View this PageEdit this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearchHelp Guide

MT's Review of PC98

Copy/paste friendly: reviewform-V2.txt

Paper number:  PC98 

Title:  iCAMS: A Mobile Communication Tool using Location and Schedule Information 

Submission type:  Project Overview 

Relevance to magazine:  4.5 
/* 5 = Burning issue of the day; 4 = Timely and relevant; */

Presentation and clarity:  5 
/* 5 = Lucid and eloquent; */

Reviewer expertise:  4 
/* 4 = My work overlaps this topic; */
   
Depth of contribution:  N.A. 

Historical accuracy and perspective:  N.A. 

Completeness and Balance:  N.A. 

Integration:  4.5 
/* 5 = Fits together like a perfect puzzle;  4 = A few missing pieces; */

Overall recommendation:  2.5  
/* 3 = Accept with major revision but no re-reviewing; 
   2 = Accept with major revision and re-reviewing; */


The paper focuses well on the human experience rather than system design 
details, which makes it a good candidate for the Pervasive Computing Special 
Issue on Human Experience.

Criticisms:
1. It is not clear if the two groups studied adequately represent the 
   intended user population of the system. The authors themselves comment 
   that their system would be more for "families and friends than for busy 
   colleagues in the same company", but one of the groups is exactly the 
   latter.

2. A simplistic log analysis only gives numbers of accesses of individual 
   webpages; it does not reveal what prompted the user to request each page. 
   A page may have been (re-)loaded to view updated location information (by 
   someone with nothing else to do, e.g. in a train), or to initiate a 
   channel of communication. Although questionnaires reveal user intent to a 
   certain extent, this does not seem enough.

3. Users' refusal to enter schedule information onto their handhelds is a 
   commonly-known fact. The authors' surveys corroborate this observation, 
   however the authors' original system design did not take this into 
   account.
 
4. It is possible that certain activity information may be easily guessed 
   without the use of iCAMS. It is not clear from the surveys how often  
   users bypassed iCAMS entirely, dialing numbers and sending emails 
   directly from their phones. 
    
5. Although the authors include a question "you used contact information 
   that was not listed first in priority", it is not clear how often this 
   happened. The only statistic about this aspect is the number of users who 
   replied yes to the above question. It would have been easy to track how 
   often the first phone/email suggested was actually used.


Comments for EIC and AEICs only: 
If accepted, this paper needs careful proofreading to correct serious spelling and grammatical errors.


Reviewer: MT@GT