Research

Scientists, please share your data!

A step towards publication-sharing: scientists must embrace a culture of sharing and rethink their vision of databases, a great article in Nature. I fully conccur with the vision presented here. The point is that research can be empowered by webservices in multiple ways. This idea is well described with this excerpts:

Web tools now allow data sharing and informal debate to take place alongside published papers. But to take full advantage, scientists must embrace a culture of sharing and rethink their vision of databases.

Upload and share your raw data, and have a high impact factor for your blog — or perish? That day has not yet come, but web technologies, from personal publishing tools such as blogs to electronic laboratory notebooks, are pushing the character of the web from that of a large library towards providing a user-driven collaborative workspace

Why do I blog this? This shows that a revolution is happening: from publication to data-sharing, the scientific practices can be fully reshaped to be more efficient, less lab-centered and is based on 'networked collaboration' ideas. Of course there are some limits:

As web services empower researchers, the biggest obstacle to fulfilling such visions will be cultural. Scientific competitiveness will always be with us. But developing meaningful credit for those who share their data is essential, to encourage the diversity of means by which researchers can now contribute to the global academy.

Current trends in mobile learning

Plenty of systems are presented at the Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education Conference. I don't know if had to refer to them by 'current' or 'future' trends (it's 'current' for academics but certainly 'future' for practitioners though some teachers already use them). Current (future?) trends:

  • student ID constructed using a cell-phone (Kobayashi et al., 2005)
  • augmenting class-rooms with a digital pen and RFID tags (Miura et al., 2005)
  • an intelligent tutoring system that adapts to location-related features (as well tolearner knowledge and to time available for study) (Bull et al, 2005)
  • Using SMS for quizzes (Tretiakov et al., 2005) which gave a good user acceptance.
  • PDA used as a remote-control lab (wu et al., 2005)
  • An interactive logbook to support learning across institutions/workplaces (Chan et al, 2005)
  • Using mixed reality simulations to embed tangible interactions in order to create relevant metaphot, for instance to explain astronomy (Eisen et al., 2005)
  • Dual-device architecture for learning using both cell phone and interactive television (Fallakhair et al., 2005)
  • Using wireless devices as response devices/polls (Chen et al., 2005)
  • Handheld and large-display groupware (Liu et al., 2005)
  • Using PDAs for speech testin g(Yang et al., 2005) (Uther et al., 2005)
  • Usage of lifeblog in mobile learning: recording aspects of living on a blog, by mobile phones (Hartnell-Young and Vetere., 2005))
  • Course-management, student-support or mobile access to course material through cell-phone (Houser and Thornton, 2005) (Riordan and Traxler, 2005) (Mermelstein and Tal, 2005)
  • Usage of computationaly-enhanced construction kit to teach programming (Buechley et al., 2005)
  • Usage of a programmable set of construction kit for teaching (Elumeze et al., 2005
  • Using RFID for digital library infrastructure (Morales-Salcedo et al., 2005)
  • Usage of camera-phones to create a large repository of multimedia information (connected with location and context information through visual codes) (Mitchell and Race, 2005)

Of course all are not interesting or relevant, I just wanted to give an overview of the picture. The conference also had papers that concerned systems evaluation.

Interacting with Computers Journal: call for paper about computer games

CALL FOR PAPERS: INTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS JOURNAL, Special Issue of Interacting with Computers on “HCI Issues in Computer Games”:

Computer Games are at the forefront of technological innovation and their popularity in research is also increasing. Their wide presence and use makes Computer Games a major factor affecting the way people socialize, learn and possibly work. Computer Games are also beginning to attract the attention of educators and education technologists.

With this special issue of Interacting with Computers we wish to explore the relationship between Computer Games and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI). Are current HCI techniques and methodologies appropriate for designing Computer Games? Do we need new Computer Game focused HCI methods, theories and paradigms? What are the new challenges when it comes to evaluating Computer Games?

Potential topics include (but are not limited to) the following:

* Design approaches and techniques suitable for Computer Games * Usability studies regarding Computer Games * Theoretical and/or pedagogical foundations for analysing Computer Games * Within-game and/or out-game activities and their HCI analysis * Computer Games and Online Communities * Social and Cultural Issues and Computer Games * Accessibility of Computer Games * Transfer of gaming metaphors to business applications

IwC special issues contain only 5 - 6 papers, each of no more than 10,000 words (so acceptance will be fairly selective). Papers should be submitted through the manuscript management system at http://ees.elsevier.com/iwc/ by the 10th of April 2006.

