Place: SZB 556
Time: 12:30 PM
Attendance:
Facilitator: D. H.
I'd like to use next week's time to practice a presentation I'll deliver at UNT the following Monday. I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions, if you have the time and the inclination.
Much obliged, and have a great weekend.
D. H.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
11/7/2008, Establishing iSchool Subject Pool for Research
Place: SZB 556
Time: 12:30 PM
Attendance: 12
Facilitator: J. S. & P. A-R.
A discussion about creating a research-subject pool in the iSchool undergraduate program.
Time: 12:30 PM
Attendance: 12
Facilitator: J. S. & P. A-R.
A discussion about creating a research-subject pool in the iSchool undergraduate program.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
10/10/2008, The Ransom Center
The Ransom Center, 5:30 - 7 pm, Fri Oct 10th.
All Ph.D students are invited and encouraged to attend the Awards Reception, honoring our donors, academic awards recipients, and friends of the iSchool.
All Ph.D students are invited and encouraged to attend the Awards Reception, honoring our donors, academic awards recipients, and friends of the iSchool.
Friday, September 19, 2008
9/26/2008 Kilgarlin Center forum
Friday, September 26, from 4:30 - 5:30 in the CDL classroom for a Kilgarlin Center forum. Three students will be presenting about their summer practicum projects.
Craig Blaha, IMLS Doctoral Preservation Fellow
"Establishing Texas Healthcare Data Communication Standards"
Sarah Kim, IMLS Doctoral Preservation Fellow
"Preservation Needs Assessment for Digital Holdings in the Austin History Center"
Rebecca Holte, Preservation Administrator
"Preservation Planning with Regional Impact: Midwest Art Conservation Center"
Craig Blaha, IMLS Doctoral Preservation Fellow
"Establishing Texas Healthcare Data Communication Standards"
Sarah Kim, IMLS Doctoral Preservation Fellow
"Preservation Needs Assessment for Digital Holdings in the Austin History Center"
Rebecca Holte, Preservation Administrator
"Preservation Planning with Regional Impact: Midwest Art Conservation Center"
9/19/2008 Dean's Reception
All PhD students received an invitation for the New Student Reception this evening 5:30 - 7 pm at Littlefield House, on the corner of 24th Street and Whitis (across the street from the Texas Union.)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
9/12/2008 Potluck Social at Dr. Gracy's (Canceled due to potential severe weather condition)
Details form http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~saa/
Fall Potluck:
Dr. David B. Gracy, II, and the SAA-UT will be hosting the Fall Semester Potluck on Friday, Sept. 12, starting 6.30pm at Dr. Gracy's home.
Everyone is welcome to this festive event!
A sign-up sheet is posted on the SAA-UT board outside the iSchool computer lab, in order to gauge how many may be attending.
Dr. Gracy will be providing yummy barbeque and delicious wine. You're welcome to bring your own dish, and can add it by your name on the sign up sheet.
Hope to see you all there!
Friday, September 5, 2008
9/5/2008 Discussion on qualifying procedure in the doctoral student handbook
Place: gabriel's cafe, AT&T center
Attendance: 12
Facilitator: D. H.
A dozen doc students met Friday at Gabriel's (sports bar) in the new AT&T Executive Learning and Conference Center to discuss two versions of the "Qualifying Procedures" and "Qualifying research paper" sections of the new doctoral handbook and to kick off this semester's PhDBSs. This is my accounting of the meeting, and I invite those who were present Friday to comment on or correct it as they see fit.
I had released the two versions as Version X (the existing version) andVersion Y (the dean's newly-edited version) and asked the doc studentsto vet them without knowing the reason. The group at Gabriel's favored the longer, original version by seven to five. My reason for the exercise was to confirm a suspicion I had. I am one of five students inthe dean's writing class, and in class this past Wednesday the topic ofquals generated a ninety-minute discussion. In response to that discussion in class, the dean revised the quals procedure and paper sections of the handbook and asked the class if we thought the new version disambiguated the process any. I liked the leaner version, but I figured my preference was biased by my having taken part in that discussion and by my having already gone through the quals process. I wondered if others would prefer it without the benefit of knowing why or by whom it had been written. As it did in our class on Wednesday, the topic of quals generated a lengthy and lively discussion.
One of the three big questions that came out of the discussion was, What is the purpose of the qualifying research paper?
The majority of those present argued that Version X presented a better discussion of the procedure -- several liked the specificity of "four parts" -- and a more comprehensive and better explanation of the purpose and usefulness (i.e., for pubs, proposal) of the qual paper. Several noted the importance of explicitly requiring a justification for the research topic ("...why that topic is important...") in the description of the qual paper. Someone suggested that the term "literature review," explicit in Version Y, could be included in an "i.e." statement in Version X. Generally, those who favored Version X liked that it was more explicit yet more open (less strictly defined), and less focused on a specific research question. One first-year doc student said that Version Y would make her feel "boxed," that Version X was more flexible.
The "open" nature of Version X generated the second big question that came out of the discussion: What are the chair and the committee's responsibilities in the quals process?
Many felt that the difficulties in the quals procedure arise not from any particular definition of what a quals paper is but rather from miscommunication or misunderstanding among the student, chair, and committee about what is expected. The consensus was that for any given student, the rules for proceeding through the quals should not change once the student had begun. To that end it was suggested and generally agreed upon that every committee should either meet together and agree on their expectations for the quals paper, or, at least, the student and chair should put into writing the expectations for the quals paper and distribute the expectations to the committee for approval.
The third big question that came out of the discussion focused on the use of the word "comprehensive" in Version Y to describe the qualifying procedure. What does comprehensive mean? Comprehensive of what? Of the particular focus of the research? Of the entire field of LIS? The group expressed a lot of concern that to include the word "comprehensive" without defining it explicitly would lead (and has led) to conflict among students and their committees. Many felt that the purpose of the DRTs is to provide doc students with comprehensive knowledge of our field, so that to have passed DRT I and DRT II is to have demonstrated "comprehensive" knowledge. One student expressed an understanding that students were to broaden (and deepen) their knowledge of the field through directed readings but that committee chairs must be supportive in their willingness to supervise directed readings. The group recognized that the quals should be challenging but wished there were better understanding throughout the department of what students should expect from their committees, particularly of the nature of exam questions. Of those present who had already gone through quals, some reported that the exam questions helped move them toward a proposal by requiring detailed accounting of the development of a research question and of theoretical and methodological approaches to the question. Others, however, reported that the exam questions diverged from the topic of the quals paper and did not help them advance toward the proposal.
Related to concerns about the meaning of "comprehensive" were concerns about the meaning of "relevant" in Version Y, from this description of the quals paper: "...the paper should summarize the major theoretical and methodological concerns manifest in the relevant scholarly literature." Relevant to what? to whom?
One person, who had diligently reviewed the handbook when it was distributed for review, thought it disrespectful of the doc studies committee to change the description of the quals paper so dramatically at this point.
I have recommended to the dean (for what it's worth) to leave the wording of the quals procedure and paper as it is currently in the handbook and consider this first printed draft a "beta" test.
I have also asked if any consideration has been given to an electronic version of the handbook that would facilitate comments, questions, suggestions, etc. from the users.
Attendance: 12
Facilitator: D. H.
A dozen doc students met Friday at Gabriel's (sports bar) in the new AT&T Executive Learning and Conference Center to discuss two versions of the "Qualifying Procedures" and "Qualifying research paper" sections of the new doctoral handbook and to kick off this semester's PhDBSs. This is my accounting of the meeting, and I invite those who were present Friday to comment on or correct it as they see fit.
I had released the two versions as Version X (the existing version) andVersion Y (the dean's newly-edited version) and asked the doc studentsto vet them without knowing the reason. The group at Gabriel's favored the longer, original version by seven to five. My reason for the exercise was to confirm a suspicion I had. I am one of five students inthe dean's writing class, and in class this past Wednesday the topic ofquals generated a ninety-minute discussion. In response to that discussion in class, the dean revised the quals procedure and paper sections of the handbook and asked the class if we thought the new version disambiguated the process any. I liked the leaner version, but I figured my preference was biased by my having taken part in that discussion and by my having already gone through the quals process. I wondered if others would prefer it without the benefit of knowing why or by whom it had been written. As it did in our class on Wednesday, the topic of quals generated a lengthy and lively discussion.
One of the three big questions that came out of the discussion was, What is the purpose of the qualifying research paper?
The majority of those present argued that Version X presented a better discussion of the procedure -- several liked the specificity of "four parts" -- and a more comprehensive and better explanation of the purpose and usefulness (i.e., for pubs, proposal) of the qual paper. Several noted the importance of explicitly requiring a justification for the research topic ("...why that topic is important...") in the description of the qual paper. Someone suggested that the term "literature review," explicit in Version Y, could be included in an "i.e." statement in Version X. Generally, those who favored Version X liked that it was more explicit yet more open (less strictly defined), and less focused on a specific research question. One first-year doc student said that Version Y would make her feel "boxed," that Version X was more flexible.
The "open" nature of Version X generated the second big question that came out of the discussion: What are the chair and the committee's responsibilities in the quals process?
Many felt that the difficulties in the quals procedure arise not from any particular definition of what a quals paper is but rather from miscommunication or misunderstanding among the student, chair, and committee about what is expected. The consensus was that for any given student, the rules for proceeding through the quals should not change once the student had begun. To that end it was suggested and generally agreed upon that every committee should either meet together and agree on their expectations for the quals paper, or, at least, the student and chair should put into writing the expectations for the quals paper and distribute the expectations to the committee for approval.
The third big question that came out of the discussion focused on the use of the word "comprehensive" in Version Y to describe the qualifying procedure. What does comprehensive mean? Comprehensive of what? Of the particular focus of the research? Of the entire field of LIS? The group expressed a lot of concern that to include the word "comprehensive" without defining it explicitly would lead (and has led) to conflict among students and their committees. Many felt that the purpose of the DRTs is to provide doc students with comprehensive knowledge of our field, so that to have passed DRT I and DRT II is to have demonstrated "comprehensive" knowledge. One student expressed an understanding that students were to broaden (and deepen) their knowledge of the field through directed readings but that committee chairs must be supportive in their willingness to supervise directed readings. The group recognized that the quals should be challenging but wished there were better understanding throughout the department of what students should expect from their committees, particularly of the nature of exam questions. Of those present who had already gone through quals, some reported that the exam questions helped move them toward a proposal by requiring detailed accounting of the development of a research question and of theoretical and methodological approaches to the question. Others, however, reported that the exam questions diverged from the topic of the quals paper and did not help them advance toward the proposal.
Related to concerns about the meaning of "comprehensive" were concerns about the meaning of "relevant" in Version Y, from this description of the quals paper: "...the paper should summarize the major theoretical and methodological concerns manifest in the relevant scholarly literature." Relevant to what? to whom?
One person, who had diligently reviewed the handbook when it was distributed for review, thought it disrespectful of the doc studies committee to change the description of the quals paper so dramatically at this point.
I have recommended to the dean (for what it's worth) to leave the wording of the quals procedure and paper as it is currently in the handbook and consider this first printed draft a "beta" test.
I have also asked if any consideration has been given to an electronic version of the handbook that would facilitate comments, questions, suggestions, etc. from the users.
2008 Fall Schedule
- 9/5 Discussion on qualifying procedure in the doctoral student handbook
- 9/12 Potluck social at Dr. Gracy's
- 9/19 Dean's Reception
- 9/26 Kilgarlin Center forum
- 10/3
- 10/10 The Ransom Center
- 10/17
- 10/24
- 10/31
- 11/7 Establishing iSchool Subject Pool for Research
- 11/14
- 11/21 Presentation practice by D. H.
- 11/28 Thanksgiving Holiday
- 12/5
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
iSchool Doctoral Research Day, 5/1/2008
iSchool Doctoral Research Day
Time and location: Thursday, May 1, 8:30 am to 2:00 pm at SZB 556
Details of the program will be updated by April 17th.
Time and location: Thursday, May 1, 8:30 am to 2:00 pm at SZB 556
- 8:30– “Registration”
- 9:00 – Session 1, 4 (+/- 1) paper presentations
- 10:20 – Break
- 10:40 – Session 2, 4 (+/- 1) paper presentations
- Noon – Lunch
- 12:30 – Poster session
- 2:00 – Conclude
Details of the program will be updated by April 17th.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Schedule Change
Because of personal reason and the Good Friday on 3/21/2008, the forum schedule is changed. D. H.'s talk will be moved to 4/11/2008. For those who have registered for Second Life Workshop, we'll see you there at 10:00 AM still.
NO TALK WILL BE HELD on 3/21/2008.
NO TALK WILL BE HELD on 3/21/2008.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Schedule Change
Because of ASIS&T pre-conference panel at the iSchool on 3/7/2008, the forum schedule is changed. S. C.'s talk will be moved to 3/28/2008.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
M. G. 4/4/2008
Time: Fri. 4/4, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: M. G. - Maria E. Gonzalez
Genre: Dissertation
Topic and Abstract:
Social field and symbolic capital in a sub-field of LIS
The work of Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002)
French philosopher, sociologist, late-life activist
Contemporary of Jacques Derrida at the Ecole Normale Superieure (1951-1952); More significantly, collaborated with Alain Touraine and Jean-Paul Benzecri
Overview:
“Crises” in Scholarly Communications:
Insights from Forty-Years of the Journal of Library History,
1966 – 2005
Maria E. Gonzalez
The University of Texas at Austin, 2008
Diss. Comm. Chair: Patricia K. Galloway
The dissertation examines the first forty years of a humanities journal, Libraries & Culture (hereafter Journal). Founded in 1966 as Journal of Library History, its contributors shaped and reshaped the Journal according to the values, habits, and competencies that they brought to changing circumstances. Over a period of forty years marked by administrative, managerial, financial, editorial, and technical challenges, the editors transformed the Journal into an interdisciplinary and erudite publication distant from its earliest beginnings as a compendium of entertaining vignettes and didactic notes on the writing and uses of library history.
This study considers salient points of transformation during the life of the Journal, highlighting issues associated with various crises in scholarly communications. Key issues confronted by the Journal include the now familiar dilemmas over journal pricing structures, subscription cancellations, bibliographic control, prestige surveys and citation rankings, pressures on authors to publish, peer-review, and modes of dissemination. Historical and sociological contexts frame the resolutions of these dilemmas, treated chronologically as each erupted in the trajectory of the Journal.
The historical investigation draws on archival sources, secondary sources, interviews, participant observation, and close reading of the publication to construct a narrative about the Journal in the context of 1) changing priorities in higher education; 2) challenges faced by university presses and scholarly publication in general; and 3) professional and disciplinary developments in librarianship.
The characters, actions, and settings of the history are interpreted through a sociological lens, crafted from a beginner’s understanding of the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s concepts of social field, multiple forms of capital, capital conversion, and habitus form the interpretive frame for the narrative.
The choice of Bourdieu’s heuristic approach implies a broader interest in framing scholarly communications as value negotiations among sets of players in interdependent social fields. The players struggle not just to preserve their positions in the production and dissemination of scholarship, but also contend with others in powerful social fields—state governments, university hierarchies, and job markets—about the creation of cultural capital and the power to define what is legitimate knowledge.
Attendance:
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: M. G. - Maria E. Gonzalez
Genre: Dissertation
Topic and Abstract:
Social field and symbolic capital in a sub-field of LIS
The work of Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002)
French philosopher, sociologist, late-life activist
Contemporary of Jacques Derrida at the Ecole Normale Superieure (1951-1952); More significantly, collaborated with Alain Touraine and Jean-Paul Benzecri
Overview:
- Reflexivity and researcher position in the social field researched (that means you!)
- Bourdieusian concepts in an interpretive theoretical framework: (funny language) social field, position, habitus, types of capital and conversion, symbolic violence
- Correspondence analysis (mixed methods)
- Collaborative research and publication (don't try this at home...)
“Crises” in Scholarly Communications:
Insights from Forty-Years of the Journal of Library History,
1966 – 2005
Maria E. Gonzalez
The University of Texas at Austin, 2008
Diss. Comm. Chair: Patricia K. Galloway
The dissertation examines the first forty years of a humanities journal, Libraries & Culture (hereafter Journal). Founded in 1966 as Journal of Library History, its contributors shaped and reshaped the Journal according to the values, habits, and competencies that they brought to changing circumstances. Over a period of forty years marked by administrative, managerial, financial, editorial, and technical challenges, the editors transformed the Journal into an interdisciplinary and erudite publication distant from its earliest beginnings as a compendium of entertaining vignettes and didactic notes on the writing and uses of library history.
This study considers salient points of transformation during the life of the Journal, highlighting issues associated with various crises in scholarly communications. Key issues confronted by the Journal include the now familiar dilemmas over journal pricing structures, subscription cancellations, bibliographic control, prestige surveys and citation rankings, pressures on authors to publish, peer-review, and modes of dissemination. Historical and sociological contexts frame the resolutions of these dilemmas, treated chronologically as each erupted in the trajectory of the Journal.
The historical investigation draws on archival sources, secondary sources, interviews, participant observation, and close reading of the publication to construct a narrative about the Journal in the context of 1) changing priorities in higher education; 2) challenges faced by university presses and scholarly publication in general; and 3) professional and disciplinary developments in librarianship.
The characters, actions, and settings of the history are interpreted through a sociological lens, crafted from a beginner’s understanding of the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s concepts of social field, multiple forms of capital, capital conversion, and habitus form the interpretive frame for the narrative.
The choice of Bourdieu’s heuristic approach implies a broader interest in framing scholarly communications as value negotiations among sets of players in interdependent social fields. The players struggle not just to preserve their positions in the production and dissemination of scholarship, but also contend with others in powerful social fields—state governments, university hierarchies, and job markets—about the creation of cultural capital and the power to define what is legitimate knowledge.
Attendance:
G. H. 3/28/2008 (S. C. is re-scheduled for this session)
Time: Fri. 3/28, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: S. C. (Georgia Harper, earlier scheduled for this date, will be visiting colleagues at Yale University on the 28th)
Genre: Individual Studies
Topic and Abstract: Menu-Navigating Behavior (MNB). Details are in the previous post.
Attendance: 10
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: S. C. (Georgia Harper, earlier scheduled for this date, will be visiting colleagues at Yale University on the 28th)
Genre: Individual Studies
Topic and Abstract: Menu-Navigating Behavior (MNB). Details are in the previous post.
Attendance: 10
Sunday, February 17, 2008
D. H. 4/11/2008 (Schedule is Changed)
Time: Fri. 4/11, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: D. H.
Genre: Dissertation Proposal
Topic and Abstract: Building Connections in Cyberspace Through Synchronous Online Discussion
Adaptation in chat used in conjunction with live video and audio webcasting:
1) What adaptations on the part of instructors and students lead to satisfactory social interaction?
2) What actions on the part of instructors and students foster generative instances of meaning making?
Analytical elements include adaptive measures students and instructors employ in online social interaction, expectations for social interaction students and instructors bring to the online learning environment, and ways in which students and instructors negotiate new meanings within the online learning environment.
Attendance: 9
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: D. H.
Genre: Dissertation Proposal
Topic and Abstract: Building Connections in Cyberspace Through Synchronous Online Discussion
Adaptation in chat used in conjunction with live video and audio webcasting:
1) What adaptations on the part of instructors and students lead to satisfactory social interaction?
2) What actions on the part of instructors and students foster generative instances of meaning making?
Analytical elements include adaptive measures students and instructors employ in online social interaction, expectations for social interaction students and instructors bring to the online learning environment, and ways in which students and instructors negotiate new meanings within the online learning environment.
Attendance: 9
S. C. 3/28/2008 (Schedule is Changed)
Time: Fri. 3/28, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: Sheng-Cheng (Hans) Huang
Genre: Individual Studies
Topic and Abstract: Menu-Navigating Behavior (MNB): A model of quantifiable and optimal user behaviors in finding paths within a limited information architecture
Today, when a user uses a computer to perform given tasks, his or her behaviors are mostly dominated by motor skills of operating hardware such as the mouse and the keyboard and by cognitive mechanisms of making either perceptive or integrated decisions to select correct items such as icons and labels on the screen. In this study, we will boldly characterize human-computer interaction (HCI) as a series of tasks of menu-navigating behaviors, which is to deductively define menu-navigating as a iterative behavior of choosing the correct visual stimulus among others by perceptive and cognitive mechanisms in order to reach the final destination of a target item.
Deriving from this definition, we assume that for a user to navigate a menu system and to successfully find the target information is analogous to the behavior of finding the correct path that is predefined by the designer of the system. Therefore, we are interested in finding the facts of how users make correct decisions that leads to form the correct path and vice versa. Also, based on the facts that we expect to identify and discover, we hope to develop a mathematic model of this particular HCI based on the statistical probability of user behaviors that will provide reasonable parameters to help us design better interfaces and predict user performance in the future.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the user behaviors in menu-navigating tasks, and to examine whether the current psychometric functions of Two Alternative Forced Choice (2AFC) task, Theory of Signal Detectability (TSD) and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) can be applied to understand this particular phenomenon. I also propose to develop new or adjust current psychometric functions based on the performance data to be collected in order to answer the question whether users always apply rational rules (e.g. "ideal" Bayesian decision rule) for probability judgment or decision-making in menu-navigating tasks.
