Review of a paper presented to EECE 519 class.

1. Footprints: History-Rich Tools for
Information Foraging
Wexelblat & Maes, 1999
Presented to EECE 519
March 1, 2007
Desy Wahyuni

2. Goal
To evaluate both subjective and objective
usefulness of Footprints (interaction
history tools)
To validate the authors' theory/framework
of interaction history using the tools

3. Context
1999
Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
MIT Media Lab

4. Context
1988 - Don Norman:
 history rich objects acquires new affordances
 we can use these affordances to interact with
the object in new ways
1990s - Peter Pirolli & Stuart Card:
 the concept of information foraging
1992/93: Will Hill and Jim Hollan:
 Edit Wear & Read Wear

5. Interaction History
Interaction history:
traces/records of interaction between humans
and an object that affect subsequent interaction
(of other humans) with the same object
Digital object vs physical object
Footprints project

6. Interaction History Framework
Goals:
 boundary of possible interaction history
systems
 system design guidance for building history-rich
interfaces

7. Interaction History Framework
1. Proxemic vs Distemic
2. Active vs Passive
3. Rate/Form of Change
4. Degree of Permeation
5. Personal vs Social
6. Kind of Information (what, who, why, and
how)

8. The Footprints Tools
Tools applying interaction history to the
problem of navigation in a complex
information space
Using metaphor of physical world
navigation: maps, paths, and signposts

9. Map
 Social
 Passive
 Distemic
 Unpermeated

10. Path
 Social
 Passive
 Unpermeated
 Distemic/proxemic

11. Annotation
 Social
 Passive
 Proxemic
 Permeated

12. Signposts (Comments)
 Social
 Active
 Proxemic
 Permeated

13. Experiment
Timed (20 mins) browsing task (buy a car
with a $20,000 budget)
Group 1: unaided
Group 2: with Footprints

14. Hypotheses
Objective measures:
Footprints tools would increase the number of
alternatives generated and reduce the number
of pages visited
Subjective measures:
Users would find it easier to find and
understand relevant information, and would
have a greater sense of satisfaction

15. Results
Objective measures:
 The number of alternatives generated by the
two subject groups was not significantly
different
 The mean number of pages required to reach
the same alternative level was significantly less
for the Footprints group

16. Results
Subjective measures:
 No significant differences were observed
 One exception: interaction history models
helped (or increased satisfaction level of)
experienced users but not naïve users

17. Conclusion
Footprints tools are successful in two
respects:
 They enable users to get the same work done
with significantly less effort
 Experienced users were able to recognize the
information models left behind by other users
and reported a significantly higher sense of
satisfaction when working with these models

18. Analysis
For casual tasks such as the one used in
the experiment, I think this tool is too
much for the users. Users are lazy.
Footprints vs del.icio.us?
 The way people tag online resources can be
seen as the interaction between human and
digital object.
 Tags are the traces.

19. Analysis
Social tagging systems are:
 Distemic
 Active
 Rapidly changed
 Unpermeated
 Social
 Supportive for various kinds of information

20. Question
Is there any relation between interaction
history and recommendation system?