FXPAL Blog

About: Gene Golovchinsky

Website

http://www.fxpal.com/?p=gene

Profile

Sr. Research Scientist at FXPAL. Interested in information seeking, dynamic hypertext, collaborative search, e-books, freeform digital ink annotation, human-computer interaction, photography, wine, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Follow me on Twitter at @HCIR_GeneG

Posts by Gene Golovchinsky:

• Client-side search, 23 Apr 2013 in Information seeking

  When we rolled out the CHI 2013 previews site, we got a couple of requests for being able to search the site with keywords. Of course interfaces for search are one of my core research interests, so that request got me thinking. How could we do search on this site? The problem with the conventional [...]

• CHI 2013 Video Previews are live!, 20 Apr 2013 in CFP

  You might remember a while ago, we solicited some examples of videos for the Video Preview program for CHI 2013. Well, it took a while, but the CHI 2013 Video Previews web site is now live. The Video Previews are a new feature for the CHI Conference series, replacing the long-running CHI Madness daily plenary [...]

• Details, please, 15 Apr 2013 in Information seeking

  At a PARC Forum a few years ago, I heard Marissa Mayer mention the work they did at Google to pick just the right shade of blue for link anchors to maximize click-through rates. It was an interesting, if somewhat bizarre, finding that shed more light on Google’s cognitive processes than on human ones. I [...]

• Slow down!, 10 Apr 2013 in Information seeking

  The prolific Jaime Teevan has decided to blog, as evidenced by the creation of “Slow Searching” a few weeks ago. In a recent post, Jaime wrote about some ways in which Twitter search differed from web search, among which she included monitoring behavior, running “the same query over and over again just to see what [...]

• Anonymity, 05 Apr 2013 in scientific publishing

  The skilled adversarial reviewer can find reasons to reject any paper without even reading it. This is considered truly blind reviewing. [Cormode, G.] Many conferences request that submitted papers be anonymized by removing the authors’ names, tweaking the references, removing mentions of the authors’ organization in the paper, etc. The goal of the double-blind review [...]

• ACM DL and Open Access, 02 Apr 2013 in scientific publishing

  Today ACM announced a way for authors to pay for publishing open-access papers in the ACM DL. For a mere $1100 per conference paper ($1300 per journal article) for ACM members, authors can grant free access to their publications to anyone who wants it. I am all for open access to academic publications, but I [...]

• HCIR 2013 CFP, 01 Apr 2013 in CFP

  It’s that time of the year again, time to solicit your latest and greatest HCIR ideas in written and poster form. We are happy to announce that this year’s Human-Computer Information Retrieval Symposium (HCIR 2013) will be held on October 3 and 4 in Vancouver, BC. Building on last year’s meeting, we will have both [...]

• HCIR site gets publication page, 29 Mar 2013 in scientific publishing

  Over the past six years of the HCIR series of meetings, we’ve accumulated a number of publications. We’ve had a series of reports about the meetings, papers published in the ACM Digital Library, and an up-coming Special Issue of IP&M. In the run-up to this year’s event (stay tuned!), I decided it might be useful [...]

• Ghosts of CHI Madness past, 15 Nov 2012 in CFP

  Gonzalo Ramos and I are the video previews chairs for CHI 2013. Video previews are a new way of promoting and advertising CHI publications before, during, and after the conference.; they will replace the traditional live CHI Madness presentations. We would like to put together a small set of short videos (approx 30 seconds long) [...]

• HCIR 2012 papers published!, 07 Nov 2012 in Information seeking

  One of the things we did slightly differently in this year’s HCIR Symposium was to introduce full-length, pier reviewed, top-tier conference-quality papers. We received a number of submissions, each of which was read and discussed by three reviewers. We then rejected some of papers, and sent several back for a rewrite-and-resubmit cycle. In the end, [...]