In this paper, the authors introduce an add-on prototype interface called DiscoverySpace that recommends actionable items to a user using photoshop. For this application, the authors focused on providing the followings:
– List possible actions at the start
– Use human language
– Show previews of before and after action
– Offer faceted browsing
– Provide relevant and possible new suggestions.
The authors conducted a between-users study to measure the performance of the software. One control group did not have access to DiscoverySpace and used plain Photoshop whereas the other group did. The authors report improved performance for users using DiscoverySpace.
In this interface, the authors require the users to provide information about an image at the start. They mentioned this could be improved in the future by automatic image analysis. I think this feature is desperately needed, at least in my case. When I decide to use a tool, I prefer the tool automatically configuring basic things for me. Also, surprisingly many users interact with interfaces in the wrong way even if it is a very simple one. I am certain some people will fail to configure DiscoverySpace. Object classification inside an image is pretty well-established today, so I think this feature will greatly improve the accessibility to users.
It was interesting to find that users still could not figure out some functionality 50% of the time while using DiscoverySpace. It is certainly better than 80% from the control group, but this percentage still looks too high. I think this says something about the complexity of the tool or the lack of information in the database that they used to provide the suggestions.
Overall, I felt that the study was done in a bit of a rush. In the result section, the study’s participants talk about the lack of functionalities such as dialing down the effect of a filter. I think the idea of the tool itself is pretty cool, but it could have benefitted from more time. I think there could have been a better result from refining the tool a bit more.
The followings are the questions that I had while reading the paper:
1. Do you think this tool has a benefit over simply using Internet search? The authors state that their tool suggests more efficient solutions. However, I think it’ll take a significantly shorter time to search on the Internet. What do you think? Would you use Discovery Space?
2. Did you also feel that the study was a bit rushed? What do you think could have changed given that the authors spent more time refining the tool? Would the participants have provided more positive feedback? What parts of the tool could be improved?
3. It seems that the participants’ survey ratings were used to measure creativity. What other metrics could have been used to measure creativity? I would especially like to hear about this since my project is about creative writing. Would it be possible to measure creativity without simple human input? Would the method be quantitative or qualitative?