Why do I blog this? we may submit something here.

Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education Conference

Here are my running notes of the Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education Conference.

paper repartition: asia 46% europe: 25% US: 15%

acceptance rates: a total of 84 submissions were received from 22 countries. 10 papers were accepted in full paper (with acceptance rate of 11.9%), 22 papers in short paper, and 34 papers in poster category. The accepted papers represent 19 countries from all over the world."

Switerzland is doing very well since their 2 papers has been accepted. :) though both presenters are not swiss... maybe that's a sign of a wealthy country with good R&D structures (european brain drain?).

WMTE 2005 conference room

Off to Wireless and Mobile Technologies In Education Conference

Tomorrow I go to Wireless and Mobile Technologies In Education Conference in Tokushima, Japan. I'm going to present our study about CatchBob!. It will be a summary of this paper: Nova, N., Girardin, F. & Dillenbourg, P.: ‘Location is not enough!’: an Empirical Study of Location-Awareness in Mobile Collaboration (.pdf). Full paper for IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Tokushima, Japan.

My slides are here (.pdf).

Wayfinding, GPS and social navigation

I really enjoy reading Jan's blog (future perfect). The author at the 'User Experience Group' at Nokia Research. Posts are very insightful and relevant to my research/interests. Today he posted a short account about wayfinding which I found SO RIGHT:

Jan actually comments this picture by saying: "Mobile with GPS and map application. So you want to make a map reference in a hurry? "It's easier to just ask someone" In many instances so it is".

Why do I blog this? I definitely agree with him, when lost and being immersed in a social environment, the most common solution is not take your ten-thousand-features gizmophone but rather to ask people next to you OR to find sign/cues in the environment that may make sense to find the solution. (This is called social navigation = footprints in the snow). Note: I don't say that the GPS is not useful but, rather, that it's more common for people to rely on others (present or not in the physical space).

A relevant resource about it: Dourish, P. & Chalmers, M. (1994). Running out of space: models of information navigation. Proceedings of HCI'94, Glasgow, August 1994.

Connected pasta: Russel also tackles this issue with his perspective. Worth to have a look!

Seamful design for location-based phone games

Seamful Design for Location-Based Mobile Games by Gregor Broll and Steve Benford. The article is about revealing and exploiting inevitable technical limitations in Ubiquitous Computing technology rather than hiding them. Relying ont their experiment about the game called 'Bill' (see here to get more information about it). To meet this end, they develop their own "seamful trading-game" called “Tycoon”:

Tycoon is a location-based multiplayer trading game with a simple producer-consumer-cycle that uses the different GSM-cells of a service provider network within a designated gaming-area, e. g. the centre of a city. Each of these cells in the physical area is virtually mapped to either a producer or a consumer in the game. Tycoon uses the metaphor of a wild west scenario to communicate its central mechanisms of collecting resources from producers which are called “mines” and using them to buy objects from consumers which are called “brokers” and have the names of cities or counties in California. These cells are called “brokers” because they sell objects in their areas in exchange for collected resources. While playing the game, players are travelling between the cells in the gaming-area, collect local resources in mines, use them to buy global objects from brokers and get credits for claiming them. (...) players start Tycoon by having to explore the gaming-area and discover mines, brokers and their locations by themselves. That way the players can gather their own knowledge about the gaming-area, where to find resources and where to claim objects.

Why do I blog this The pertinent point here is the discussion about understanding seams in mobile phone applications. The authors introduces general ideas and apply them to the design of location-aware games for mobile phones. This sort of stuff is of direct interest for some 4th place admirer in Barcelona

Usually mobile phone users are unaware of their current cell when using their phones, since the handover between different cells is handled seamlessly. (...) The invisible handover between cells is handled seamlessly so that users don’t get any information about their current cell and don’t have to worry about their position, dynamic cell coverage and propagation or flipping cells. While seamless design usually hides this information, we would like to present it to players and make them aware of this information so that they can take advantage of it during the game and use it as a valuable resource. In a location-based mobile game players are dependent on knowing where they are and dynamic boundaries and propagation of cells may raise interesting design-issues concerning the influence of positions and relations between GSM-cells on the behaviour of the users during the game.

