Sort multiple citatations in Latex by citation numbers June 19, 2010 mkljun ZPrivate: Conversations This content has restricted access, please type the password below and get access. Tags: crosstool paperemailplan Next Remote car key Previous Meeting with Alan 12:30 No Responses Comments1 Pingbacks0 Matjaz reply says: June 9, 2010 at 10:10 pm It took a while. I’ve been reading papers and making notes for tha last few days. So nothing new is happening. What about the meeting this week? On 5/31/10 10:24 PM, Alan Dix wrote: > 1. as we discussed I think you need a plan of something to do (data > collection, building or both) that adds data beyond the analysis of > literature done – in the calendar > 2. think of external human resources for you to tap into, doctoral > consortia, workshops, maybe a little later internship somewhere (Google, > Xerox, MS) for a few months (this depends on how fits with family of > course). done 🙂 we discussed it last time on skype. > BIG ISSUES > ========== > We talked about this last time, the core issues that you have focused on > are: > * linkage – for the human, whether or not expressed in the technological > system > * importance > * means of entering personal space automatic vs manual Yep .. Task collections (and mental links) form from various sources. Paper documents, scraps (artifacts you’d cal them :)) and their layouts (placeholders), digital documents and their folders, locations, then email, calendar entries, (IM)conversations, web pages (even conversations on forums). My question is how users think about their information in relation to a task. So not limited to desktop only. I hypothesize that self assessed subjective importance plays a critical role in a life of a task information collection. I also hypothesize that task collections are more dynamic and tend to change more quickly than PICs as they rely on users’ memory. The Q is what is “Self assessed subjective importance”. The list of factors in a paper was taken from literature and coined by me. MOre on this later. > Also critically you focus on the fact that the first two are dynamic, > changing over time > > There are various relations between these, and for some you have > hypotheses (e.g. that self creation tends to correlate with importance). > > So for each relation either: > > (a) there is potential relation but you don’t know what it is > (b) you believe you know the relation It’s more in between :). I think I know :). It has to be proven. > For (a) and (b) you may: > (i) not know of any data/support, but have not looked rigorously > (ii) have searched extensively and have not found data or support for > your views > Further for (b) you may: > (iii) have support in the literature > (iv) a strong logical argument for the view based on evidence/data For (iii) so far no luck in finding anything. There has been some prototypes build for managing tasks (Kaptelinin – UMEA, Bellotti – TaskMaster, TaskVista, Jones – Personal Project Planner). But nothing how task collections form and disappear. There are some other papers that argue about information fragmentation. > Fort example, in a few cases when we last talked there were things you > say, but don.t have (written at least) support from the literature > suggesting case (b.i) or (b.ii). Working on it. > OTHER DETAILED POINTS > ===================== > > > page 3, section 2.1, defns of personal information > as usual this is making me think not so much what is the ‘right’ > definition, but what are the attributes that underlie these different > positions. For Boardman it is more about ownership, or at least > possession of information, whereas for Jones and Teevan, it is about > ‘about-ness’ who the information is about, if it is about me it is > personal information. Maybe there are other attributes, for example, > information of a ‘personal’ nature? I’m not sure what you mean with “personal nature”. I thought about Jones’ classification of information into 6 groups and I can’t think af any other information that a person encounters which does not fall in one of these groups. When Boardman refers to PI he refers to one of the six Jones’ groups (information under direct control). > page 3, items and structure > I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before. If you think of bookmarks, > the URLs as ‘information items’ are hardly personal, it is the > collection of them that is personal One groups of “personal information” defined by Jones is information that I experienced (example is a book from a library I’ve read and can always go back and reread it). So a web page I visited and haven’t saved in my bookmarks can still be personal and be a part of a task collection I’m managing. > page 3, “PSI limited to a personal computer” > I know you prefer desktop things and for the purpose of this paper > looking at only PC PSI is fine. However, even if you retain a focus > primarily on the PC, I don’t think you can tenably restrict your idea > of PSI to the PC, as so much of people’s information is now elsewhere > on web sites and the cloud. I know :). But it will stay like this in the paper. Although the reserch was asking not about bookmarks, but about web pages – information stores on web. > page 9 where I noted it, but really about the whole paper > is there any sort of web portal with comprehensive review of PIM? > maybe Jones? > if not maybe we should start one?? What do you think about “Review”. I’m constantly updating my blog and a section is going to be something like Boardman’s page but more