Janet C. ReadPhD
Has also published under the name of:
"J. C. Read"
Personal Homepage:
http://http:;;www.uclan.ac.ukCurrent place of employment:
University of Central Lancashire Director of the well known CHiCI group at the University of Central Lancashire in the UK, Dr Read specialises in the study of Child Computer Interaction, in Digital Ink for Text Input, and in the use of Wizrad of Oz in evaluatios.
Publications by Janet C. Read (bibliography)
» 2009 «
Read, Janet C. (2009): Warp speed design: a rapid design method for use with children. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2009. pp. 4681-4686. Available online
“This paper introduces a new design method -- Warp Speed Design -- for use with older children (aged 9+) for the design of workable tangible games. The rationale for the method is presented and then a workshop, in which the method was evaluated, is described. The method introduced children to basic programming concepts and worked surprisingly well. Almost all of the designs made by the children were so well specifies at the end of the brief workshop that they were able to be developed with very little uncertainty.”
Copyrights may apply
Marco, Javier, Cerezo, Eva, Baldasarri, Sandra, Mazzone, Emanuela and Read, Janet C. (2009): User-oriented design and tangible interaction for kindergarten children. In: Proceedings of ACM IDC09 Interaction Design and Children 2009. pp. 190-193. Available online
“This paper describes a tabletop prototype that allows kindergarten children to take the benefits of the new pedagogical possibilities that tangible interaction and tabletop technologies offer to manipulative learning. After analyzing children's cognitive and psychomotorial skills, we have designed and tuned a prototype game suitable for children aged 3 to 4 years old. Our prototype uniquely combines low cost tangible interaction and tabletop technology with tutored learning. The design has been based on observations of the children using the technology, letting them freely play with the application during three play sessions. These observational sessions informed the design decisions for the game whilst also confirming the children's enjoyment with the prototype.”
Copyrights may apply
McKnight, Lorna and Read, Janet C. (2009): Designing the 'record' button: using children's understanding of icons to inform the design of a musical interface. In: Proceedings of ACM IDC09 Interaction Design and Children 2009. pp. 258-261. Available online
“While standard icons often exist for common tasks, it can be difficult to design meaningful icons for non-standard tasks. Following a desire to build a music application that does not rely on text-based instructions, this paper explores suitable iconic representations for a 'record music' function on a mobile device. A study was carried out with primary school children (aged 8-10) to explore their current understanding of icons and elicit their requirements. It was seen that they were familiar with common icons, but that audio recording remains a difficult concept to represent through icons alone.”
Copyrights may apply
Xu, Diana, Read, Janet C., Sim, Gavin and McManus, Barbara (2009): Experience it, draw it, rate it: capture children's experiences with their drawings. In: Proceedings of ACM IDC09 Interaction Design and Children 2009. pp. 266-270. Available online
“This paper investigates the use of drawings as a tool for the evaluation of children's interfaces. In the study, children's experiences on a variety of computer interfaces were captured in drawings. A group of four researchers participated in the coding of the drawings, before the results were aggregated and statistically analysed. The evaluation of the approach is positive: the chosen drawing method could be used easily and was effective in conveying the user experience from the drawings; a number of the drawings conveyed information pertaining to user experiences: fun (F), goal fit (GF) and tangible magic (TM); the method was found generally reliable at capturing all three elements and particularly reliable at capturing fun.”
Copyrights may apply
» 2008 «
Read, Janet C., Markopoulos, Panos, Pares, Narcis, Hourcade, Juan Pablo and Antle, Alissa N. (2008): Child computer interaction. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April 5-10, 2008. pp. 2419-2422. Available online
“The study of Child Computer Interaction is a growing subfield of HCI. Child Computer Interaction encompasses traditional HCI but also specifically reaches out into the areas of child psychology, learning and play. The aim of this SIG is to bring together researchers and practitioners working in this area, to discover current themes, to explore the creation of a more formal working group, to locate publishing opportunities and to foster international co-operation.”
