Welche besonderen Formatierungen und Elemente finden sich im Paper (z.B. Tabellen)? §

• table text is above the table
• figure text below

Welche Begriffe sind Euch unbekannt? §

• “student synchronisation”

Wo finden sich Sachbeschreibungen, wo Referenzen auf andere Arbeiten, wo Einordnungen? §

• Sachbeschreibungen:
  • experiment/study, “Sync class” part
• Referenzen:
  • related work
  • other sections apart from abstract/conclusion
• Einordnung:
  • introduction
  • related work

Was gefällt Euch besonders gut/schlecht? §

Sync class paper §

👍 §

• Figure 2

👎 §

• exhausting to read, even tho the topic is not complex
  • long sentences, sometimes weird language
  • blurry wording (e.g. “most cases”)
  • a lot of duplicate content
• confusing figures
• unclear experiments
• catered towards people with experience in teaching?
• the whole idea of monitoring students in the class room with facial tracking
• …

Jitter/Latency paper §

👍 §

• very smooth read
• clear and conscice wording
• good structure & introduction into the topic
• great results section

👎 §

• maybe expand more on the “6.3 trading jitter for lag” section
• title & authors “looked” worse than sync class paper

Review §

Both papers investigated topics related Human Computer Interaction. “Sync Class: Visualization System for In-Class Student Synchronization” had a bigger scope, including quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate the performance and usability of their proposed system. In comparison to the second paper, it lacks structure and its analysis is superficial. The shallow analysis may be explained by the page limit. However, due to inconscice wording, repetitive sentences as well as big and confusing figures, is doubtful whether more space would have improved its quality. “The Tradeoff between Spatial Jitter and Latency in Pointing Tasks” has, as the title suggests, a clear goal. Due to conscise wording, short sentences and a well defined structure, it is easy to follow. The results section presents all findings with clear numbers as opposed to ambiguous wording seen in the first paper. Relevant information is easy to extract. In my opinion, “Sync class…” had the more interesting topic. However, reading felt tedious, with little knowledge getting conveyed in the process.