This document outlines the schedule and activities for a human-computer interaction course. It provides the revised timetable and describes three activities: 1) Students will form pairs to discuss and share key details about papers they have read, listening and taking notes. 2) Students will meet in assigned groups to discuss their individual papers and create a poster presentation addressing the history, challenges, and future of HCI. 3) An assignment is given for students to read their assigned paper, identify another relevant paper, and submit a 300-500 word review by the following Tuesday.

1. Human-Computer Interaction
for Digital Civics
Week 2: What is HCI?
John Vines john.vines@ncl.ac.uk

2. Timetable changes
Session 3 – Weds 21st Oct, 11 - 1
Session 4 – Tues 27th Oct, 4 - 6
Session 5 – Thurs 5th Nov, 9 - 11
Session 6 – Thurs 12th Nov, 9 - 11
Session 7 – Weds 18th Nov, 11 - 1
Session 8 – Weds 25th Nov, 11 - 1
Session 9 – Weds 2nd Dec, 11 - 1
Session 10 – Weds 9th Dec, 11 - 1
Session 11 – Weds 16th Dec, 11 - 1

3. Activity 1(a): Share your papers
Form a pair with the person sat next to you
Choose who is ‘A’ and who is ‘B’
‘A’ – you have 5 minutes to tell ‘B’:
• What paper you chose; title, author(s), where it was published
• What is its: approach, argument, key ‘take homes’
• What is important about the paper?
• Why is this HCI to you?
‘B’ – listen carefully throughout; don’t prompt!; but write notes….

4. Activity 1(b): Share your papers
‘B’ – find another ‘A’:
take the paper you have just been told about with you!
‘B’ – you have 5 minutes to tell your new ‘A’ buddy:
• What is the paper’s; title, author(s), where it was published
• What is its: approach, argument, key ‘take homes’
• What is important about the paper?
• Why did your first partner charachterise this as HCI?
‘A’ – listen carefully throughout; don’t prompt!;
but again write notes….

5. Activity 1(c): Share your papers
‘A’ – find another ‘B’ (someone new):
take the paper you have just been told about with you!
‘A’ – you have 5 minutes to tell your new ‘B’ buddy:
• What is the paper’s; title, author(s), where it was published
• What is its: approach, argument, key ‘take homes’
• What is important about the paper?
• Why did your second partner explain this as characterising HCI?
‘B’ – just listen carefully this time

6. Activity 2: Poster presentation
Find your set-reading group
Group 1: Nataly, Helen, Eujin, Aare
Group 2: Colin, Dan R, Jen, Dan H
Group 3: Reem, Delvin, Janis, Zeinab
Group 4: Jay, Stuart, Taghreed and Aseel
FIRST: Spend 20 minutes taking it in turns to talk about your
individual readings and reviews of the paper:
• What was surprising?
• What was interesting?
• What did you learn?
• What do you need to find out more about?
Try to capture your free discussion on flip chart paper

7. Activity 2: Poster presentation
SECOND: Prepare a 5 minute poster presentation
Make a ‘cleaner’ poster and prepare a 5 minute presentation in
response to four issues based on the paper(s) you have read
1. Tell us something interesting about the history of HCI.
2. What are the major challenges to the field?
3. Why are these significant or problematic, and why do they exist?
4. What could ‘we’ do about these going forward?
Be prepared to give your presentation back here at 1230
Make sure you share the presentation among your group!

8. Before next week
Groups for next week
Group 1: Nataly, Dan R, Janis, Aseel
Paper: Empathy, Participatory Design and People with Dementia
Group 2: Colin, Delvin, Taghreed, Aare
Paper: On Creating and Sustaining Alternatives:
Group 3: Reem, Stuart, Eujin, Dan H
Paper: Participatory design and “democratizing innovation”
Group 4: Jay, Helen, Jen, Zeinab
Paper: Structuring future social relations

9. Before next week
1. between now and the next seminar, read your set
paper and do the same as last week
2. again, identify one paper from one of the
conference or journals listed in the ‘resources’ section
of the website that is a “good example of involving
people in a design process” – bring this next week
3. by the end of Tuesday, write a short (more than
300 words, less than 500) review of your set paper –
make this critical (but not a critique!). At the end, tell
us what other paper you have identified.