Comments
Daniel's Blog
Summary
Ahh! the last paper of our sketch class. Has nothing to do with sketch recognition but only such paper which compares the feedback and usability of sketch systems with paper & pencil inputs. A good motivation from the evaluation study for researchers in the field of sketch recognition comes from this paper.
It basically presents a sketch diagram of a web-page layout from low-fidelity to high-fidelity after small portions of beautification in the diagram. The low-fidelity is the paper drawn sketch and high-fidelity is the final beautified version of the sketch.
In the user study the author selects a small group of students each is shown all the sketches from low-fidelity to high-fidelity. The results show that the changes asked by the users to be done with the sketch decreases as they move from low-fidelity to high-fidelity. An overall people preferred working with the high-fidelity sketch than paper and pencil sketch. Another interesting result is that people preferred pencil and paper sketch over the low-fidelity tablet version.
Discussion
A nice user study for sketch systems but some there are some specific cases the author has looked upon. The sketch is very domain specific to web-page layouts and user opinions might differ for other domains. The user study is also conducted on a very small group of people. The beautification stages can be modified by modifying one aspect of the sketch while keeping other constants, instead of the author's approach which slowly beautifies each aspect at each stage.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
SHADY: A Shape Description Debugger for Use in Sketch Recognition
Comments
Manoj's Blog
Summary
This paper simply builds upon the effective use of the LADDER system. In this paper the author describes the addition of a debugging capability of LADDER domain description using the idea of near-miss from the previous paper. The system is called SHADY
Many times it happens when defining the domain constraints of a shape and the shape is not properly recognized by the LADDER system. The developer is not provided of any feedback of what went wrong with the domain descriptions that LADDER was not able to recognize the shape.
In this modification the developer can define constraints and the draw a shape on the LADDER system. If the shape is not recognized the systems exactly shows which constraint is not met by the input sketch and give the editor to the user to fix the error. There can be number of constraints that are not met by the input sketch. If SHADY shows all the results this could become overwhelming for the developer. Instead SHADY tries to choose a smaller subset from the result which can closely match to the user intentions.
SHADY can also generate the constraints from the drawn shape and also generate the shapes which satisfy the constraints provide by the user.
Discussion
A fairly nice improvement which makes it easy for the user to define the constraints in the domain through proactive feedback from shady. This also helps the developer understand the underlying logic of LADDER as he engages into the debugging of constraints.
Manoj's Blog
Summary
This paper simply builds upon the effective use of the LADDER system. In this paper the author describes the addition of a debugging capability of LADDER domain description using the idea of near-miss from the previous paper. The system is called SHADY
Many times it happens when defining the domain constraints of a shape and the shape is not properly recognized by the LADDER system. The developer is not provided of any feedback of what went wrong with the domain descriptions that LADDER was not able to recognize the shape.
In this modification the developer can define constraints and the draw a shape on the LADDER system. If the shape is not recognized the systems exactly shows which constraint is not met by the input sketch and give the editor to the user to fix the error. There can be number of constraints that are not met by the input sketch. If SHADY shows all the results this could become overwhelming for the developer. Instead SHADY tries to choose a smaller subset from the result which can closely match to the user intentions.
SHADY can also generate the constraints from the drawn shape and also generate the shapes which satisfy the constraints provide by the user.
Discussion
A fairly nice improvement which makes it easy for the user to define the constraints in the domain through proactive feedback from shady. This also helps the developer understand the underlying logic of LADDER as he engages into the debugging of constraints.
Multimodal Collaborative Handwriting training for Visually-Impaired People
Comments
Manoj's blog
Summary
In this paper the author presents a Multimodal Haptic feedback system for visually impaired people to help them learn writing and drawing shapes. The system is called "McSig". In this paper the author discusses the general un-awarness of people that blind people find it really hard to draw and write because of lack of feedback.
In this paper the author creates a system which enables teachers to make the students learn how to draw and write through a sketch-based system. In this setting the teacher draws a shape on a tablet pc and then the student can feel explore and move around the shape on a device called PHANTOM which echoes the shape the teacher had drawn. PHANTOM is an omni force-feedback device.
An evaluation study was conducted on two types of visually impaired subjects. Once which are completely blind and the other who are partially visually impaired. There was a significant improvement in the accuracy of the shapes drawn by both type of subjects. The partially impaired subjects were able to learn the system very quickly and after a very short time they were able to draw shapes accurately. The completely blind subjects took more time in learning the system but once they got used to the devices they also showed improvement in their sketching.
