[Gzz] address@hidden: ACM HT03: Paper Results] (buoyoing)

[Tuomas Lukka]

----- Forwarded message from Les Carr <address@hidden> -----

From: Les Carr <address@hidden>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 16:12:22 +0100
To: address@hidden
Subject: ACM HT03: Paper Results
X-Virus-Scanned-By: amavisd-milter at it.jyu.fi


I am sorry to inform you that your submission
        Buoys, break lines, and unique backgrounds: techniques for 
non-disruptive bidirectional spatial links
has not been chosen as a full paper for the ACM Hypertext 2003 conference. The 
procedures have been very thorough, and only 25% of the submissions were 
selected as full papers. Most papers were reviewed by 5 referees whose comments 
are attached below.

If you look at the Web site (www.ht03.org) you will see there are many 
categories of dissemination still available. You may wish to submit a version 
of your work in the form of a two-page Short paper, a four-page Technical 
Briefing, a Poster or a Demonstration (deadline for all categories 30th May).

The Program Committee is keen to see your work represented at the
conference in the following context:

*** The committee particularly felt that the work described in your
submission would make a compelling demonstration that would generate
a lot of interest. If you would be prepared to submit your work to
appear in the conference demo sessions, please email the Demo Chair
address@hidden as soon as possible.

*** The committee particularly felt that the results that you
describe would make an arresting poster. If you would be prepared
to submit a version of your work to appear in the conference poster
sessions, please email the Poster Chair address@hidden



Thank you for your interest in HT03: as you can see from the web site there are 
many opportunities still available. We are anticipating a lively conference and 
would value your participation.
---
Les Carr & Lynda Hardman
HT03 PC CoChairs

===================== REVIEWS ====================
REVIEWER SCORE: 6
***Comments to Authors
I like the way you create three different types of visual markers for different 
elements and functions of data-presentation & the way these metaphors fit (e.g. 
the break-lines).
I have a few issues, though - or points of interest where your audience might 
like to learn more:

- In the introduction, you mention webpages. In how far can your model work for 
webpages? Would it replace the browser or run in the browser window (like those 
JavaScript-based shifting-fucus "3D"-navigations that were fashionable a year 
or two ago)?

- What about users` learning curves? Having to learn a new navigation paradigm 
always means added stress at first and may create an exit point for new users. 
Do you have empirical data on user-reactions?

- How far can the unique backgrounds go? Color coding always poses a conceptual 
problem - because you run out of distinctive colors/ patterns and because they 
impose another learning curve. - Is this still non-disruptive?

- Where can you implement this model? Website-navigation, data-retrieval on the 
internet, on your local machine? How do you index data/ files, do you need an 
author who creates the links or does the tool crawl? Would the software be a 
permanent replacement of other retrieval tools (folder-structure)? 
                                    

***Summary Comments

                                    

--------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER SCORE: 6
***Comments to Authors
There is a deep and rich history of research surrounding annotation of digital 
documents, tackling many of the issues you have no doubt encountered with your 
buoys (and some you apparently have not anticipated). Look for author names 
Denoue, Golovchinsky, Wilensky, Brush, Bargeron, and Marshall.
                                    

***Summary Comments
This paper presents some interesting and useful in-situ context-preserving 
annotation and navigation UI techniques.
                                    

--------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER SCORE: 6
***Comments to Authors
This was a very exciting submission.  Although it might not be mature enough 
for a full paper at this conference I urge the author(s) to keep trying.  If it 
is not accepted (as a full or short article) at HT this year then you should 
try UIST or Document Engineering.

I hope to see a demonstration in Nottingham!


Here are some notes I jotted while reading the submission:

There is no reason whatsoeer to believe the explanation based on [20].  See 
McKendree et al.`s homeopathic fallacy article at 
<http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/208666.208687>.
However, innovative new interfaces don`t need to be rigorously justified before 
testing.

Clearly the user interface is intended for a particular (if not specialiazed) 
type of hypertext user.  It must be clear in the article who the target group 
is or what their makeup will be.  Everyone is familiar with the apparent 
paradox of spatial reasoning ability and success with hypertext.  This issue 
must be addressed if only in passing.

In section 2.2: if evidence is available (aboutthe amount of attention needed) 
then it should be presented.  It would help readers if the ideas presented in 
the article were placed in more context, for instance how do they relate to 
Polle Z.`s fluid annotations (as another method of dealing with *some* of the 
same issues)?

instead of ``improves recognizability`` would it be more correct to say it 
could promote more recognizability?