Copyrights may apply
Mazzone, Emanuela, Read, Janet C. and Beale, Russell (2008): Design with and for disaffected teenagers. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2008. pp. 290-297. Available online
“This paper describes how an e-learning product for teenagers was developed using design sessions based on a participatory design approach. The product, in the form of a computer game, is the outcome of a project that aims to improve teenagers' emotional intelligence. The specific user group is from institutes for pupils that had previously been excluded from mainstream education. The novelty in the approach is that participants were involved in designing a tool that was intended to modify their emotional behaviour -- for this discussion, it is the participation in the process that is critical, less so the end product. The project and the design approaches are described and the participatory activity is reflected on. The benefits resulting from the design sessions were bi-directional: the engagement with the prospective users was valuable both for the actual contribution to the product design and as an experience for the participants.”
Copyrights may apply
Read, Janet C. and Markopoulos, Panos (2008): Understanding children's interactions: evaluating children's interactive products. In Interactions, 15 (6) pp. 26-29
Read, Janet C. (2008): What You See is What You Worry About: Errors -- Real and Imagined. In: Proceedings of the HCI08 Conference on People and Computers XXII 2008. pp. 79-82. Available online
“This paper describes a text task in which children wrote their own stories in their regular school books, copied these stories onto digital paper using digital pens, had their handwritten stories recognized by the computer software, and then, looked at the text presented back to them and highlighted errors. There was considerable variability in the ability of the children to spot errors. Some children marked text as being wrong when in fact it was right. Most children spotted almost all the errors but were less likely to notice errors where incorrect but reasonable words had been presented back to them than where the words given by the recognizer were nonsense. In 13 instances, children had one of their own errors corrected by the interface but this was not noticed. The study highlighted several difficulties with the classification and reporting of errors in handwriting recognition based interfaces especially in the counting and classification of errors. Two new metrics for classifying and counting errors in this context are therefore proposed in this paper.”
Copyrights may apply
Xu, Diana, Read, Janet C. and Sheehan, Robert (2008): In Search of Tangible Magic. In: Proceedings of the HCI08 Conference on People and Computers XXII 2008. pp. 97-100. Available online
“This paper describes a small study of children's drawings in the context of tangible interaction. The study was intended to discover what children could draw that would indicate what they understood about tangible interactions. Two different tangible interfaces were considered, and for each of these, a different reporting format was used. The children's drawings were coded by three researchers and the results aggregated. The study shows that the coding method chosen was effective in conveying the information from the diagrams. The different reporting methods were similar but there was some evidence that one reporting format seemed to favour the inclusion of people in the drawings. Around a third of all the drawings conveyed information pertaining to user experience and in particular, expressions of tangible magic.”
Copyrights may apply
Horton, Matthew and Read, Janet C. (2008): Interactive Whiteboards in the Living Room? -- Asking Children about their Technologies. In: Proceedings of the HCI08 Conference on People and Computers XXII 2008. pp. 147-148. Available online
“In this poster we report the findings from a study of technologies in the home and school and use these results to discuss the validity and variability of children's reports of technologies. The results indicate that children may not understand well the types of interactive technologies that were discussed and that there may be some confusion about the names of technologies. In addition, the study indicated some confusion about where a technology resides.”
Copyrights may apply
» 2007 «
Kano, Akiyo, Read, Janet C., Dix, Alan J. and MacKenzie, I. Scott (2007): ExpECT: An Expanded Error Categorisation Method for Text Input. In: Proceedings of the HCI07 Conference on People and Computers XXI 2007. p. 15. Available online
“This paper describes an empirical study on typing errors made by children during a text copy exercise. The literature on text input errors is first examined, focussing on studies of errors that occur during keyboard typing. A study of errors made by children during typing is described and the results from this study are analysed using visual inspection and already published error categorisation methods. These methods are compared with respect to the types and number of errors categorised and uncategorised. We identify and define new kinds of typing errors and use these, together with previously defined error types, to outline an expanded and more detailed method (ExpECT) for the classification of typing errors. ExpECT is compared with the previously examined categorisation methods and is shown to be a more thorough and broader method for the analysis of typing errors.”
