Post on 27-Jan-2015
description
#mume13Les 2
Erik DuvalDept. Computerwetenschappen
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~erikd/1
http
://ar
iadn
e.cs
.kul
euve
n.be
/wik
i/ind
ex.p
hp/M
M-C
ours
e131
4
2
nieuwe studenten?nieuwe groepen?
3
1. recap2. data3. explore4. share5. wrap-up
4
assignment clear?
5
lessons learned?what was hard/easy?
what did you (dis)like about d3.js?no interactivity?
comments on blogs?
6
http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20130930_00766773 7
http://vimeo.com/75043122
can be beautiful too..
9
1. recap2. data3. explore4. share5. wrap-up
10
data structure?
11
- graphs, networks- hierarchies, trees- text- time series- geo
12
when: temporalwhere: geospatialwhat: topicalwith: trees, networks
13http://ivmooc.cns.iu.edu
14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQpTM7ASc-w
27
http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/ase/ 28
J. Bollen, H. Van de Sompel, A. Hagberg, L. Bettencourt, R. Chute, M. A. Rodriguez, and L. Balakireva. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PloS one, 4(3):e4803, Mar. 2009.
are just by visually looking for the largest number of con-nected nodes. These larger clusters can be a first indicationof where high profile authors are located. However, in thisstate, neither the names of the authors nor the titles of thepapers are visible yet.
When the user wants to look into more details, he can zoomin to a specific part of the publication space. This is whatFigure 3 depicts. The author names become clearly visible,so that the user can identify a particular author. The usercan also click on paper nodes to get more information on thepaper. To make it easier to identify which authors are moreprolific in the field, the node size of the author is directlyproportional to his number of publications. In Figure 3, forexample, author Martin Wolpers has the largest number ofpublications and is a good candidate to use as a landmarkin the exploration process.
4. EVALUATIONIn this section, we describe how we have evaluated our firstiteration. Subsections 4.1 and 4.2 elaborate on the setupof the evaluation. Subsection 4.3 discusses the results ofthe evaluation and finally, in subsection 4.4, we draw ourconclusions from this evaluation.
4.1 DescriptionTo evaluate the application, we deployed our tabletop in themain hall of the ECTEL 2010 conference [42]. This roomwas the main location for co�ee breaks and figure 4 illus-trates the tabletop setup.The evaluation was conceived as a formative evaluation, inorder to gather feedback on the design and implementationof the application from real users in a real life scenario. Wefollowed the think aloud method, where the participantsverbally describe their thoughts during the evaluation. Inthis way, the participants reveal their view on the systemand possibly their misconceptions [28]. It started o� withgeneral questions (age, gender, profession, vision and leftor right handed) about the participants together with theirbackgrounds. The participants were introduced to the ap-plication by asking them if they could explain what theysaw. We also asked them one basic content-related ques-tion to get them started: “Find author x and find out howmany papers he wrote in ECTEL 2007”. When needed, theparticipants were given extra explanation about the appli-cation. After this, the evaluation continued with tasks theyhad to perform. For each task, we noted whether the tasksucceeded, how fluently the task was performed and whetherthe participant needed help or not. Finally, the participantswere asked for some general feedback and they filled in asmall questionnaire about usefulness and ease of use. Eachevaluation took between 20 and 30 minutes.
4.2 ParticipantsThere was a total of 11 participants, aged between 27 and 60.All participants were researchers, right handed and all butone had corrected vision. Only 3 of the participants con-sidered that they had a bit of experience with multitouchinteraction, the other 8 said they had a lot of experience.Regarding experience towards tabletops or multitouch wallshowever, only one person described himself as experienced.To find out how experienced the participants were in the
Figure 4: Setting of the evaluation.
Figure 5: An overview of the number of papers theparticipants have written
research area, they were asked about their years of experi-ence in the Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) researcharea, the number of papers published and how many of thempublished in TEL. Half of the participants claimed to haveup to 3 years of experience and the other half claimed tohave many years of experience. On average, the partici-pants have published around 32 papers, from which 16 inthe TEL area. Three participants have published more than60 papers, from which 20 or more in the TEL area. Fig-ure 5 shows in detail the number of published papers perparticipant.
4.3 ResultsIn this section, we describe the results of the evaluation.These results are grouped in three parts. First, we reporton the tasks the participants had to perform, second, wesummarize the most important feedback, and third, we takea look at the results from the questionnaire.
4.3.1 Tasks
Vandeputte, Bram; Duval, Erik; Klerkx, Joris. Applying design principles in authorship networks - a case study, CHI2012, Austin, TX, USA, 5-10 May 2012, CHI EA '12: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pages 741-744, ACM
ResearchTable
31
33
learning analytics
Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Duval, E., Pardo, A.: The student activity meter for awareness and self-reflection. In: CHI2012, 869–884
Govaerts, S., Verbert, K., Duval, E., Pardo, A.: The student activity meter for awareness and self-reflection. In: Proceedings of CHI2012, ACM (2012) 869–884
38
http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/09/kno-launches-kno-me-interactive-textbook-metrics-lets-you-stu/
39
http
://w
ww
.cou
rses
mar
t.com
/go/
inst
itutio
ns/a
naly
tics
40
http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Analytics/Products/Blackboard-Analytics-for-Learn.aspx
navi-hci.appspot.com
17 September 2013 | @svencharleer | svencharleer.com
8 May 2013 | @svencharleer | svencharleer.com17 September 2013 | @svencharleer | svencharleer.com
J. Santos, S. Charleer, G. Parra, J. Klerkx, E. Duval, and K. Verbert. Evaluating the use of open badges in an open learning environment. In D. Hernandez-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, and A. Harrer, editors, Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact, volume 8095 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 314–327. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013.
17 September 2013 | @svencharleer | svencharleer.com
17 September 2013 | @svencharleer | svencharleer.com
Khaled Bachour, Frederic Kaplan, Pierre Dillenbourg, "An Interac:ve Table for Suppor:ng Par:cipa:on Balance in Face-‐to-‐Face Collabora:ve Learning," IEEE Transac:ons on Learning Technologies, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 203-‐213, July-‐September, 2010
open=
opportunity for innovation
53
54
55
56
57
contests...
63
http://www.visualizing.org/marathon2012/recap#winners
tell a story...
1. recap2. data3. explore4. share5. wrap-up
68
what kind of data?what do you want? what is available?
what kind of story?what kind of visualization?
69
:-) excel :-(
http://vis.stanford.edu/wrangler/
http://square.github.io/crossfilter/
1. recap2. data3. explore4. share5. wrap-up
74
1. recap2. data3. explore4. share5. wrap-up
75
task for next week
scenariointeractify d3.js app
wetenschappelijk paper76
?@ErikDuval
hOp://erikduval.wordpress.com77