrospective

There was a power shift from educational psychologists (idea power people) to STEM pipeline people; this is reflected in literacy aims.       Who has written about this? Talked about jobs vs. powerful ideas, why the jobs rhetoric won in education.       Engelbart:       Maybe the arrival of the Internet shifted the focus away from 

Here are some questions that TOCHI readers may have. If you elect to go the pivot route, you may want to address these in revision.

  1. Why did you pick these particular systems? Are they representatives of a class? If so, foreground the class (as Hudson et al. do) rather than the particular systems.
  2. We get a wonderful summary of what the system inventors did. Can you say more about what take-aways we learned from these projects?
  3. You focus on “physical computing platforms for children”  a) How would your analysis change if you dropped the “for children”? e.g.,, How does your analysis of tangible toolkits relate to e.g., Ullmer 2000, Hornecker 2006, Fishkin 2004, and Shaer 2010?   b) How would your analysis change if you dropped the “physical”. e.g., how does your analysis of toolkits relate to Hudson/Pausch/Myers 2000 and Green/Petre 1996?
  4. You talk about “selective exposure”. It’s a nice emphasis, and clearly of great relevance to both HCI and education. What are the similarities and differences between this and ideas of “translucence” and “seamful” interaction. (A sidenote: for an HCI audience, I would minimize the use of the term ‘framework’ as some see it as signaling a lack of concrete content.)