There is a lot more to grasp in this paper for people interested in how interaction designers focused on cell phones/LBS could take advantage of seams.

The picture below depicts coverage and propagation of GSM-cells in an area of London based on samples of cell-ids and their GPS-positions. Their coverage is depending on many factors, cells’ boundaries and propagation are rather dynamic and fluctuating and it shows, cell-coverage has irregular shapes and adjoining cells often overlap and don’t share exact borders. Seamful design is a matter of showing this to the users, using is as a resource for the task to be performed (extracted from the paper):

GPS devices usability

Via Usability News, Usability of GPS Receivers in a Sporting Environment by Rodney Sloan and Jacques Hugo(Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria):

In spite of the growing popularity of GPS, there are many usability issues to be addressed. (...) We looked at learnability and discovered that many GPS devices did not include even simple help menus. As we all know, most users read a manual only as a last resort! Most of us expect the device itself to answer our 'how to' questions. (...) the input systems employed had a low utility as it takes a significant amount of time to input data into the device. (...) In terms of personal safety to the user, giving attention to the device while performing specific tasks may be hazardous in the same way as driving a car while talking on a cell phone (...) What is not easy to memorise though is the data stored on the device, particularly waypoints, which could become confusing with large sets of data.(...) Knowledge of the buttons and controls for a specific device is needed, as is knowledge of the display. The user also needs a basic technical understanding of how the device functions. For example, it is important to understand how the GPS receives satellite signals and how it calculates the heading of the user. In field studies, users who did not understand these points became frustrated and complained that the device was not working properly.

I think ths most interesting critique is this one:

Most conventional GPS receivers are specifically built for the outdoors, with waterproof sealing and sturdy, drop-resistant design. These features suggest that the designers have taken some of the things the user will typically have to face into consideration. However, much more attention should be paid to the context of use, which includes a closer look at the variety of environments, specific user tasks and interaction modalities.

Journal of HCI CFP: In-Use, In-Situ: Extending Field Research Methods

A call for paper that seems to be relevant for our research domain at the lab: In-Use, In-Situ: Extending Field Research Methods – Special Issue of the International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. Submission deadline: 10 February 2006

Human-technology evaluation paradigms differ substantially as to whether, for example, they employ high fidelity scenarios and real users, or whether technologies are instead evaluated "analytically" by non-experts. These different evaluations usually happen before the artefacts are introduced into the "real" world, and then often that is also where evaluation ceases. This seems a serious limitation, missing an opportunity to understand and evaluate how designed artefacts actually function when used in the intended context such as a complex critical workplaces or a domestic, leisure-focused settings. Such contexts, where novel technologies meet complex activity, present new challenges in anticipating how technology will be used in practice. Evaluation and re-design should be underpinned by an understanding of what do people do with the technology and how they adapt it or accommodate it into their work practices to make the technology work or work better for them.

What is the state of the art in the methods and techniques available for such evaluations? And perhaps more interestingly, what can or has been done to advance the state of research and evaluation paradigms for studying the cognitive, social and cultural impact of technology that is in-use and in-situ? This special issue invites papers that explore the state of the art in field research, experimental work, and other methods and concepts relevant to designing and evaluating technology ‘in-use, in-situ’. The aim of the issue is to identify gaps and problems for the development of evaluation and design methodology. Researchers from domains spanning the social and computing sciences, engineering, design, humanities, sciences, are encouraged share their experiences and perspectives, and reflect on the fundamentals of complex socio-technical systems and human-centred technology.

For details of how to submit see here.

Why do I blog this? this is the kind of journal paper we may work on, since we're using field studies to investigate various context-aware research projects.

Extending the CSCW boundaries to games

One of the most interesting journal paper I've read for months is this Moving with the Times: IT Research and the Boundaries of CSCW by Andy Crabtree, Tom Rodden and Steve Benford, in Journal of CSCW, Issue: Volume 14, Number 3 (June 2005), pp. 217 - 251. The authors advocates for extending the boundaries of Computer Supported Collaborative Work to fit with new research agendas in computer science: mobile/ambient/pervasive/mixed reality/ubiquitous computing and to correspond to the movement which makes computing going from workplaces to other "spaces": home/art performance and other domains like games or photography.