Discussion
A different domain of the usability of sketch systems through haptic feeback. There is lot of discussion on the effective feedback of sketch systems and this paper simply opens a new dimension of providing richer feedback.
Manoj's blog
Summary
In this paper the author presents a Multimodal Haptic feedback system for visually impaired people to help them learn writing and drawing shapes. The system is called "McSig". In this paper the author discusses the general un-awarness of people that blind people find it really hard to draw and write because of lack of feedback.
In this paper the author creates a system which enables teachers to make the students learn how to draw and write through a sketch-based system. In this setting the teacher draws a shape on a tablet pc and then the student can feel explore and move around the shape on a device called PHANTOM which echoes the shape the teacher had drawn. PHANTOM is an omni force-feedback device.
An evaluation study was conducted on two types of visually impaired subjects. Once which are completely blind and the other who are partially visually impaired. There was a significant improvement in the accuracy of the shapes drawn by both type of subjects. The partially impaired subjects were able to learn the system very quickly and after a very short time they were able to draw shapes accurately. The completely blind subjects took more time in learning the system but once they got used to the devices they also showed improvement in their sketching.
Discussion
A different domain of the usability of sketch systems through haptic feeback. There is lot of discussion on the effective feedback of sketch systems and this paper simply opens a new dimension of providing richer feedback.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Sketch Recongition User Interfaces: Guidelines for Design and Development
Comments
Akshay's Blog
Summary
This system in general is user study of a sketch system which mainly focuses on the interfaces of such systems. The system used in this study is a free-hand drawing sketch system which can recognize the shapes drawn by the user and immediately they are translated into power point objects, when the user switches the screens.
After the evaluation of the system the author describes a set of rules which according to the author should be considered when designing a sketch recognition system. Points mentioned in short are.
Discussion
This paper is thinking on different line of making the sketch system more usable. It define a nice framework for the usability of these sketch systems but some more work is definitely required refining the framework.
Akshay's Blog
Summary
This system in general is user study of a sketch system which mainly focuses on the interfaces of such systems. The system used in this study is a free-hand drawing sketch system which can recognize the shapes drawn by the user and immediately they are translated into power point objects, when the user switches the screens.
After the evaluation of the system the author describes a set of rules which according to the author should be considered when designing a sketch recognition system. Points mentioned in short are.
- display recognition results only when the author is done sketching.
- provide obvious indications to distinguish free sketching from recognition.
- restrict recognition to single domain until automatic domain detection becomes feasible.
- incorporate pen-based editing.
- sketching and edition should use distinct pen motion.
- SkRUIs require large buttons.
- the pen must always respond in real-time.
Discussion
This paper is thinking on different line of making the sketch system more usable. It define a nice framework for the usability of these sketch systems but some more work is definitely required refining the framework.
Fluid Sketches: Continous Recognition and Morphing of Simple Hand-Drawn Shapes
Commnets
Akshay's Blog
Summary
This paper mainly talks about the beautification technique which is different from the techniques which have been used by the other sketch recognition systems. In this systems as the user draws a sketch on the system the points of the systems are moved from the original location to the location of the recognized shapes.
Currently the system only supports only two types of shape which are mainly circle and rectangle. The important here in this paper is that the user is getting an immediate feedback by the sketch of the shape it's being recognized into. This interpretation of the system is not final and can change during the course of drawing.
A user study was conducted with eleven subjects and qualitative data was gathered for the system. In general the system was appreciated by the users and subjects could easily pick the concepts of the fluid sketches.
Discussion
This system is very basic, which recognizes only two shapes. It can act as a proof of a concept but it's possibility of becoming a more general system for sketch recognition is still a question, since the system will have to work around many hurdles for full fledged sketch system which can recognize many shapes.
Akshay's Blog
Summary
This paper mainly talks about the beautification technique which is different from the techniques which have been used by the other sketch recognition systems. In this systems as the user draws a sketch on the system the points of the systems are moved from the original location to the location of the recognized shapes.
Currently the system only supports only two types of shape which are mainly circle and rectangle. The important here in this paper is that the user is getting an immediate feedback by the sketch of the shape it's being recognized into. This interpretation of the system is not final and can change during the course of drawing.
