Interaction Design Foundation
Free educational materials - made by the world's technology elite
 
Join us on Linkedin
Join us on Twitter
Join us on Google plus
Get our RSS Feed
 
 
ReferencesNavigation arrowAuthorsNavigation arrowMichael E. Atwood

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1983-2010
Pub. count:48
Number of co-authors:43



Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

Guy A. Boy:11
Jim Miller:8
Wayne D. Gray:6

 

 

Productive colleagues

Michael E. Atwood's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

Gerhard Fischer:66
Bonnie E. John:64
Guy A. Boy:46
 
 
 
May 23

“ Knowledge is commonly socially constructed, through collaborative efforts towards shared objectives or by dialogues and challenges brought about by different persons' perspectives. ”

-- G. Salomon (in "Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations")

 
 

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

 
 

Help us help you!

 
 

Michael E. Atwood

Picture of Michael E. Atwood. Copyright unknown.
Has also published under the name of:
"Mike Atwood" and "Michael Atwood"

Personal Homepage:
cis.drexel.edu/faculty/matwood/

Add description
Add publication

Publications by Michael E. Atwood (bibliography)

 what's this?
2010
 
Edit | Del

McCrickard, D. Scott, Atwood, Michael E., Curtis, Gayle, Harrison, Steve, Kolko, Jon, Stolterman, Erik A. and Wahid, Shahtab (2010): Artifacts in design: representation, ideation, and process. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010. pp. 4445-4448.

“Artifacts-representations that express properties or captured information-can serve to inspire, represent, and manage the decisions made throughout the design process. This workshop will explore how these artifacts are created, used, and reused during design projects, toward understanding the overall impact on the larger discipline of design. Through active engagement with novel design artifacts and methods, workshop participants will examine, categorize, and evaluate various design artifacts.”

© All rights reserved McCrickard et al. and/or their publisher

2009
 
Edit | Del

Abraham, George and Atwood, Michael E. (2009): Patterns or claims: do they help in communicating design advice?. In: Proceedings of OZCHI09, the CHISIG Annual Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2009. pp. 25-32.

“Past research asserts that patterns or claims will help capture and communicate interaction-design advice. Both structures attempt to provide advice in context along with the justifications for fit. These properties aim to make patterns or claims more concrete and comprehensible to novice designers than design guidelines. However, empirical work evaluating these promises is lacking. This research presents a controlled study that examines the value of structuring design advice as patterns or as claims. Patterns and claims seem different given their respective roots in architecture and design rationale. They also differ in their emphasis when capturing design decisions; patterns emphasize capturing a problem-solution pair in a certain context, whereas claims focus on capturing the positive and negative implications to a design decision. The findings from the study suggest it may be promising to combine the claim and pattern structures and that such a structure may facilitate discussions of design trade-offs.”

© All rights reserved Abraham and Atwood and/or their publisher

2007
 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Horner, John (2007): Redesigning the Rationale for Design Rationale. In: Jacko, Julie A. (ed.) HCI International 2007 - 12th International Conference - Part I July 22-27, 2007, Beijing, China. pp. 11-19.

 
Edit | Del

Chen, Yunan and Atwood, Michael E. (2007): Context-Centered Design: Bridging the Gap Between Understanding and Designing. In: Jacko, Julie A. (ed.) HCI International 2007 - 12th International Conference - Part I July 22-27, 2007, Beijing, China. pp. 40-48.

2006
 
Edit | Del

Horner, John and Atwood, Michael E. (2006): Design rationale: the rationale and the barriers. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 2006. pp. 341-350.

“One goal of design rationale systems is to support designers by providing a means to record and communicate the argumentation and reasoning behind the design process. However, there are several inherent limitations to developing systems that effectively capture and utilize design rationale. The dynamic and contextual nature of design and our inability to exhaustively analyze all possible design issues results in cognitive, capture, retrieval, and usage limitations. In addition, there are the organizational limitations that ensue when systems are deployed. In this paper we analyze these issues in terms of current perspectives in design theory and describe the implications to design research. We discuss the barriers to effective design rationale in terms of three major goals: reflection, communication, and analysis of design processes. We then suggest alternate means to achieve these goals that can be used with or instead of design rationale systems.”

