[dcchairs2016] UbiComp/ISWC 2016 Doctoral School notification - #108

[dcchairs2016 at ubicomp.org]

Dear Christian Meurisch,

Please find enclosed the review for your accepted submission for the Ubicomp/ISWC 2016 Doctoral School.

108: "Intelligent Personal Guidance of Human Behavior Utilizing Anticipatory Models"

Please read the reviews and instructions that the committee members included in it carefully, as they contains necessary further steps to ensure your DC paper submission appears in the program. Any of the committee instructions has to be considered as required for your final version.

As a reminder, the final version ("camera ready" version) is due no later than Wednesday, July 17th, 2016 at 11:59pm PDT. We will send more instructions about how to upload the camera-ready version of your paper before the deadline.

Thank you for submitting your work to UbiComp 2016, and congratulations again on your acceptance to the Ubicomp 2016 DS. We look forward to seeing you in Heidelberg in September!


Max Mühlhäuser
Nadir Weibel
Rene Mayrhofer

UbiComp 2016 Doctoral School Chairs


------------------------ Submission 108, Review 1 ------------------------

Title: Intelligent Personal Guidance of Human Behavior Utilizing Anticipatory Models


Confidence

   3  (Very confident - I am knowledgeable in the area)

Contribution to UbiComp

   This work tries to address the important question on how to act on
   contextual data for the benefit of providing guidance to end users. It
   presents a challenging work plan that has the potential to produce highly
   relevant results to Ubicomp.

Overall Rating

   5  (Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this paper.)

The Review

   On a meta level, this seems perfectly suitable to the Ubicomp DC, as it
   is definitely in scope and the author seems to be in the middle part of
   their PhD thesis, which is the best time to participate in a DC. That is,
   there is a clearly formulated set of questions and a research plan, yet
   the specific results are still open. I believe the author would benefit
   from participating in the DC. For this reason, I suggest to accept this
   paper.

   More specifically, there seems to be one main issue left open at this
   time: what is the ground thruth, i.e. how do you measure if there is a
   real user benefit to the method?

   In detail:
   - I strongly suggest to investigate the fear of loss of control in such a
   system in your user studies. In the past, a common reaction has been that
   users do not want to be controlled by "smart" guidance systems, but (at
   least claim to) prefer only informational input and then make their own
   decisions. The example of sports activity vs. work on page 2 might be a
   good one to include in the user studies.

   - Be careful not to tackle too many different aspects at once, i.e. the
   issue of what the guidance should actually achieve, the details of how to
   deliver it (e.g. timing and relevance), or the technical architecture to
   achieve this (centralized vs. decentralized decision-making). Page 3
   indicates that the author has a specific idea of the technical
   architecture that should be built, but some of the requirements do not
   yet seem to be fully clear. I therefore advise to first design and study
   the intended behaviour of the whole system, and only then settle on a
   technical implementation.

   - The main issue of collecting ground truth does not yet seem to be
   tackled in the current data set described in page 3 and the analysis
   described in page 4. I suggest to specifically include questions of a)
   what users want/expect from a "smart" guidance system to do for them in
   addition to an A/B testing of different methods of delivering them; and
   b) to try to quantify the impact this guidance has on whatever
   performance metric is deemed appropriate (work efficiency, happiness,
   ...). I.e. try to collect ground truth for answering if there is a
   benefit to the end user based on their own wishes, and not on a
   pre-defined set of aims.


   *************************
   Camera-ready requirements

   Please read carefully the comments above and consider editing your draft
   according to some of the raised points for the final camera-ready paper.