A user study was conducted with eleven subjects and qualitative data was gathered for the system. In general the system was appreciated by the users and subjects could easily pick the concepts of the fluid sketches.
Discussion
This system is very basic, which recognizes only two shapes. It can act as a proof of a concept but it's possibility of becoming a more general system for sketch recognition is still a question, since the system will have to work around many hurdles for full fledged sketch system which can recognize many shapes.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
What Are Intelligence? And Why?
Comments
Daniel's blog
Summary
The author takes an interesting route to define the evolution of intelligence of human beings as different from animals. Based on the evolutionary evidences the rise of the human intelligence can be defined by various theories.
the primal tool maker: says that human intelligence was evolved from making effective tools. the killer frisbee theory suggests that human made frisbee to kill animals. There are various other theories. the killer climate, the primal frugivor, the primal psychologist, the primal linguist.
Then the author discusses the intelligence in other living beings. The mathematical ability of the horse clever hans which was for quite some time misunderstood as intelligence was later found out to be the ability of horse to pick up answers from the audience. The birds and bees does show some sort of intelligence, like the bees telling the direction of the flower field and parrot recognizing human speech and ability to communicate. Monkeys have also shown some of intelligence.
The evolution of the human intelligence has a more bilogical perspective attached to it and its spans over a million years.
Discussion
I loved this paper!. Human brain and intelligence has always intrigued me. The ability of the humans to perform various abstract calculations in no time is remarkable.
I agree with the idea of the author here that AI as a discipline should have more common in biology than mathematics and physics.
Daniel's blog
Summary
The author takes an interesting route to define the evolution of intelligence of human beings as different from animals. Based on the evolutionary evidences the rise of the human intelligence can be defined by various theories.
the primal tool maker: says that human intelligence was evolved from making effective tools. the killer frisbee theory suggests that human made frisbee to kill animals. There are various other theories. the killer climate, the primal frugivor, the primal psychologist, the primal linguist.
Then the author discusses the intelligence in other living beings. The mathematical ability of the horse clever hans which was for quite some time misunderstood as intelligence was later found out to be the ability of horse to pick up answers from the audience. The birds and bees does show some sort of intelligence, like the bees telling the direction of the flower field and parrot recognizing human speech and ability to communicate. Monkeys have also shown some of intelligence.
The evolution of the human intelligence has a more bilogical perspective attached to it and its spans over a million years.
Discussion
I loved this paper!. Human brain and intelligence has always intrigued me. The ability of the humans to perform various abstract calculations in no time is remarkable.
I agree with the idea of the author here that AI as a discipline should have more common in biology than mathematics and physics.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Magic Paper: Sketch-Understanding Research
Comments
Manoj's Blog
Summary
In this paper the author describes the basic history of sketch recognition. It's correlation and deviance with the problem of speech recognition. The author here his work in sketch recognition as towards the creation of the 'magic paper' which is as intuitive to use as natural paper and yet it's able to understand what the user has drawn to give him a feel of 'intelligent paper'.
The author thinks that the problem is important even in front of some very good modeling tools because according to a study in cognitive science whose result is that people tend to be more creative and innovative when they are working with more natural utensils than a CAD system.
Author here discusses the difficulties in sketch recognition which are unique to the field or which are common among other fields such as speech recognition.
The author then tries to define a framework in understanding sketch which a popular LADDER system uses quite effectively.
Discussion
A light-weight discussion in the field of sketch recognition. It more sets a tone for research in the field of sketch recognition than any technicalities or innovations.
Manoj's Blog
Summary
In this paper the author describes the basic history of sketch recognition. It's correlation and deviance with the problem of speech recognition. The author here his work in sketch recognition as towards the creation of the 'magic paper' which is as intuitive to use as natural paper and yet it's able to understand what the user has drawn to give him a feel of 'intelligent paper'.
The author thinks that the problem is important even in front of some very good modeling tools because according to a study in cognitive science whose result is that people tend to be more creative and innovative when they are working with more natural utensils than a CAD system.
Author here discusses the difficulties in sketch recognition which are unique to the field or which are common among other fields such as speech recognition.
The author then tries to define a framework in understanding sketch which a popular LADDER system uses quite effectively.
Discussion
A light-weight discussion in the field of sketch recognition. It more sets a tone for research in the field of sketch recognition than any technicalities or innovations.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
