1. CHI feedback rapport 1
#chikul12
Leuven, 6 March 2012
Erik Duval
http://erikduval.wordpress.com
@ErikDuval
1

2. http://www.slideshare.net/erik.duval
2

3. feedback 1, brainstorm, scenario, paper prototype
6 maart 13 maart: brainstorm + scenario op blog
16 maart: plan voor evaluatie op blog
evaluatie paper prototype
20 maart 27 maart: evaluatie op blog
+ plan volgende iteratie, incl. evaluatie &implementatie
17 april (?) iteratie, hci@sigchi, capgemini case
24 april iteratie, hci future, namahn case
15 mei demo’s, lessons learned (met externe deelnemers)
3

4. 13u30-14u00: welcome, overview, feedback
14u00-14u30: groups process feedback
14u30-15u00: introducing topic of project
15u00-16u00: Marcus - brainstorm
16u00-16u30: student pitch to each other
16u30-17u00: revisit basic idea
17u00-18u00: storyboard
18u00-19u00: paper prototype
4

5. but first...
5

6. how much time did you work?
6

7. using twitter...
using twitter...

9. hoe lang gebruiken jullie google+ ?
9

10. wie denkt google+ te blijven gebruiken?
10

11. http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/4125/Internet/article/detail/1401752/2012/02/29/Geregistreerde-gebruikers-blijven-weg-van-Google.dhtml

12. http://nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=20120228136770

13. wie ontwikkelt mobiele apps?
13

14. feedback 1st report
14

15. 15

16. 16

18. criterium (waarom?)
methode (alternatieven?)
data (voorstelling!)
analyse (so what?)
conclusie

20. why?
this should be basis for choosing method!
why?
this should be basis for choosing method!

21. good
good

22. bad: proxy?
bad: proxy?

23. well done!
well done!
‘gewoon’
problemen
ontdekken?

25. How exactly?
Response rate?
How exactly?
Response rate?

27. SUS vs. experience?
individual SUS scores?

28. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

29. well done!
well done!

31. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

32. ...indeed...
...indeed...

33. ...very well done...
...very well done...

34. details?
details?

35. the user is always right!
the user is always right!

36. #awesomness ;-)
#awesomness ;-)

37. how does google try to tackle this?
how does google try to tackle this?

39. externe commentaar?
39

40. did anyone try to get respondents or disseminate results on google+?
40

41. keep reports - I may ask them back!
41

42. post: what did you learn about google+
and about evaluation
(in the session, from comments)
by 9 March
42

44. Vragen...?
44

45. Tom De Bie 7,1 13
Michiel Staessen 11,82 20
Bram Gotink 5,42 15
Glenn Croes 11,73 15
Stijn Adams 10,54 21
Dommicent Leendert 9,88 16
Jorn Van Loock 9,48 16
Pieter Van Riets 11,98 16
Geert Van Campenhout 7,71 17
Yasin Koyuncu 8,16 17
Robin De Croons 16,68 18
Ward Cools 13,3 19
Anne Everars 12,6 20
Roeland Herrebosch 19,79 20
Svetlana Pak 14,23 20
Tim Ameye 15,49 21
Koen Wellens 13,17 22
Greet Robijns 14,77 23
Niels Avonds 20,48 26
Lieven Billiets 19,74 27
Lesley Van der Wee 26,82 35
Peter Raeves 31,24 35
Niels Billen 20,77 40
Peter Raeves 32,75
Tim Op De Beeck 20,77
Matthias Snellings 12
Beckers Jeroen 12
Thomas Hendrickx 13
Koen Boncquet 14
Robby W 15
Jeroen Claes 16

46. 46
http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.be/cam-dashboard/viz/blogschi2.html

47. toggle?
who is not doing this?
47

48. names?
resolve double identities!
48

49. individual
for blogging and comments
49

50. Vragen...?
50