Digital jewelry: Wearable technology for everyday life
Cameron S. Miner, Denise M. Chan, et al.
CHI EA 2001
A source of intellectual overhead periodically encountered by scientists is the call to be “hard,” to ensure good science by imposing severe methodological strictures. Newell and Card (1985) undertook to impose such strictures on the psychology of human-computer interaction. Although their discussion contributes to theoretical debate in human-computer interaction by setting a reference point, their specific argument fails. Their program is unmotivated, is severely limited, and suffers from these limitations in principle. A top priority for the psychology of human-computer interaction should be the articulation of an alternative explanatory program, one that takes as its starting point the need to understand the real problems involved in providing better computer tools for people to use. © 1986, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Cameron S. Miner, Denise M. Chan, et al.
CHI EA 2001
Ea-Ee Jan, Hong-Kwang Kuo, et al.
INTERSPEECH 2009
Amy Hurst, Scott E. Hudson, et al.
IUI 2008
Jean M.R. Costa, Marcelo Cataldo, et al.
CHI 2011