Their point is that CSCW, as an interdisciplinary research field, is still relevant to address new fields than just 'work'. Using an ethnomethodological study of a location-based game, they exemplify this issue to demonstrate the continued salience of existing CSCW approaches and concepts that were developed in the study of work to study ludic phenomenon.

We employ it here to show that ludic pursuits such as games may be studied as collaborative or cooperative activities that rely on, exploit, and exhibit some familiar social organizational characteristics, and that those characteristics may be drawn upon to inform the design of technologies supporting ludic pursuits as they have been used to inform the design of technologies supporting what Gaver (2001) describes as ‘rational’ pursuits in the workplace. The study is used as a concrete example then and followed by further discussion of the boundaries of CSCW, and the salience of existing CSCW approaches and concepts to new and emerging agendas of IT research.

Why do I blog this? The underlying take in this paper is to make computer scientists and interaction designerss (well the reader of this Journal of CSCW) aware that games and playful activities are not kid stuff and deserved to be included in the CSCW research repertoire because it's relevant and important. I like this statement. In addition, the paper offers great insights about their ethnographical study of the Can You See Me Now? location-based game, which addresses various issues of interests to our projects (like how players dealt with uncertainty).

Course about pervasive computing and the socio-cognitive affordances of space

Tomorrow, I'll give a lecture about pervasive computing and the socio-cognitive affordances of space, which is my research topic. It's the second time I do this talk (the first time was last year) and now that I am reshuffling the presentation, what struck me is that nothing really changed in one year: for instance, there are still boring scenarios of LBS usage and techno-push is still the norm. Julian's take about this is that "maybe when we stop calling Location Based Services "Location Based Services" we'll finally be onto something". The presentation is here (10.5pdf, Mb). To put it shortly, it's about the emergence of pervasive/ubiquitous computing and how it relates to fundamental of human behavior. I describe how space/place affords various social and cognitive functions, which might be the starting points of relevant design ideas for user-centered applications/services.

By 'socio-cognitive functions of space', I refer to all the processes influenced by spatial features. This relates to phenomenon such as: proxemics, cultural values of a place, schelling points, territoriality, copresence which eases referential communication, functional values of a place (a waiting room is meant to foster a 'sit and wait' behavior), topology that foster specific behavior like division of labor, behavioral framing based on places (communication is different in a lecture room than in a café)... social navigation based on spatial features (footprints in the snow to find your way).

The conclusion is that space (and consequently all its affordances) should be taken into account when designing environment that supports collaborative Work/learning and play.

This is part of a course about Computer Supported Collaborative Work given by Pierre Dillenbourg and myself at the faculty of computer science at EPFL.

Special issue of Journal of CSCW about “Settings for Collaboration: The Role of Place”

A relevant call for paper:

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work Journal Special Issue “Settings for Collaboration: The Role of Place”

Co-edited by Luigina Ciolfi, Geraldine Fitzpatrick and Liam Bannon

Background Existing Recent work in HCI, CSCW and –more recently- interaction design has begun to critically examine the concept of place, its meaning and the implications for design. Early work by Erickson (1993) and Harrison and Dourish (1996) suggested that place, is a more appropriate concept rather than space is the notion that for providing an appropriate suitable framework for understanding people’s interaction with their physical environment. More recently, a consideration of place has been introduced in studies of particular domains such as geographical technologies, collaborative systems and interactive environments. In particular, increasing attention is being paid to the notion of place as a useful conceptual tool when studying people’s interaction with ubiquitous computing environments, whereby computational power augments and enhances existing features of actual physical environments. Place provides a frame for understanding how people relate to complex environments that include technology, physical and material resources and especially other inhabitants.

A debate is emerging regarding different conceptual definitions of place and on their implications if introduced within the HCI, CSCW and interaction design areas, particularly in terms of methodological approaches. The meaning and implications of these different notions needs to be discussed and analysed, and especially when the notion of place is applied to understanding social and collaborative activities in a number of locales, from work environments, to public spaces,. This is even more so as new forms of collaboration are enabled through ubiquitous computing environments.

Topics of interest include (but are not limited to): * conceptual frameworks for understanding place * methodological approaches for studying interaction and communication in place * case studies describing the design and evaluation of spatially distributed and mobile technologies * case studies of human experience of place mediated by technologies

SUBMISSIONS Deadline for submissions: 31st January 2006 Notification of Acceptance: 15th April 2006

Please **email** your submission (in MS Word or Acrobat PDF format) to luigina.ciolfi@ul.ie

Why do I b blog this? it's my area of research, then I may submit something.

