Talk:Human–computer interaction

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kathyljy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Kathyljy (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Split request Human-Computer Integration from Human-Computer Interaction

I have created a page for Human-Computer Integration (Draft:Human-computer integration), which was declined and I have been asked to discuss it here to make a split from the Human-Computer Interaction page. So, I would like to discuss the split from the HCI-page. Enitaeng (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Functionally, your current draft reads like a position, tutorial, or workshop paper. Which could definitely be valuable, but not necessarily as an article on Wikipedia. (For example, most of the article conflicts with the original research policy.) Why did you write this essay? I think it could be reasonable to include a paragraph on Human-computer Integration (not a term I was familiar with) as a new section in Current Research. That said, from looking at the sourcing it seems like this is primarily a paradigm championed by a single lab/set of researchers? We do have articles like that (e.g. for Value sensitive design), but usually after broader adoption by the community. Suriname0 (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Could you be specific about why this looks like original research, as the content is loaded with state-of-the-art references from different fields of study / schools of thought. (1) This is what the field of Human-Computer Integration is at right now, it is a field emerging at this moment, seen as an extension of Human-Computer Interaction (see this literature review: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10447318.2023.2177797?journalCode=hihc20 and this paper https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9913891 & and even https://www.designsociety.org/1307/Design+Science+Journal%2C+Thematic+Collection%3A+Understanding+People+-+Extensions+of+Human+Computer+Interaction). So, in stead of being a paradigm only being championed by a single lab/ set of researchers, I approached this as an upcoming field of study that will evolve in the next couple of years. (2) Another question I would have is 'why does it need to have a broader adoption by a community, as the information is placed in an academically-oriented construct?'. (3) What kind of adoption is necessary and which community decides this? This field will be highly interdisciplinary, so therefore it might need another perspective.

I would like to ask you to have a look at it again, and provide some more specific feedback about why it is seen as 'original research', based on the arguments here above. What makes it seem like that to you? Sincerely thank you in advance! Enitaeng (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I continue to be a little confused with your goals writing this article. Are you hoping to increase awareness of Human-Computer Integration as a sub-discipline? If so, you might be better served publishing this as a position paper or similar. The reason the article reads like "original research" to me is because it seems to contain improper synthesis; many disparate sources are being connected in the article that aren't already discussed together in reliable sources. In an article on HInt, we could briefly summarize what is in sources like the Barbosa et al. lit review or the Mueller et al. position paper. However, it's tough to build an article on this kind of source because Wikipedia treats them as primary sources in some contexts and secondary sources in others.

Regarding your specific questions, I'm concerned by language like "emerging at this moment" and "will be highly interdisciplinary", which suggests a field in rapid flux or that an article would need to by speculative; Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. By "adoption", I'm not quoting any particular Wikipedia policy, but suggesting a useful rule of thumb for determining if Wikipedia should have an article about an academic concept or sub-field. At a minimum, I would expect to see significant evidence that scholars are treating the field as a serious trend, e.g. by citing papers that discuss it, by hosting workshops and/or conferences on the topic, by publishing edited volumes or journal editions on that theme, by summarizing progress in the field in wider venues like Interactions magazine, etc. Suriname0 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: INFO 505 - Foundations of Information Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nik2608 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: TheChosenOneAnakin, Chillimune, Mayoosan, Blackshadow005, AyeshaBD.

— Assignment last updated by Mayoosan (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ai

Human computer interaction 196.191.79.182 (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)