What are affine functions?  Did you mean affined?
                                    

***Summary Comments
new 3D interfaces for annotation style links

clearly designed with a particular subset of users in mind although the article 
does not say who they are

weak justification but an interesting design
                                    

--------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER SCORE: 3
***Comments to Authors
The biggest value of this paper is to implement a graphic system that displays 
a page of hypertext and related pages in non-mechanical way. The authors` idea 
is buoys and unique backgrounds. A buoy is a small area to display the part of 
the content of the related page like floating on the water. It gives a natural 
atmosphere to the user. Unique backgrounds is painting a buoy with a unique 
color to allow the user to specify the target buoy easily.

I understand that the authors implemented a sophisticated system to display 
hypertext in a natural way. I also understand the authors` efforts to display 
buoys without overlaps of buoys and prevention of the user`s focus. However I`m 
still not sure that each of these devices are really novel in the filed of 
visualization or human interface. Only proposing buoys and unique background 
colors as just an interesting display method is insufficient to present in this 
conference.
                                    

***Summary Comments

                                    

--------------------------------------------------------
***Comments to Authors
The overall rankings for this paper were 6,6,6,3,4 recalling that the ratings 
mean:

10/09 = Definitely accept (very high quality)
08/07 = Accept (good quality)
06/05 = Accept if room (marginal quality)
04/03 = Likely reject (low quality)
02/01 = Definitely reject (has no merit) 

As an attempt to provide a compelling 2.5D, animated, textured interface onto a 
hypertext world it clearly provoked interest. For 3 reviewers the work reported 
is enough to merit a cautious recommendation to `accept if room`, while 2 
others were less convinced. The consensus therefore is that there are some 
significant weaknesses in this as a full paper. 

The programme committee`s view was that this could make a good Technical 
Briefing paper - published in the proceedings and including a demonstration. 
Details will be announced shortly about the requirements for this category of 
contribution.

Specific points:

There was some confusion over the underlying Zig-Zag basis for the work, which 
although a central driver for your work, is somewhat secondary in this paper 
and not given enough room to properly explain with all its concepts and 
terminology. Is this an interface only relevant to hypertextual transclusion, 
or applicable to any domain where there is hypertext or annotation?

Contextualise it better to the wider work on annotation interfaces. Add earlier 
examples to ground it in the reader`s mind. Given that it`s a user interface 
project, start to plan solid studies that assess what support it adds for 
realistic user tasks compared to current UIs.

The detailed reviewer comments should also provide valuable feedback for the 
presentation and advancement of this work. It will help in the future to ensure 
quality layout of the document (no overflowing columns etc, and for such a rich 
interface, a companion web page with colour screenshots or even better a screen 
movie would be worth considering to communicate the work).

Simon Buckingham Shum
Assoc. Papers Chair
                                    

***Summary Comments

                                    

--------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER SCORE: 4
***Comments to Authors
This paper is concerned with novel user interface techniques that exploit 
modern graphics accelerators.  It certainly contains some interesting new 
ideas.  It also shows a good appreciation of the literature.  Nevertheless I do 
not recommend accepting it.

It is a hard task to describe a highly dynamic user interface using words and 
static monochrome figures.  This paper does not succeed in the task -- though 
it is by no means a hopeless failure.  A few SIMPLE and REAL examples early in 
the paper would help greatly (i.e. like Figure 1, but showing the new 
interface).  The only real screen dumps occur at the very end (Figure 7) and 
these are by no means simple.  An early example would, for instance, have made 
it clear that buoys are opaque (initially I had assumed they were see-through, 
though perhaps that was my mistake).  There is a textual description of an 
example in Section 4, but this too is complex and relies on an understanding of 
Xanalogical storage.  (I can understand the authors` desire to show the full 
capabilities of their system, but this goes too far, too fast.)

Another problem I have with the paper is that it is premature.  There is no 
description of any user testing at all: if you are describing a new interface 
it helps to have some evidence -- even if tenuous -- that users see some 
advantage in it.

Two detailed points:

(a) at a low level, there are problems with the rendering of the paper: in two 
cases the first column extends into the second and obscures it.

(b) it was unclear to me whether a fragment has to be textual (the first 
paragraph of 2.2 implies this).
                                    

***Summary Comments
Promising ideas, but the paper is hard to understand and there is no evidence 
that the ideas are usable in practice.
                                    

--------------------------------------------------------

----- End forwarded message -----