© All rights reserved Horner and Atwood and/or ACM Press

 
Edit | Del

Wania, Christine E., Atwood, Michael E. and McCain, Katherine W. (2006): How do design and evaluation interrelate in HCI research?. In: Proceedings of DIS06: Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques 2006. pp. 90-98.

“Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is defined by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI) as "a discipline concerned with the design, evaluation, and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use and with the study of the major phenomenon surrounding them" [18]. In HCI there are authors that focus more on designing for usability and there are authors that focus more on evaluating usability. The relationship between these communities is not really clear. We use author cocitation analysis, multivariate techniques, and visualization tools to explore the relationships between these communities. The results of the analysis revealed seven clusters that could be identified as Design Theory and Complexity, Design Rationale, Cognitive Theories and Models, Cognitive Engineering, Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Participatory Design, and User-Centered Design.”

© All rights reserved Wania et al. and/or ACM Press

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Wania, Christine E. (2006): Exploring the interrelationships between the design and evaluation of interactive systems. In: Proceedings of DIS06: Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques 2006. pp. 367-368.

“While much research has focused on the design of interactive systems and much research has focused on the evaluation of interactive systems, less work has addressed both the design and evaluation of interactive systems together. While having evaluation inform design and having design inform evaluation is a goal that few would disagree with, how this might be done has not been extensively addressed. The evaluation community (often labeled the usability community) focuses primarily on the evaluation of designed artifacts while the design community focuses primarily on the design of artifacts that will be evaluated later. Design and evaluation both share the common goal of usability but each takes a different path in trying to achieve it. Our goal is to further explore the relationships between design and evaluation in an attempt to understand how they can be brought together meaningfully.”

© All rights reserved Atwood and Wania and/or ACM Press

2002
 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E., McCain, Katherine W. and Williams, Jodi C. (2002): How does the design community think about design?. In: Proceedings of DIS02: Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques 2002. pp. 125-132.

“Design is a term that brings many people together. Collectively, we distinguish ourselves from others by the fact that we are designers and members of a design community. But, design is also a term that pushes people apart. The design that some value in the new fashions in the boutiques in Milan is not seen by everyone as design. While some are impressed with the design of a new telephone, not everyone sees this as design. As a community, we believe design is important. But, as a community, we do not have a common definition of what it is. Many views of design have been proposed. Several classifications of design have been proposed. In this paper, we also seek to classify views on design. Unlike earlier efforts, however, we want to find the classification that the global community of designers uses. To this end, we examine the patterns of citations to key authors' works (Author Co-citation Analysis) to uncover this classification and identify seven key author clusters representing identifiable theory groups or schools of thought/practice in design.”

© All rights reserved Atwood et al. and/or ACM Press

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (2002): Organizational Memory Systems: Challenges for Information Technology. In: HICSS 2002 2002. p. 104.

2000
 
Edit | Del

Zimmermann, Beatrix, Atwood, Michael E., Webb, Sabina and Kantor, Michael (2000): The Knowledge Depot: Building and Evaluating a Knowledge Management System. In Educational Technology & Society, 3 (3) .

1999
 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1999): Opening SIGCHI to the World. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 31 (1) pp. 3-4.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1999): Two Significant Events. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 31 (2) pp. 2-3.

1998
 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (1998): Keeping Current on SIGCHI. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30 (1) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1998): Action Required From You!. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30 (2) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1998): ACM SIGCHI Program Review. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30 (3) pp. 2-6.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1998): Challenges and Opportunities. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30 (4) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (1998): SIGCHI Annual Report. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30 (4) pp. 90-93.

1997
 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1997): The Future of SIGCHI. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 29 (1) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1997): Global, International, World-wide, National, Regional, and Local. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 29 (2) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (1997): SIGCHI Leadership. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 29 (3) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1997): Reflections on CHI 97. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 29 (4) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (1997): SIGCHI Annual Report: July 1997. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 29 (4) pp. 102-103.

