Clare J. Hooper

Web science and the two (hundred) cultures: representation of disciplines publishing in web science

Web Science is an interdisciplinary field. Motivated by the unforeseen scale and impact of the web, it addresses web-related research questions in a holistic manner, incorporating epistemologies from a broad set of disciplines. There has been ongoing discussion about which disciplines are more or less present in the community, and about defining Web Science itself: there is, however, a dearth of empirical work in this area. This paper presents an analysis of the presence of different disciplines in Web Science. We applied Natural Language Processing and topic extraction to a corpus of Web Science material, analysing it with graphing and visualisation tools, MatLab and an expert survey. We discovered four communities within Web Science, and trends in the conference series over time (a strong impact from collocation) and format (posters covering a broader range of topics than papers). The expert survey linked highly ranked terms with disciplines, yielding strong links with Communication, Computer Science, Psychology, and Sociology. Controversially, experts described highly ranked topics and suggested disciplines (extracted from WebSci CFPs) as not reflecting the nature of Web Science.

Research-practice interaction: building bridges, closing the gap

Previous work in the CHI community has identified and explored gaps between theory and practice in HCI research [2]. The recently formed SIGCHI Community on Research-Practice Interaction aims to help bridge the gap between research and practice, by for example supporting practitioner-friendly dissemination of results, and serving as a conduit for feedback from practitioners to researchers. This SIG is an opportunity for interested CHI attendees to meet members of the SIGCHI RPI community, and engage in discussions on RPI issues including the CHI format, dissemination of results, and supporting practice-based research

Web science and human-computer interaction: forming a mutually supportive relationship

Human-computer interaction (HCI), as readers of this magazine well know, is the study of the issues that arise when people encounter computer-based technology, and how this understanding can aid in the design of better technology. Like Web Science, HCI is radically interdisciplinary; indeed, the second author’s HCI textbook describes the “ideal” designer as having expertise including: psychology, cognitive science, ergonomics, sociology, computer science, engineering, business, graphic design, and technical writing. Many of these areas are found in the Web Science butterfly, notably computer science and psychology, which have traditionally been at the heart of HCI. However, some are missing. Based on this list and the kinds of topics found in HCI conferences and journals, Figure 3 adds some areas to the Web Science butterfly. Some of these added areas are relatively minor within HCI, and so Figure 4 shows a heat map of the principle and secondary areas (based on subjecWeb Science is motivated by the complexity of the relationship between society and the Web. The Web is much more than the sum of its parts, and Web Science helps us understand the complex multiplicity of sociotechnical interactions—both micro and macro—enabled by the Web and the millions who contribute to it. That understanding helps us make informed decisions, whether we’re discussing government policy, infrastructures, and standards, or trying to understand the ways in which online social networks fail to support the richness and dynamism of human relations. We can gain some initial insight into the scope of Web Science by examining the “Web Science butterfly” (Figure 1), a diagram used to illustrate its relevant disciplines when Web Science was first proposed [1]. Figure 2 is a “heat map” of the butterfly [2], created by analyzing papers from the Web Science conferences from 2009 to 2011 for topics that were clearly related to certain disciplines. As can be seen, some disciplines such as AI and sociology were strongly HCI and Web Science are interdisciplinary fields concerned with the intersection of people and technology. So how do they relate? What defines these fields, how do they overlap, and do they tread on each other’s toes? More pertinently, what strengths do they share? How might they benefit each other? Defining the precise boundaries of interdisciplinary fields is an impossible task. The Web Science community is youthful, still consolidating its identity, and at times prone to questioning its own definition. By contrast, HCI is an established field, but like all active research fields, it is constantly evolving.

Towards designing more effective systems by understanding user experiences

This work is about social technologies, user experiences and the problems of creative design. It is motivated by a desire to give people who are offline --- whether for reasons of poverty, disability, infrastructure or cultural background --- the access to social technologies that is currently provided via the web, letting them access the online content and communication facilities that so many of us take for granted. There exist simple technologically-oriented approaches to this problem, such as identifying functional requirements and prototyping tools. This focus on technology, however, comes at a cost of neglecting the experiential aspects which motivate the work, and can result in systems that are functional but unappealing to (or even unusable by) their target audiences.