On-going Research goals

"On-going goals" at the lab:

  • finish the PhD in one year then I need to refine my model of location-awareness and coordination + a second experiment with the structured tool usage to validate the model
  • current papers to write: one for COOP 2006 about the drawback of automatic location-awareness for collaboration and another one for LoCa about the fact that awareness information needed to be matched to specific task needs in catchbob phases. It's going to be hard to write those two papers at the same time. Besides, the conference will be at the same period!
  • a paper for CSCW 2006 about some side-question in CatchBob (fabien's concern!)??
  • complete review about XXXXXX (confidential becasue private study) + figure out some needs for a study
  • review some research proposals
  • finish writing the literature review about coordination and mutual modeling (Clark's theory, Sperber and Wilson's theory + Malone and Crowston)
  • finish writing the literature review about location awareness and collaboration/socio-cognitive processes impacts
  • ...

Awareness must be matched to appropriate tasks

Coming to the wrong decision quickly:Â why awareness tools must be matched with appropriate tasks by A. Espinosa and J. Cadiz and L. Rico-Gutierrez and R. Kraut and W. Scherlis and G. Lautenbacher, CHI 2000. The paper underlines the importance of matching the features of an awareness tool with a workgroup's tasks and goals.

Although the results obtained provide some encouraging evidence about the benefits of awareness tool use, they also make evident how the availability of such tools can be more of a distraction when available but not properly used. (...) while the awareness tool seems to have contributed to a more efficient division of labor, the resulting reduced overlap in documents read by team members seems to result in a loss of common ground, thus foregoing the benefits of shared mental model formation. (...) Also, consistent with the literature on groups, it is evident from our results that awareness tools need to be matched to appropriate tasks [18, 19]. The primary focus of our awareness tool was helping teams to solve a problem quickly. This is precisely what the tool did in our experiment. (...) the features implemented in our awareness tool are adequate for a divergent problem in which there is no apparent right solution, and in which reaching a unified team solution is important. Strategic planning, sports team strategies, surgical teams in the operating room, and economic planning committees are examples of situations in which awareness tools of this type can help.. However, in order to provide support for problems in which a correct solution does exist, different types of awareness information would have to be presented to the user. This highlights the all familiar tradeoff between general awareness tools that provide a little help for many types of tasks, and specific awareness tools that significantly help only one type of task. It also highlights the need to find the optimal amount and type of awareness information to make available without creating unnecessary distractions and information overload.

Quoted references: 18. McGrath, J. Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984. 19. McGrath, J. and Hollingshead, A. Groups Interacting With Technology, SCalifornia, 1994.

Why do I blog this? this five years old paper is very relevant to my current research about location-awareness tool in mobile collaboration. Even though it deals with virtual environments, it raises very relevant problems related to awareness efficiency that I am also dealing with in Catchbob!.

Think tank in Lausanne

Thanks to Morten, I've recently been aware of this interesting think tank in Lausanne: Imagination Lab.

The Imagination Lab Foundation is an independent, non-profit research institute founded in 2000 and based in Lausanne, Switzerland. Its raison d'être is to develop and spread actionable ideas about imaginative, reflective and responsible organizational practices. 

We value imagination as a source of meaningful responses to emergent change, and play as an effective way to draw on this human capacity. 

Through in-house and supported research the Foundation seeks to actively contribute to the academic discourse in the field of management and adjacent areas.

Their publication list is interesting, especially the working papers and the next practice.

A day in Zürich

I spent the day in Zürich for different things. I briefly attended Tweakfest 2005, an art/culture conference about creative potential of Zürich (a.k.a downtown Switzerland). It's interesting to see that after Richard Florida's take, lots of cities are jumping into the 'creative' bubble (i.e. being aware that there are 'creative' jobs and making connections between them + being creative-friendly). Anyway, some good notes on blog.invisible.ch that I just ran across. At the ETH, I also had a meeting with Morten Fjeld (Associate Professor at IDC, Chalmer University in Götenborg, Sweden) who presented me his new lab: t2i (TableTop Interaction Lab). He came out with this interesting manifesto, showing me videos of their work up there:

The use of the tabletop as an input/output device is an exciting and emerging domain of computer systems. This is a cross disciplinary domain. An example set of combining areas are as follows: projector based display systems, augmented reality, user interface technologies, multi-modal interactions, CSCW, and information visualization. The t2i Lab at Chalmers TH sets out to explore such areas as applications for tabletop displays, gesture-based interfaces, tangible interfaces, haptic rendering, information visualization, and horizontal display hardware; all for tabletop displays. The t2i Lab brings together a select group of talented students and researchers with a common interest and commitment to the construction and exploration of tabletop interaction.