1996
 
Edit | Del

Turner, Thea, Curtis, Bill, Herbsleb, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1996): Empirical Studies of Programming Organizations. In: Gray, Wayne D., Boehm-Davis, Deborah A. and Spohrer, James C. (eds.) Empirical Studies of Programmers - Sixth Workshop January 5-7, 1996, 1996, Alexandria, Virginia. pp. 259-262.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1996): 50 Years ACM, 14 Years SIGCHI. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28 (1) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1996): Quiz. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28 (2) p. 2.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. and Boy, Guy A. (1996): Questions and Answers and Requests for More Questions. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28 (3) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (1996): SIGCHI Annual Report. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28 (4) pp. 2-3.

1995
 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E., Burns, Bart, Gairing, Dieter, Girgensohn, Andreas, Lee, Alison, Turner, Thea, Alteras-Webb, Sabina and Zimmermann, Beatrix (1995): Facilitating Communication in Software Development. In: Proceedings of DIS95: Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques 1995. pp. 65-73.

“Effective communication is critical to the success of a software development project. It factors into the productivity of individuals and organizations, and has particular impact when change occurs. Yet communication is generally left unsupported by the software development process and by the communication infrastructure. We address this issue in the context of two software development projects at NYNEX through a conceptual framework called Design Intent. There are three innovations in our approach. Design Intent encourages stakeholders to engage in active listening, enables stakeholders to collaboratively construct a consistent understanding of the development effort, and provides a communication infrastructure for stakeholders to share ideas and participate in discussions.”

© All rights reserved Atwood et al. and/or ACM Press

 
Edit | Del

Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1995): From the Chairs: Quo Vadis, SIGCHI?. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27 (1) pp. 2-4.

 
Edit | Del

Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1995): From the Chairs: The Fall EC Meeting. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27 (2) p. 2.

 
Edit | Del

Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1995): From the Chairs: Recent New Programs. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27 (3) pp. 2-5.

 
Edit | Del

Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1995): From the Chairs: The New Executive Committee. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 27 (4) pp. 2-3.

1994
 
Edit | Del

Lawrence, Deborah, Atwood, Michael E. and Dews, Shelly (1994): Surrogate Users: Mediating Between Social and Technical Interaction. In: Adelson, Beth, Dumais, Susan and Olson, Judith S. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 94 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts. pp. 399-404.

“Although human machine interaction is typically studied in the context of one person interacting with a computer, people often interact with computers in support of their communication with other people. Telephone operators are an excellent example of such "surrogate users"; they use workstations to carry out a goal for a customer, such as finding a telephone number. As the customer's intermediary, the operator must construct an accurate and well-specified search, though the information offered may be incomplete or inaccurate. We have examined both the social interaction and the human-computer interaction in such situations using several different types of analysis, first in CPM-GOMS models [1,2] and more recently in dialogue analysis and analysis of dialogue timelines. Our work has alerted us to the special human performance requirements of surrogate user tasks.”

© All rights reserved Lawrence et al. and/or ACM Press

 
Edit | Del

Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1994): From the Chairs. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 26 (1) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (1994): Advances Derived from Real-World Experiences. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 26 (1) pp. 22-24.

 
Edit | Del

Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1994): From the Chairs: Turning Vision into Action. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 26 (2) pp. 2-3.

 
Edit | Del

Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1994): From the Chairs: So, Who Are They?. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 26 (4) pp. 2-3.

1993
 
Edit | Del

Gray, Wayne D., John, Bonnie E. and Atwood, Michael E. (1993): Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS Analysis for Predicting and Explaining Real-World Task Performance. In Human-Computer Interaction, 8 (3) pp. 237-309.

