Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme

Toggle table of contents sidebar

DDQ MON 2021-11-08

33. Supporting Evidence

33.1. Agenda

1. General Announcements

2. Discussion & Activity

Table 33.1 Assignments and Other Dates

Category	Item	Day	Date	Due
Note	Project Work Day	MON	11-22
Note	Project Work Day	TUE	11-23
Note	Holiday: Thanksgiving - No Class	THU	11-25
Exams	Exam 21	THU	12-02	11:55 PM
Note	Last Day of Class	MON	12-06
Note	Friday Class Schedule in Effect - No Class	TUE	12-07
Term Project	Milestone 4: Prototyping & Testing1	MON	12-13	11:55 PM

1(1,2)

As explained in the Exams section of the syllabus, the final milestone of your term project (i.e., Milestone 4: Prototyping & Testing) serves as your final examination in this course. Exam 2 is, therefore, a regular exam; it is not the final exam. The final term project milestone is considered a, “take-home final exam.”

3. Read the abstracts for upcoming papers that will be presented. You can, of course, read the entirety of a paper, if interested, but you need to read the abstract before the paper is presented so that you can provide good feedback to the presenter.

   Table 33.2 Upcoming Paper Presentations

   Date	Presenter	Paper
   MON 11-15	Yadav, Himani	Stefanie M. Faas, Johannes Kraus, Alexander Schoenhals, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Calibrating Pedestrians’ Trust in Automated Vehicles: Does an Intent Display in an External HMI Support Trust Calibration and Safe Crossing Behavior? Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 157, 1–17. DOI: 10.1145/3411764.3445738

   The full paper presentation schedule is available here and near the bottom of this page.

33.2. Activity

33.2.1. Motivation

[…] provide supporting evidence for any claims you make […]

evidence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a claim is valid.

supporting

(adjective) Serving to corroborate something.

supporting evidence

Evidence provided in an argument (i.e., a line of reasoning) to help corroborate the claim that is being argued.

statistical evidence

Evidence that summarizes a larger collection of evidence using some mathematical and/or statistical representation.

anecdotal evidence

Evidence that is an account of someone’s personal, casual, and non-systematic observations. Anecdoal evidence can be valid, but it’s considered weak unless statistical evidence suggests it holds for a representative sample of some target population.

fallacy

Faulty reasoning; a misleading or unsound argument. A fallacy is often characterized by a lack supporting evidence.

See also

Purdue OWL: Logical Fallacies

33.2.2. Breakout Groups

Important

RANDOMIZE: Please move around to different tables and form a random group for this activity. Each group should have no more than two people that are in the same term project team.

1. Quickly introduce yourselves to each other, if you don’t already know each other.

2. Pick a group representative. This person will be responsible for posting your breakout group’s response on Piazza before breakout group work ends for this activity.

3. Help your group representative respond to the following in a followup discussion to Piazza @95.

   1. List the names of your breakout group members.

   2. You breakout group should have students from multiple term project groups. Discuss some of the design decisions made in those term projects, and identify the following for each project:

      1. team name;

      2. one design decision where you think strong supporting evidence was provided; and

      3. one design decision where you think weak evidence was provided.

   3. Among the strong examples you identified, pick the design decision you think has the strongest supporting evidence, then describe why you think that. It’s okay for this to be informal.

   4. Among the weak examples you identified, pick the design decision you think has the weakest evidence, then describe why you think that. It’s okay for this to be informal.

   5. Provide supporting evidence for the design decision you picked as the weakest. If you can’t provide anything concrete, then identify the fallacy that the claim resembles the most, then provide a plan that outlines how you might address it and where you might look for the information you need.

   4. Look at and reply to the posts that other groups made.

33.2.3. After Breakout Groups

Duration: TBD

1. Look at some of the Piazza posts as a class.

33.2.4. After Class

1. Before 11:55PM today, individually comment on someone else’s followup discussion in Piazza @95.

   Comments

   Please keep the comments polite and constructive. In addition to whatever else you want to write, please comment on:

   • one or more aspects that you like or think is interesting; and

   • one or more aspects that you think needs improvement.

   As always, please be sure to provide a brief justification for each.

2. Continue reading the Design and Practicum modules, and make sure you’re aware of current assignments and their due dates.

3. Read the abstracts for upcoming papers that will be presented. You can, of course, read the entirety of a paper, if interested, but you need to read the abstract before the paper is presented so that you can provide good feedback to the presenter. Here is the presentation schedule for Fall 2021.

   Table 33.3 Fall 2021 Paper Presentation Schedule

   Date	Presenter	Paper
   MON 11-15	Yadav, Himani	Stefanie M. Faas, Johannes Kraus, Alexander Schoenhals, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Calibrating Pedestrians’ Trust in Automated Vehicles: Does an Intent Display in an External HMI Support Trust Calibration and Safe Crossing Behavior? Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 157, 1–17. DOI: 10.1145/3411764.3445738
   MON 11-29	Churaman, Tanya	Wonjung Kim, Seungchul Lee, Seonghoon Kim, Sungbin Jo, Chungkuk Yoo, Inseok Hwang, Seungwoo Kang, and Junehwa Song. 2020. Dyadic Mirror: Everyday Second-person Live-view for Empathetic Reflection upon Parent-child Interaction. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies. 4, 3, Article 86 (September 2020), 29 pages. DOI: 10.1145/3411815
   MON 11-29	Akin, Nicky	Karan Ahuja, Deval Shah, Sujeath Pareddy, Franceska Xhakaj, Amy Ogan, Yuvraj Agarwal, and Chris Harrison. 2021. Classroom Digital Twins with Instrumentation-Free Gaze Tracking. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 484, 1–9. DOI: 10.1145/3411764.3445711
   TUE 11-30	Harper, Daniel	Rebecca Currano, So Yeon Park, Dylan James Moore, Kent Lyons, and David Sirkin. 2021. Little Road Driving HUD: Heads-Up Display Complexity Influences Drivers’ Perceptions of Automated Vehicles. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 511, 1–15. DOI: 10.1145/3411764.3445575
   TUE 11-30	Suarez, Mathew	Stephen Uzor and Per Ola Kristensson. 2021. An Exploration of Freehand Crossing Selection in Head-Mounted Augmented Reality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). 28, 5, Article 33 (October 2021), 27 pages. DOI: 10.1145/3462546
   MON 12-06	Hamill, Daniel	Ziang Xiao, Michelle X. Zhou, Q. Vera Liao, Gloria Mark, Changyan Chi, Wenxi Chen, and Huahai Yang. 2020. Tell Me About Yourself: Using an AI-Powered Chatbot to Conduct Conversational Surveys with Open-ended Questions. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). 27, 3, Article 15 (June 2020), 37 pages. DOI: 10.1145/3381804
   MON 12-06	Wang, Yulong	Jakob Peintner, Maikol Funk Drechsler, Fabio Reway, Georg Seifert, Werner Huber, and Andreas Riener. 2021. Mixed Reality Environment for Complex Scenario Testing. In Mensch und Computer 2021 (MuC ‘21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 605–608. DOI: 10.1145/3473856.3474034