Copyrights may apply
Read, Janet C. (2007): A study of the usability of handwriting recognition for text entry by children. In Interacting with Computers, 19 (1) pp. 57-69
“This paper describes a pilot study that investigated the usability of handwriting recognition for text entry in a free writing activity. The study was carried out with eighteen children aged 7 and 8; each used three different writing methods to construct short pieces of text. The methods used were; pencil and paper, the QWERTY keyboard at a computer, and a pen and graphics tablet. Where the pen and graphics tablet was used, the handwritten text was recognised by the software and presented back to the children as ASCII text. Measures of user satisfaction, quantity of text produced, and quality of writing produced, were taken. In addition, for the handwritten work, the recognition process was evaluated by comparing what the child wrote with the resulting ASCII text. The results show that the children that took part in the study generally produced lengthier texts at the graphics tablet than at the QWERTY keyboard but that the non-technical solution, the pencil and paper was, in this instance, the overall best method for composing writing. To further the debate on the possibilities for digital ink and tablet technologies, key usability problems with the handwriting recognition interface are identified and classified, and solutions to these usability problems, in the form of design guidelines for both recognition-based and pen-based computer writing interfaces, are presented. Additionally, some reflections on how studies of text input and free writing composition can be evaluated are offered.”
Copyrights may apply
Xu, Diana, Read, Janet C., Mazzone, Emanuela, MacFarlane, Stuart and Brown, Martin (2007): Evaluation of Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) for and with Children - Methods and Challenges. In: Jacko, Julie A. (ed.) HCI International 2007 - 12th International Conference - Part II July 22-27, 2007, Beijing, China. pp. 1008-1017. Available online
» 2006 «
Kelly, S. Rebecca, Mazzone, Emanuela, Horton, Matthew and Read, Janet C. (2006): Bluebells: a design method for child-centred product development. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2006. pp. 361-368. Available online
“This paper presents Bluebells, a design method that balances child-centred design with expert design in a progressive approach that marries the best of both disciplines. The method is described in the context of a museum technologies project. Bluebells comprises several new design techniques; these are evaluated and discussed in the paper. The authors conclude with guidelines for future use of the Bluebells method including the importance of providing a context for design partners and allowing them to express their ideas in ways they are comfortable with.”
Copyrights may apply
Kano, Akiyo, Read, Janet C. and Dix, Alan J. (2006): Children's phrase set for text input method evaluations. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2006. pp. 449-452. Available online
“This paper investigates the suitability of current phrase sets available in HCI for use with children in text entry experiments. It first examines the use of phrase sets within text input method evaluation, and suggests several reasons why the currently available phrase sets may not be suitable for use with children. A new phrase set, containing 500 phrases which have been taken from children's books, is presented. A study that compared the adult focused phrase set with the new children's phrase set is described. This study concludes that the new phrase set is suitable for use with children and, given that results with the two phrase sets were similar, the study adds validity to the existing adult phrase set.”
Copyrights may apply
Read, Janet C. and MacFarlane, Stuart (2006): Using the fun toolkit and other survey methods to gather opinions in child computer interaction. In: Proceedings of ACM IDC06: Interaction Design and Children 2006. pp. 81-88. Available online
“The paper begins with a review of some of the current literature on the use of survey methods with children. It then presents four known concerns with using survey methods for opinion gathering and reflects on how these concerns may impact on studies in Child Computer Interaction. The paper then investigates the use of survey methods in Child Computer Interaction and investigates the Fun Toolkit. Three new research studies into the efficacy and usefulness of the tools are presented and these culminate in some guidelines for the future use of the Fun Toolkit. The authors then offer some more general guidelines for HCI researchers and developers intending to use survey methods in their studies with children. The paper closes with some thoughts about the use of survey methods in this interesting but complex area.”
Copyrights may apply
» 2005 «
Read, Janet C. (2005): The Usability of Digital Ink Technologies for Children and Teenagers. In: Proceedings of the HCI05 Conference on People and Computers XIX 2005. pp. 19-36.
