[Gzz-commits] manuscripts/xupdf review short-paper.rst

[Tuomas J. Lukka]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/gzz
Module name:    manuscripts
Changes by:     Tuomas J. Lukka <address@hidden>        03/05/06 23:52:04

Modified files:
        xupdf          : review short-paper.rst 

Log message:
        understandingreviews

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/xupdf/review.diff?tr1=1.1&tr2=1.2&r1=text&r2=text
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/gzz/manuscripts/xupdf/short-paper.rst.diff?tr1=1.1&tr2=1.2&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: manuscripts/xupdf/review
diff -u manuscripts/xupdf/review:1.1 manuscripts/xupdf/review:1.2
--- manuscripts/xupdf/review:1.1        Sat May  3 09:42:31 2003
+++ manuscripts/xupdf/review    Tue May  6 23:52:04 2003
@@ -1,3 +1,142 @@
+
+The answers needed by referees:
+
+1:
+
+- 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?
+
+    COMMENT: Important, fundamental misunderstanding of unique backgrounds...
+    need to be clearer.
+
+- 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)?
+
+2:
+
+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.
+
+3:
+
+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?
+                                   
+4:
+
+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.
+
+5:
+
+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).
+
+
+
+Assoc. Papers Chair:
+
+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).
+
+
+
+
+
+
 From address@hidden  Mon Apr  7 19:12:08 2003
 Return-Path: <address@hidden>
 Received: from uudestaan.iki.fi (uudestaan.iki.fi [212.16.100.1])
Index: manuscripts/xupdf/short-paper.rst
diff -u manuscripts/xupdf/short-paper.rst:1.1 
manuscripts/xupdf/short-paper.rst:1.2
--- manuscripts/xupdf/short-paper.rst:1.1       Sat May  3 09:42:53 2003
+++ manuscripts/xupdf/short-paper.rst   Tue May  6 23:52:04 2003
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 
 .. short paper == 2 pages, deadline the end of May
 
+.. 
+
 Abstract
 ========