skip to main content
10.1145/2851581.2856682acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
course

Research Methods for HCI: Understanding People Using Interactive Technologies

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This course will provide an introduction to methods used in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research. An equal focus will be given to both the quantitative and qualitative research traditions used to understand people and interactional contexts. We shall discuss these major philosophical traditions along with their contemporary framings (e.g., in-the-wild research and Interaction Science). By the end of the course attendees will have a detailed understanding of how to select and apply methods to address a range of problems that are of concern to contemporary HCI researchers.

References

  1. Imeh Akpan, Paul Marshall, Jon Bird, & Daniel Harrison. 2013. Exploring the effects of space and place on engagement with an interactive installation. Proc. CHI '13, 2213--2222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ann Blandford. 2013. Semi-structured qualitative studies. In M. Soegaard and R. F. Dam (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed. The Interaction Design Foundation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Matthias Böhmer, Christian Lander, Sven Gehring, Duncan P. Brumby, & Antonio Krüger. 2014. Interrupted by a phone call: exploring designs for lowering the impact of call notifications for smartphone users. Proc. CHI '14, 3045--3054. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Duncan P. Brumby, Anna L. Cox, Jacqueline Chung, & Byron Fernandes. 2014. How does knowing what you are looking for change visual search behavior? Proc. CHI '14, 3895--3898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Duncan P. Brumby & Vahab Seyedi. 2012. An empirical investigation into how users adapt to mobile phone auto-locks in a multitask setting. Proc. MobileHCI '12, 281--290. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Duncan P. Brumby & Susan Zhuang. 2015. Visual grouping in menu interfaces. Proc. CHI '15, 4203--4206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Duncan P. Brumby, Dario D. Salvucci, & Andrew Howes. 2007. Dialing while driving? A bounded rational analysis of concurrent multi-task behavior. Proc. International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 121--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Duncan P. Brumby, Anna L. Cox, Jonathan Back, & Sandy J.J. Gould. 2013. Recovering from an interruption: investigating speed-accuracy trade-offs in task resumption behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 95--107.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Paul Cairns & Anna L. Cox. 2008. Research Methods for Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dominic Furniss, Ann Blandford, & Paul Curzon. Confessions from a grounded theory PhD: experiences and lessons learnt. Proc. CHI '11, 113--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dominic Furniss, Rebecca Randell, Aisling Ann O'kane, Svetlena Taneva, Helena Mentis, & Ann Blandford. 2014. Fieldwork for Healthcare: Guidance for Investigating Human Factors in Computing Systems. Synthesis Lectures on Assistive, Rehabilitative, and Health-Preserving Technologies. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sandy J.J. Gould, Duncan P. Brumby, Anna L. Cox, Victor M. González, Dario D. Salvucci, & Niels A. Taatgen. 2012. Multitasking and interruptions: a SIG on bridging the gap between research on the micro and macro worlds. Proc. CHI EA '12, 1189--1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Sandy J.J. Gould, Anna L. Cox, Duncan P. Brumby, & Sarah Wiseman. 2015. Home is where the lab is: a comparison of online and lab data from a timesensitive study of interruption. Human Computation, 2, 45--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sandy J.J. Gould, Anna L. Cox, Duncan P. Brumby, & Alice Wickersham. (2016). Now check your input: brief task lockouts encourage checking, longer lockouts encourage task switching. Proc. CHI '16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sandy J.J. Gould, Duncan P. Brumby, Anna L. Cox, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Jettie Hoonhout, David Lamas, & Effie Law. 2015. Methods for Human-Computer Interaction Research. Proc. CHI EA '15, 2473--2474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Daniel Harrison & Yvonne Rogers. 2013. UCLIC. Interactions, 20, 84--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Andrew Howes, Benjamin R. Cowan, Christian P. Janssen, Anna L. Cox, Paul Cairns, Anthony J. Hornof, Stephen J. Payne, & Peter Pirolli. 2014. Interaction science SIG: overcoming challenges. Proc. CHI EA '14, 1127--1130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Christian P. Janssen, Sandy J.J. Gould, Simon Y.W. Li, Duncan P. Brumby, & Anna L. Cox. 2015. Integrating knowledge of multitasking and interruptions across different perspectives and research methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 1--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Charlene Jennett, Anna L. Cox, & Paul Cairns. 2008. Being in the game. Proc. Philosophy of Computer Games, 210--227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Letitia Lew, Truc Nguyen, Solomon Messing, & Sean Westwood. 2011. Of course I wouldn't do that in real life: advancing the arguments for increasing realism in HCI experiments. Proc. CHI EA '11, 419--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Stephann Makri, Ann Blandford, & Anna L. Cox. 2008. Using information behaviors to evaluate the functionality and usability of electronic resources: from Ellis's model to evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 59, 2244--2267. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Paul Marshall, Richard Morris, Yvonne Rogers, Stefan Kreitmayer, & Matt Davies. 2011. Rethinking 'multiuser': an in-the-wild study of how groups approach a walk-up-and-use tabletop interface. Proc. CHI '11, 3033--3042. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yvonne Rogers. 2012. HCI Theory: Classical, Modern, and Contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on HumanCentered Informatics, 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yvonne Rogers, Nicola Yuill, & Paul Marshall. 2013. Contrasting Lab-Based and In-the-Wild Studies For Evaluating Multi-user Technologies. In S. Price, C. Jewitt and B. Brown (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Digital Technology Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Sarah Wiseman, Anna L. Cox, & Duncan P. Brumby. 2013. Designing devices with the task in mind which numbers are really used in hospitals? Human Factors, 55, 61--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Research Methods for HCI: Understanding People Using Interactive Technologies

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      3954 pages
      ISBN:9781450340823
      DOI:10.1145/2851581

      Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2016

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • course

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '16 Paper Acceptance Rate1,000of5,000submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader