December 22nd, 2023

Paper

---

Resources on How to Write a Good HCI Paper

Catchy Titles Are Good: But Avoid Being Cute by Jacob O. Wobbrock

Jacob O. Wobbrock, Professor at the Information School, University of Washington, has written a guide on how to write a good paper using the ACM conference proceedings format.

A Tutorial on How to Write a Paper, inspired by S. Greenberg and J Galvan

Writing and reflecting on the Interactive System. Guidance for writing a good HCI paper, inspired by S. Greenberg and J Galvan.

Abstract

This document describes how a researcher should structure a report describing experiments in human computer interaction. The framework provided follows that of most scientific reports, where sections should: introduce the topic and problem; describe the experiment; note the key results obtained; discuss and interpret the results; and give concluding remarks. The document also indicates what archival records should be kept of the experiment.

1.Introduction

This section should give an overview of the general problem area, and should then focus on the particular problem you are going to investigate. Some things typically included in an introduction are:

○ general problem introduction and statement
○ review of experimental and commercial systems
○ discussion of the relevant literature (if any)
○ personal encounters with the problem
○ review of previous experiments
○ relevant psychological or other theories

2.Related Works

A literature review is not an annotated bibliography in which you summarize briefly each article that you have reviewed. While a summary of the what you have read is contained within the literature review, it goes well beyond merely summarizing professional literature. It focuses on a specific topic of interest to you and includes a critical analysis of the relationship among different works, and relating this research to your work. It may be written as a stand-alone paper or to provide a theoretical framework and rationale for a research study (such as a thesis or dissertation).

○ Step 2: Decide on a topic
○ Step 3: Identify the literature that you will review
○ Step 4: Analyze the literature
○ Step 5: Summarize the literature in table or concept map format
○ Step 6: Synthesize the literature prior to writing your review
○ Step 7: Writing the review (Galvan, 2006: 81-90)
○ Step 8: Developing a coherent essay (Galvan, 2006: 91-96)

3.System Design

This section should clearly describe technically the system that you have designed.

4.Evaluation (If you conducted one)

This section should clearly define the problem, describe the subjects and the materials required, indicate the methodology, and list any problems encountered. Depending upon your particular experiment, the subsections below might be best presented in a different order and you may add further subsections as needed.

4.1 Introduction and goals
Introduce your experiment, and give the reader the specific goals you expect it to address. It is common at this stage to give the reader a hint of your hypotheses (if they are not already hinted at in the Introduction).

4.2 Methods
This is a detailed description of the experiment that should allow other researchers to replicate your experiment.

4.2.1 Participants
Describe your participants (e.g., any relevant demographics, if/how they were divided into categories), including total number, and recruiting approach. Indicate if any incentives were used. Comment on the representativeness of your participants relative to the target population, if their representativeness isn’t immediately obvious.

4.2.2 Conditions
If your experiment is comparing multiple different interfaces or interactive systems or techniques, describe each of them. Screen snapshots of interfaces/systems are particularly useful.

4.2.3 Tasks
Briefly describe what participants were asked to do with the interactive system(s).

4.2.4 Design
Write the formal experimental design (e.g., a 2 x 3 mixed factorial design, more specifically a 2 levels of expertise (between subjects) x 3 interfaces (within subjects) design).

4.2.5 Procedure
Describe the sequence of activities each participant followed. This should document the experiment from a participant’s perspective.

4.2.6 Apparatus
Describe the physical setup of the experiment (e.g., where was it conducted, on what kind of equipment, etc.)

4.2.7 Independent and dependent variables
Include exactly how you intend to measure each dependent variable.

4.2.8 Hypotheses
Remember to state these in terms of the independent and dependent variables. If it is not immediately clear why you would have a certain hypothesis then include a brief explanation separate from but following the hypothesis. You do not need to state the null hypothesis.

5.Results (If you conducted an experiment/evaluation)

This section is an objective report on what the numbers show. You should not try to interpret the meaning of the numbers in this section. Some of the things you may do here are:

○ report means and standard deviations in neat tables
○ indicate the statistics used and levels of significance
○ include graphs, plots, histograms, etc that tell a story about the actual figures obtained

Only critical raw data and summary statistics should be included in the actual report. However, you must keep all your raw data in a separate archival report, should anyone (a reviewer in the case of real scientific reporting) need more detail than is provided in the paper.

6.Discussion

Interpret the results. Although you should still try to be as objective as possible, the discussion section should illuminate your critical thinking about the results. Explain what the statistics mean, account for anomalies, and so on.

6.1 Interpretation of results (possibly)
Discuss what you believe the results really mean. For example, if you find a significant difference for some effect, what does that mean to the hypothesis? Is the different seen an important one?

6.2 Relation to other works
How do the results you’ve obtained relate to other research findings?

6.3 Impact for practitioners
As computer scientists, we are particularly concerned with the implications of our findings on practitioners. Should existing interface constructs be designed differently or used in a new context? Do you have suggestions for new designs? How can the findings be generalized?

6.4 Critical reflection
Critical reflection is one of the key foundations of science. You should criticize your work (constructively, if possible), indicate possible flaws, mitigating circumstances, the limits to generalization, conditions under which you would expect your findings to be reversed, and so on.

6.5 Research agenda
The best experiments suggest new avenues of exploration. In this section, you should reflect and refine your hypotheses, describe new hypotheses, and suggest future research, ie research that you would do if you continued along this path.

7.Conclusions

Summarize the report, and speculate on what is to come.

8.References

This list should contain only papers that have been cited in text. Citations should be in a standard form, and should include all citation information.

REF: Galvan, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: a guide for students of the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.