“Project Ernestine served a pragmatic as well as a scientific goal: to compare the worktimes of telephone company toll and assistance operators on two different workstations and to validate a GOMS analysis for predicting and explaining real-world performance. Contrary to expectations, GOMS predicted and the data confirmed that performance with the proposed workstation was slower than with the current one. Pragmatically, this increase in performance time translates into a cost of almost $2 million a year to NYNEX. Scientifically, the GOMS models predicted performance with exceptional accuracy. The empirical data provided us with three interesting results: proof that the new workstation was slower than the old one, evidence that this difference was not constant but varied with call category, and (in a trial that spanned 4 months and collected data on 72,450 phone calls) proof that performance on the new workstation stabilized after the first month. The GOMS models predicted the first two results and explained all three. In this article, we discuss the process and results of model building as well as the design and outcome of the field trial. We assess the accuracy of GOMS predictions and use the mechanisms of the models to explain the empirical results. Last, we demonstrate how the GOMS models can be used to guide the design of a new workstation and evaluate design decisions before they are implemented.”

© All rights reserved Gray et al. and/or Taylor and Francis

 
Edit | Del

Henderson, Austin, Polson, Peter G., Miller, Jim and Atwood, Michael E. (1993): Chairs' Column. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 25 (4) pp. 4-5.

“We will use this column to make some announcements and to transition to the new Executive Committee.”

© All rights reserved Henderson et al. and/or ACM Press

1992
 
Edit | Del

Gray, Wayne D., John, Bonnie E. and Atwood, Michael E. (1992): The Precis of Project Ernestine, or, An Overview of a Validation of GOMS. In: Bauersfeld, Penny, Bennett, John and Lynch, Gene (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 92 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference June 3-7, 1992, Monterey, California. pp. 307-312.

 
Edit | Del

Desurvire, Heather, Kondziela, Jim M. and Atwood, Michael E. (1992): What is Gained and Lost when Using Evaluation Methods Other than Empirical Testing. In: Monk, Andrew, Diaper, Dan and Harrison, Michael D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers VII August 15-18, 1992, University of York, UK. pp. 89-102.

“There is increasing interest in finding usability testing methods that are easier and cheaper to implement than traditional laboratory usability testing. Recent research has looked at a few of these methods. The current study uses three groups of evaluators with different types of expertise, to evaluate a telephone-based interface using two different evaluation methods, the Cognitive Walkthrough and Heuristic Evaluation. This data is compared to laboratory results. Specific problems named in the laboratory and by the evaluator groups are analyzed for what contributions are made by each evaluator group under each method, and what is lost when traditional usability testing cannot be implemented. Future research directions are also discussed.”

© All rights reserved Desurvire et al. and/or Cambridge University Press

1991
 
Edit | Del

Desurvire, Heather, Lawrence, Debbie and Atwood, Michael E. (1991): Empiricism versus Judgement: Comparing User Interface Evaluation Methods on a New Telephone-Based Interface. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 23 (4) pp. 58-59.

1990
 
Edit | Del

Gray, Wayne D., John, Bonnie E., Stuart, Rory, Lawrence, Deborah and Atwood, Michael E. (1990): GOMS Meets the Phone Company: Analytic Modeling Applied to Real-World Problems. In: Diaper, Dan, Gilmore, David J., Cockton, Gilbert and Shackel, Brian (eds.) INTERACT 90 - 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction August 27-31, 1990, Cambridge, UK. pp. 29-34.

“GOMS analyses were used to interpret some perplexing data from a field evaluation of two telephone operator workstations. The new workstation is ergonomically superior to the old and is preferred by all who have used it. Despite these advantages telephone operators who use the new workstation are not faster than those who use the old but are, in fact, significantly slower. This bewildering result makes sense when seen with the aid of GOMS. With GOMS we can see that very few of the eliminated key-strokes or ergonomic advantages affect tasks that determine the operator's work time. Indeed, GOMS shows that some presumed procedural improvements have the contrary effect of increasing the time an operator spends handling a phone call. We concluded that if GOMS had been done early on, then the task, not the workstation, would have been redesigned.”

© All rights reserved Gray et al. and/or North-Holland

 
Edit | Del

Gray, Wayne D., Atwood, Michael E., Olson, Judith S., John, Bonnie E. and Elkerton, Jay (1990): Real-Time GOMS: Comparative Modeling of a User-Nintendo Interaction. In: D., Woods, and E., Roth, (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting 1990, Santa Monica, USA. pp. 385-386.