extended and categorized. And I’d ask other to collaborate on it (maybe wiki)? For now is just a regular html with few sections. > page 9, “we create a folder structure in advance…” > Azrina called this ‘prospective folder creation’ > http://www.hcibook.com/alan/papers/HCI2006-folder/ Cited :). It was tricky to add a poster to bibtex. I thought it would have an @ by itself. I just put it in the @mics category. > page 10/11, para bridging the pages > this is very close to a sort of model of the nature of importance and > this is emphasised both by the extracted bullets and also the italicised > text at the end of section 3.3. What is the model of nature of importance? Is there such a model I was searching (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=subjective+importance&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=1) for subjective importance and I can’t find anything related to giving a value to things. In the design of everyday things (norman) there’s explanation that things have certain subjective value but nothing much except that we care more about self created things and things we buy for memories (trumpery). Bergman has something in a paper User-subjective approach (http://www.tau.ac.il/education/homepg/ofer/Homepage/tusa.pdf). Other than that these four factors were extracted from various sources. > page 11, the bullet list of 4 factors > to what extent are these (a) common sense, (b) justified by data in > the literature, (c) defensible from theoretical argument I thought of asking someone from phychology department. And in the preliminary study asking people what makes the information important. In most of the papers it is only mentioned that information item was important to praticipants. But never what makes it important. At least I haven’t found any literature addressing this (Iportance <-> PIM). > page 12, top para, “no support for short-term notes or remarks” > really important point. it makes me think of those installation disks > or zip files, where instructions are created by using long file names > for empty files! There was another idea for a killerapp (let’s just call it this for now). Let’s say that users manage information of different format in different tools because they apply different managing techniques to each (cite Jones or Boardman). File is the most important hierarchy (cite the same and others). If I take an open source (like WinSCP) file manager and add drag and drop from a web browser to a Folder activity (a floating windows related to a folder) and let users stick notes to it (See attached image)? And then have a file manager to manage links (fight fragmentation) and tasks? Folder activities window is unique for each folder (just reading a hidden txt file in a folder). It could be closed (only title bar hanging from the top of the window). Due dates could be aggregated together from several folders … And then it could data-mine text for dates, places, etc. and link those to google calendar or something similar. > page 12, 2nd para from end (in itals) > “burden … across tools …” > In fact little support even within tools! For files, a small folder > could be seen as creating a link between contents, but even large > folders is quite diffuse as a ‘link’. As soon as items are in different > folders for some reasons no linkage possible (except maybe aliases) > > page 13, first big para of 4.1, user study > People may be happier to give data if instead of simply a questionnaire, > they had something that offered them some functionality > This is what Richard B did, but it was always disappointing that he had > not got suitable permissions to re-use the data gathered. See above. > page 16, 2nd para and table 1. > text in the para says “of 24 created files … important 15 days … > but table has max days at 14. Corrected. > page 16, 2nd para from end > I’d guess device would make a difference, e.g. iPhone is mostly about > viewing and poor at creating > > page 16, last para, last 2 lines > I was wondering whether the cross folder semantic links are persistent > ones, or more dynamic Should I mentioned this? > page 17, email importance > it would be fascinating to know how well ratings of importance > correlate with actual future use Let’s leave that for a study. > page 18, 4th para., “The same web site was often marked as created, > found and received …” > Are these things like blog with comments, or multi-author wiki? more like news sites (comments). One was a footbal club site. I thought that users are sometimes searching for a specific news, sometimes leave comment to a news and sometimes they might receive a link in an email from the same site (if they are following it with friends together). But I don’t have this data. It would be interesting how users assess information on such sites? Is such a site a collaborative work (crowdsourcing)? > page 18, 3rd para from end, > “none of them were social networking sites” > Given heavy usage data for social networking this is surprising. > Two reasons spring to mind (i) your uses are not typical (maybe > nerdy types?) or (ii) participants do not think of social networking > sites as ‘web’ sites? Not really sure. > page 19, 2nd full para, lack of long-term projects. > If you can create a suitable instrument to gather more data, then it > will be interesting to see whether this applies to PhD students! I can add that as a part of the research :). lp mk > ============= END ================ > 01_prvo_okno.png Reply Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.