Attendance: 10
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: Sheng-Cheng (Hans) Huang
Genre: Individual Studies
Topic and Abstract: Menu-Navigating Behavior (MNB): A model of quantifiable and optimal user behaviors in finding paths within a limited information architecture
Today, when a user uses a computer to perform given tasks, his or her behaviors are mostly dominated by motor skills of operating hardware such as the mouse and the keyboard and by cognitive mechanisms of making either perceptive or integrated decisions to select correct items such as icons and labels on the screen. In this study, we will boldly characterize human-computer interaction (HCI) as a series of tasks of menu-navigating behaviors, which is to deductively define menu-navigating as a iterative behavior of choosing the correct visual stimulus among others by perceptive and cognitive mechanisms in order to reach the final destination of a target item.
Deriving from this definition, we assume that for a user to navigate a menu system and to successfully find the target information is analogous to the behavior of finding the correct path that is predefined by the designer of the system. Therefore, we are interested in finding the facts of how users make correct decisions that leads to form the correct path and vice versa. Also, based on the facts that we expect to identify and discover, we hope to develop a mathematic model of this particular HCI based on the statistical probability of user behaviors that will provide reasonable parameters to help us design better interfaces and predict user performance in the future.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the user behaviors in menu-navigating tasks, and to examine whether the current psychometric functions of Two Alternative Forced Choice (2AFC) task, Theory of Signal Detectability (TSD) and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) can be applied to understand this particular phenomenon. I also propose to develop new or adjust current psychometric functions based on the performance data to be collected in order to answer the question whether users always apply rational rules (e.g. "ideal" Bayesian decision rule) for probability judgment or decision-making in menu-navigating tasks.
Attendance: 10
P. A-R. 2/29/2008
Time: Fri. 2/29, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: P. A-R.
Genre: Individual Studies
Topic and Abstract: Emotion Factors in Digital Library Project (Messages and Messangers)
Attendance: 14
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: P. A-R.
Genre: Individual Studies
Topic and Abstract: Emotion Factors in Digital Library Project (Messages and Messangers)
Attendance: 14
Friday, February 15, 2008
G. C. 2/22/2008
Time: Fri. 2/22, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: G. C.
Genre: Dissertation
Attendance: 13
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: G. C.
Genre: Dissertation
Topic and Abstract: The Design of Wayfinding
Affordance and its Influence on Presence and
Playfulness in Desktop Virtual Environments
For the past few years, virtual environments (VEs)
have gained broad attention from both scholarly and
practitioner communities. However, in spite of intense
and widespread efforts, most VE-related research has
focused on the technical aspects of applications, and
the necessary theoretical framework to assess the
quality of interfaces and designs has not yet been
fully developed. This research, as a response to such
challenges, concerns the usability of three
dimensional VEs. More specifically, this study aims to
investigate the effects of wayfinding affordance
design on users’ task performance and perceptual
experience in 3D desktop VEs.
For this purpose, four different wayfinding affordance
conditions were set up: fixed detached affordance
condition (FDAC), switchable detached affordance
condition (SDAC), portable embedded affordance
condition (PEAC) and fixed embedded affordance
condition (FEAC). Maps and directional cues were
employed to implement wayfinding affordance. The
results show that the design of wayfinding affordance
has significant effects on users’ perceptual
experience as well as their task performance. The
stable interfaces (FEAC and FDAC) were found to
provide a better sense of presence for the users
whereas the manipulative interfaces (PEAC and SDAC)
offered a greater state of playfulness. Task
performance was significantly better where the maps
and cues were provided independently from the VE
interfaces (FDAC and PDAC). The design of different
types of interfaces had a greater impact on non-expert
users than on expert users.
Attendance: 13
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Second Life Workshop
Second Life Workshop:
On-going Research and Learning in Second Life
Date: Friday, March 21, 2008
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Location: AVAYA Auditorium (ACE 2.302)
Info and Registration: http://www.utexas.edu/ogs/pdce/workshops/sl.html
On-going Research and Learning in Second Life
Date: Friday, March 21, 2008
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
Location: AVAYA Auditorium (ACE 2.302)
Info and Registration: http://www.utexas.edu/ogs/pdce/workshops/sl.html
Monday, February 11, 2008
T. N-H. 2/15/2008
Time: Fri. 2/15, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: T. N-H.
Genre: Dissertation
Topic and Abstract: Marginalia and Colophons-- Study of Slavic Manuscripts
Attendance: 10 with D. D.'s nice contribution of delicious sub-sandwiches from Jason's Deli.
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: T. N-H.