1989
 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E. (1989): Intelligent Interfaces Group, NYNEX Science and Technology Center. In: Bice, Ken and Lewis, Clayton H. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 89 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 30 - June 4, 1989, Austin, Texas. pp. 53-54.

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E., Brooks, Ruven, Gray, Wayne D., Guindon, Raymonde and Mastaglio, Thomas W. (1989): Current Research in the Psychology of Programming. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 242-244.

“Computer programming is one of the earliest topics addressed by studies of the human factors of computer systems and studies of how software systems are developed remain one of the most difficult areas of investigation. Early work in the psychology of programming focused on comparisons of time-sharing and batch modes, studies of programming team organization, studies of debugging, and investigations of the differences between novice and expert programmers. As new theories and experimental methodologies were developed, further areas were researched. This panel looks at current research in the psychology of computer programming. Topics include studies of programmer behavior, studies of software design, tools for programmers, and experimental methods. Audience members will have an opportunity to describe other areas of study.”

© All rights reserved Atwood et al. and/or Human Factors Society

 
Edit | Del

Atwood, Michael E., Fischer, Gerhard, Gray, Wayne D. and Polson, Peter G. (1989): Theoretical Models for System Design. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 278-280.

“In the history of human factors in computer systems, one of the most significant events of the past decade was the work on GOMS and keystroke models (cf. Card, Moran, and Newell, 1983). While a clear success in causing software developers to focus on the importance of interface design and attracting researchers to this areas, GOMS approaches have not significantly improved the quality of the systems that are developed. Why has this work, that has a great theoretical impact, had so little practical impact on existing systems? Is it that the GOMS formalism is not valid outside of laboratory contexts? Is it that it misses important aspects of behavior such as how people learn to use systems? Is it that GOMS was developed in the context of computer systems that are less powerful and interactive than we have today? Or, are there other reasons? In this panel, we argue that additional cognitive science approaches are needed to improve the quality of developed system. Dr. Gray extends this approach by reporting the first "real world": test of the GOMS-style of system modeling. Dr. Polson extends these models to how people learn to use systems. Dr. Fischer extends this style of research by focusing on cooperative, rather than passive computer systems. Audience members will have an opportunity to describe other approaches to developing theoretical models of system design.”

© All rights reserved Atwood et al. and/or Human Factors Society

1983
 
Edit | Del

Ramsey, H. Rudy, Atwood, Michael E. and Doren, James R. Van (1983): Flowcharts Versus Program Design Languages: An Experimental Comparison. In Communications of the ACM, 26 (6) pp. 445-449.

 
Add publication
Show this list on your homepage
 
 

Join the technology elite and advance:

 
1.

Your career

 
2.

Your network

 
 3.

Your skills

 
 
 
 
 
 

Changes to this page (author)

30 Aug 2012: Modified
03 Nov 2010: Added
02 Nov 2010: Added
23 Feb 2010: Modified
18 Aug 2009: Added
12 Jun 2009: Added
05 Jun 2009: Added
04 Jun 2009: Added
31 May 2009: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
24 Jun 2007: Added
23 Jun 2007: Added
22 Jun 2007: Added
22 Jun 2007: Added
22 Jun 2007: Added
22 Jun 2007: Added
22 Jun 2007: Added
28 Apr 2003: Added

Page Information

Page maintainer: The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/michael_e__atwood.html

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1983-2010
Pub. count:48
Number of co-authors:43



Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

Guy A. Boy:11
Jim Miller:8
Wayne D. Gray:6

 

 

Productive colleagues

Michael E. Atwood's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

Gerhard Fischer:66
Bonnie E. John:64
Guy A. Boy:46
 
 
 
May 23

“ Knowledge is commonly socially constructed, through collaborative efforts towards shared objectives or by dialogues and challenges brought about by different persons' perspectives. ”

-- G. Salomon (in "Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations")

 
 

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

 
 

Help us help you!

 
 
 
 
About | Press kit / Media kit | Copyright/IP Policy | General Terms of Use / General Site Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy

How to help | Site Map

RSS Subscribe through an RSS feed
 
.