The StorySpinner sculptural reader

This demo is of a hypertext reading system called StorySpinner. It follows the sculptural hypertext methodology and has been used as a test bed for experimenting with the authoring of narrative flow in automatically generated stories. Readers are able to select and read one of two available stories. Reading a story involves selecting tarot cards which are mapped to chunks of story text based on possible interpretations of the cards and information concerning current story state.

TimeBanking: towards a co-produced solution for power and money issues in inclusive research

Abstract This paper explores the potential of an online TimeBank for inclusive research to address some of the challenges related to the unequal distribution of power and money for researchers within and outside the academy working in collaboration. The problem, the concept of TimeBanking, and the relationship of TimeBanking to inclusive research principles are explained. The case is made for developing an online TimeBank for inclusive research, and an account is given of initial co-production of a prototype by an English interdisciplinary academic team and a Welsh workers cooperative set up and run by people with and without learning disabilities aiming to make public life more inclusive. The paper concludes that, while the concept is some way from becoming a reality, a hybrid digital-physical TimeBank, if accessible and flexible enough to attract usage, has potential for supporting democratised, inclusive research in practice.

Building a Social Machine: Co-designing a TimeBank for Inclusive Research

This paper discusses the construction of a Social Machine, a socio-technical system in which people achieve new, creative goals enabled by automated processes that are handled by technology. Specifically, the Social Machine is an online TimeBank, a time-based way for people to give and receive services; it is designed for use in the context of inclusive research (initially) with people with learning disabilities. We describe the use of physical and digital (online) focus groups to gather inputs to drive the construction of the TimeBank, and the processes by which we analysed the data to inform the design of the TimeBank. Our goal is to create an online community with a sense of connectedness, and we discuss this work through that lens, presenting insights gained towards: building the TimeBank itself; methodological implications of related but separate physical and digital focus groups; and building Social Machines.

TAPT and contextmapping: understanding how we understand experience

Teasing Apart, Piecing Together (TAPT) and Contextmapping (CM) are cross-disciplinary methods for understanding peoples experiences, in order to build better products and services. Whereas TAPT concerns deconstructing and reconstructing experiences, CM is a method for accessing laypeoples tacit knowledge to support design. This article describes these methods, which have been used in domains including the humanities, software engineering, and industrial design. It describes a small comparative evaluation that explores the types of insight yielded by each method, and the contexts of use in which each method is suitable. Eight students worked in pairs on two design tasks, producing designs, responding to questionnaires, and participating in a group discussion. The design tasks were built to further the research of the second author, who assessed the designs in this context. Initial results showed that both methods were suitable for use, but that TAPT was better at dealing with emotional and social aspects of experience, and was faster and easier to use: TAPT was arguably better suited to the tasks. This study demonstrates a suitable approach for comparing design methods, and lets us identify the more important research questions about the use of TAPT and CM. The designs that our participants produced can be used in a future study to garner more insights, particularly about how informative and inspirational method outputs are. The strongest factors when deciding which method to use appear to be whether there is a desired focus on emotional and social facets, and the time available to apply the method.

AnnAnn and AnnAnn.Net: Tools for Teaching Programming

It is difficult for a student to learn about programs and to understand the rational that went into the development of the parts that led to the whole. Tools for explaining this essentially dynamic process are limited and typically static in nature, making it difficult for students to understand how it was developed, or where to start. This paper presents AnnAnn.Net, an animated code annotator which makes it possible to present the incremental development of code to large groups or for self study. The tool is designed for ease of use by both lecturers and students. The implementation and the ration for which are described in detail. The design of the system is underpinned by a sound pedagogical approach and these are discussed, along with the educational benefits of this approach are examined.

A Villain's Guide To Social Media And Web Science

If we have not yet achieved planetary super-villainy on the desktop, it may be feasible to fit it into a suburban office suite. Social media and Web science permit the modern villain to deploy traditional cruelties to great and surprising effect. Because the impact of villainous techniques is radically asymmetric, our fetid plots are difficult and costly to foil.