Morten gave me some pointers, ideas about CatchBob! and some folks I might contact around Lausanne. One of the topic we discusses is the use of Petri Nets used for cognitive modeling (that could be an option for modeling coordination in catchbob, the only problem is to find 'states' in my case).

Then I visited the cool folks of Kaywa (a bleeding-edge blog company in Switzerland), the point was to meet them, briefly exchanging some bits and pieces about our respective work + talking about specific issues I won't mention here.

Ubiquitous Computing and rapid prototyping

The last issue of IEEE Pervasive Computing is presenting the recent advances in applying rapid prototyping to ubiquitous systems development. The special issue is based on the assumption that

because ubicomp scenarios often consist of different undeveloped components, a complete implementation might be impractical, and a partial implementation can’t show the full potential. This presents a dilemma, particularly in research and early development, because researchers and developers must concentrate on their specific area to advance technology rather than expend effort on broad system-implementation issues. This dilemma can be partially overcome by rapidly prototyping the whole system while focusing most of the engineering, design, and evaluation effort on the specific area of interest working, letting us clearly assess a new development.

Why do i blog this? The special issue describes different approaches ranging from Wizard of Oz to sophisticated cognitive modeling approaches/fidelity prototyping approaches. Overall, it's a nice recap of some of the bleeding edge projects lately developed.

More about some of those papers later on.

Simon effect: location and decisions

The Simon Effect is one of those interesting cognitive phenomenon. Here's the definition by CogLab:

The Simon effect refers to the finding that people are faster and more accurate responding to stimuli that occur in the same relative location as the response, even though the location information is irrelevant to the actual task (Simon, 1969). Studying the Simon effect gives us insight into a stage of decision making called "response selection." According to information processing theory, there are three stages of decision making: Stimulus identification, response selection and response execution or the motor stage.

More about it: Simon, J.R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174-176.

The use of video to study children's interaction with tangible devices

Studying children’s interactions with tangible devices: How will the video help? by Emanuela Mazzone, Rebecca Kelly and Diana Xu, Paper for an Interact 2005 workshop "Child Computer Interaction: Methodological Research":

Abstract: In this paper we describe a pilot test on how to gather requirements for children’s technologies. An activity was planned to explore the potential of tangible devices in children’s learning. The main aim of the pilot test was to understand, by observing and analysing children’s interaction with the objects, if the activity planned was effective for requirements gathering. The activity was observed by the researchers and video recorded. The analysis of the video was conducted by looking at verbal records, gestures and body language and the general interaction of the children with the objects, the researchers and each other. Outputs of what can be elicited before and after the video analysis were compared in order to see what more could be drawn out from a video analysis. It was concluded that the use of multiple analytical methods was essential to provide useful output to inform the design process.

Conclusion: We conclude that observation in the field is necessary to have the overall perception of the activity in the context but needs other methods to support it, especially in a situated activity where lots of elements are involved at the same time.

The analysis of the video adds a lot of useful information that is not possible to get in other ways otherwise but it can also give an incomplete picture of the research. The physical environment and all its elements may not be captured effectively, the possibility of technical faults makes it risky to rely solely on video, and the use of video may affect the behaviour of the participants and therefore bias any results.

Why do I blog this? conclusions are interesting but I don't understand this assertion:

"With no existing structured methodology for video analysis, the researchers agreed upon which aspects of the video to focus upon. This was based on the aim of the analysis: which was to examine what added value could be gained from video compared to what had already emerged from the observation and data analysis. "

Of course it's useful to examine what would be the added value of using video (we do that on some projects involving kids testing tangible devices) but it's wrong that there is no structured methodology for video analysis (see what psychology or ethnography do with video. Both fields offer plenty of methodologies to meet this end).