Genre: Dissertation
Topic and Abstract: Marginalia and Colophons-- Study of Slavic Manuscripts
Attendance: 10 with D. D.'s nice contribution of delicious sub-sandwiches from Jason's Deli.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
J. S. 2/8/2008
Time: Fri. 2/8, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: J. S.
Genre: Qualifying Paper
Topic and Abstract: Virtual World Study
Attendance: 16
PS, after the PhDBS session this Friday please come over to Scholz Garten for Happy Hour.
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: J. S.
Genre: Qualifying Paper
Topic and Abstract: Virtual World Study
Attendance: 16
PS, after the PhDBS session this Friday please come over to Scholz Garten for Happy Hour.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
L. H. 2/1/2008
The very first talk of PhDBS is right on this coming Friday. L. H. is going to talk about his dissertation topic. Everyone in the iSchool is invited. Please come and join the discussion!
Time: Fri. 2/1, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: L. H.
Genre: Dissertation
Topic and Abstract: Red Light Camera (RLC)
Attendance: 16
Time: Fri. 2/1, 1pm
Location: SZB 556
Speaker: L. H.
Genre: Dissertation
Topic and Abstract: Red Light Camera (RLC)
Attendance: 16
2008 Spring Schedule
2/1 L. H.
2/8 J. S.
2/15 T. N-H.
2/22 G. C.
2/29 P. A-R.
3/7 ASIS&T08' Pre-conference Panel, 1 - 2 pm at GSB 2.124 (no talk)
3/14 Spring break
3/21 Second Life Workshop, 10 a.m. - noon at ACE 2.302 (no talk)
3/28 S. C.
4/4 M. G.
4/11 D. H.
5/1 iSchool Doctoral Research Day, 8:30 am - 2 pm at SZB 556
4/18 ~ 4/25 open and TBA
Potential topics that have not yet been scheduled:
-Discussions in "degree progress and procedures"
2/8 J. S.
2/15 T. N-H.
2/22 G. C.
2/29 P. A-R.
3/7 ASIS&T08' Pre-conference Panel, 1 - 2 pm at GSB 2.124 (no talk)
3/14 Spring break
3/21 Second Life Workshop, 10 a.m. - noon at ACE 2.302 (no talk)
3/28 S. C.
4/4 M. G.
4/11 D. H.
5/1 iSchool Doctoral Research Day, 8:30 am - 2 pm at SZB 556
4/18 ~ 4/25 open and TBA
Potential topics that have not yet been scheduled:
-Discussions in "degree progress and procedures"
Founders
Those who were in the meeting on January 23rd, 2008 are all founders of this forum.
List your names if you would:
P. A-R.
C. B.
S. B.
D. D.
D. H.
G. H.
L. H. - Lance Hayden
R. H.
S. C. - Sheng-Cheng (Hans) Huang
B. M.
A. M. - Ann Minner
T. N-H.
C. O.
List your names if you would:
P. A-R.
C. B.
S. B.
D. D.
D. H.
G. H.
L. H. - Lance Hayden
R. H.
S. C. - Sheng-Cheng (Hans) Huang
B. M.
A. M. - Ann Minner
T. N-H.
C. O.
Welcome to PhDBS!
What is PhDBS?
We docsiders are doctoral students from the iSchool.
We decided to try a weekly mtg for a PhD Bull Session (and PhDBS sort of stuck) to be held on Fridays from 1-2 +-. It can be a forum for presenting research at any stage, discussing the mechanics of the program (presenting or submitting papers, annual reviews, etc) or a general discussion of a question. All docs are welcome and encouraged and faculty will be allowed as well. At the very least it will get some of us into the same space every once in awhile.
--A. M.
Basically, the plan is to have Friday get-togethers where we can have discussions, listen to faculty talk about research, or basically do things that we think are interesting.
--C. O.
We docsiders are doctoral students from the iSchool.
We decided to try a weekly mtg for a PhD Bull Session (and PhDBS sort of stuck) to be held on Fridays from 1-2 +-. It can be a forum for presenting research at any stage, discussing the mechanics of the program (presenting or submitting papers, annual reviews, etc) or a general discussion of a question. All docs are welcome and encouraged and faculty will be allowed as well. At the very least it will get some of us into the same space every once in awhile.
--A. M.
Basically, the plan is to have Friday get-togethers where we can have discussions, listen to faculty talk about research, or basically do things that we think are interesting.
--C. O.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)