Insights from WG3 Meeting on Transferability Results
Presentation of transferability results from the WG3 meeting in London in March 2012, including analysis of papers, discussion on domain-specific attributes, criteria for quality attributes, and transferability potentials in various domains like productivity, effectiveness, and pedagogic quality.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Transferability Results of WG3 meeting London March 1-2 2012 Ebba ra Hvannberg
Second session After reviewing the analysis of the 18 papers, the six groups were asked to answer the following three questions
Questions 1. Did you find any evidence that a method has been transferred from one domain to another? 2. Did you find any domain specific attributes? 3. Did you find any criteria for the domain- specific of attributes
Domain specific quality attributes Evidence of quality attributes which are specific to domains
Productivity Japanese survey (Bevan) 1. Transferability? 2. Time or money is important and the output can be measured 3. Productivity
Effectiveness Japanese survey 1. Transferability to games 2. Degree of success of task achieved 3. From a work/task-oriented domain to a game environment degree of success of achiving personal goals
Pedagogic quality (Lund University 2012) (Ossianilson & Landgren) 1. Transferability potentials yes (from paper) 2. Pedagogic quality quality of the content 3. Can be transferred to the domains that have content, e.g. Web content, movie quality
Criteria for domain specifity of quality attribute evidence of quality attributes which are specific to domains
Criterion 1 Demonstrating the impact of technology (Rice, Newell, Morgan)
Criterion 2 Difficulty in articulating requirements (Rice, Newell, Morgan) (my comment: quality attribute of a process)
Transferability or evidence of transferrability between domains
Affective responses (to stimuli) (Vanden, Abele, Zaman & DeGlooff, 2011) Transferability: Yes (marketing -> Toys UZ) Domain specific: Affective response Stimulus -> Interaction w stimulus Adults -> Children Criteria for domain specificity Domain where affective response are important **When you transfer between (Sub) Domains you must adapt
Video Games -> Serious games Pinelle et al. CHI 08 Transferability: Method: Heuristics evaluation Criteria Adaptable between different kinds of games
Cultural heritage museum guides vs. A.?? Guides: Ghiani, Paterno, Santoro (2009) Transferability: Editor based design supports transferability between two different museums Small adaptation is needed when you transfer between indoor and outdoor cultural heritage sites.