» 2004 «
Read, Janet C., MacFarlane, Stuart and Gregory, Peggy (2004): Requirements for the design of a handwriting recognition based writing interface for children. In: Proceedings of ACM IDC04: Interaction Design and Children 2004. pp. 81-87. Available online
“This paper describes how the design of a novel writing interface for children was informed by requirements gathering. The derivation of a set of system requirements from observations of children using early prototypes of the interface and from modelling the system is described, and then two methods of gathering further requirements by surveying children are outlined. The relative advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed. The children were not able to contribute to the full range of requirements necessary for a complete system, but they contributed fun requirements that the observational work failed to identify. A model of the child's relationship to interactive systems is used to discuss why this is the case.”
Copyrights may apply
Read, Janet C., MacFarlane, S. and Horton, M. (2004): The Usability of Handwriting Recognition for Writing in the Primary Classroom. In: Proceedings of the HCI04 Conference on People and Computers XVIII 2004. pp. 135-150.
» 2003 «
Read, Janet C., MacFarlane, Stuart and Casey, Chris (2003): What's going on?: discovering what children understand about handwriting recognition interfaces. In: Proceedings of ACM IDC03: Interaction Design and Children 2003. pp. 135-140. Available online
“When people use interactive technology, they construct a 'mental model' of the processes that are going on. This model assists the user in error repair and in task completion. The mental models that children have of computer systems are known to be brittle and incomplete. This paper describes how three different methods - structured interview, questionnaire, and talk back, were used with 7 and 8-year-old children to identify children's mental models of a handwriting-recognition based interface. The time taken by both the child and the researcher, the insights reported by the children, and the ease of use of each of the three methods is reported. The three methods are then compared, both in terms of cost/benefit and with relation to the influence of the researcher in the process. The paper concludes that the interview and questionnaire were both effective in this study, and that questionnaires can be surprisingly informative with children of this age.”
Copyrights may apply
Read, Janet C., MacFarlane, Stuart and Casey, Chris (2003): 'Good enough for what?': acceptance of handwriting recognition errors by child users. In: Proceedings of ACM IDC03: Interaction Design and Children 2003. p. 155. Available online
“This paper describes an experiment to establish whether or not children would accept a lower rate of accuracy for handwriting recognition than the 97% reported in a study with adult users. It outlines the experimental procedure that involved the use of an automated Wizard of Oz method. Problems with the experiment are described and the results are presented.”
Copyrights may apply
» 2002 «
Read, Janet C., MacFarlane, Stuart and Casey, Chris (2002): Oops! silly me! errors in a handwriting recognition-based text entry interface for children. In: Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction October 19-23, 2002, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 35-40. Available online
“This paper describes an empirical study in which children aged 7 and 8 used handwriting recognition software and hardware to input their own unconstrained text into the computer. The children were observed using the software, and the behaviour of both the children and the system is described. Handwriting recognition is a 'disobedient' technology; that is, it behaves erroneously, sometimes failing to generate correct representations of the child's intentions. This presents problems for the child, and these problems, and the strategies which the children adopted, are considered. Previous work on error correction with disobedient interfaces is used to provide grounding for the discussion. Two models are proposed, one describing user-states, the second introducing the notion of 'tidal' error repair. These models are then used to suggest some strategies for the design of more usable handwriting recognition interfaces for children.”
Copyrights may apply
SHOW THIS LIST ON YOUR HOMEPAGE
What do YOU think?
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions
that you would like other visitors to see?
You say:
Mar 19th, 2010
Changes to this page (author)
19 Feb 2010: Enabled abstracts to be shown on Janet C. Read's author page.12 Jul 2009: Author was edited 12 Jul 2009: Author was edited
12 Jul 2009: Author was edited
26 Jun 2009: Author was edited
26 Jun 2009: Author was edited
26 Jun 2009: Author was edited
04 Jun 2009: Author was edited
03 Jun 2009: Author was edited
02 Jun 2009: Author was edited
09 May 2009: Author was edited
02 Jun 2008: Page was edited
12 May 2008: Author was edited
12 May 2008: Author was edited
12 May 2008: Author was edited
26 Jul 2007: Author was edited
26 Jul 2007: Author was added to the bibliography
23 Jun 2007: Author was edited
23 Jun 2007: Author was edited
23 Jun 2007: Author was edited
23 Jun 2007: Author was edited
22 Jun 2007: Author was edited
22 Jun 2007: Author was edited
22 Jun 2007: Author was added to the bibliography
