Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

Link zu dieser Vergleichsansicht

lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_d:2019-03-11_writing_of_the_paper [11.03.2019 19:15] – Erstellt mit dem Formular lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_d dea60607lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_d:2019-03-11_writing_of_the_paper [11.03.2019 19:23] (aktuell) – dea60607
Zeile 11: Zeile 11:
 As important core points of the paper we used a detailed description of both studies, a detailed listing, interpretation and discussion of the results, an outlook in Future Work and core thoughts and topics in Related Work. In Related Work, we wanted to address important areas of interest in rating and ranking. Since the pre-study provided numerous insights (above all for the ranking of items and for final design decisions in the main-study), we wanted to express this on a larger scale. The aim was to address various aspects, such as a precise description of the participants (number, general data, distribution of nationalities, experiences with evaluation systems/ranking, etc.), the study design (within-subject design, presentation of categories, number of runs, counterbalancing/randomisation, subjectivity/objectivity of the objects of investigation, test profiles, personality tests, etc.), and the design of the study.), the setup (technical data on reproducibility, printed and digital slides, etc.), the documentation (pre-questionnaire, Big5), the study process and the results (for pre-questionnaire, ranking winner, acceptance or refutation of hypotheses, etc.). In addition to analyzing qualitative feedback, we also developed the following null hypotheses with respect to temporal measurements to gain knowledge: As important core points of the paper we used a detailed description of both studies, a detailed listing, interpretation and discussion of the results, an outlook in Future Work and core thoughts and topics in Related Work. In Related Work, we wanted to address important areas of interest in rating and ranking. Since the pre-study provided numerous insights (above all for the ranking of items and for final design decisions in the main-study), we wanted to express this on a larger scale. The aim was to address various aspects, such as a precise description of the participants (number, general data, distribution of nationalities, experiences with evaluation systems/ranking, etc.), the study design (within-subject design, presentation of categories, number of runs, counterbalancing/randomisation, subjectivity/objectivity of the objects of investigation, test profiles, personality tests, etc.), and the design of the study.), the setup (technical data on reproducibility, printed and digital slides, etc.), the documentation (pre-questionnaire, Big5), the study process and the results (for pre-questionnaire, ranking winner, acceptance or refutation of hypotheses, etc.). In addition to analyzing qualitative feedback, we also developed the following null hypotheses with respect to temporal measurements to gain knowledge:
  
-H0: There is no difference between the number of items and the amount of time. +  * H0: There is no difference between the number of items and the amount of time. 
-H0: There is no difference between the category of items and the amount of time. +  * H0: There is no difference between the category of items and the amount of time. 
-H0: There is no difference between the category-sequence and the amount of time. +  * H0: There is no difference between the category-sequence and the amount of time. 
-H0: There is no difference between the ranking type and the amount of time. +  * H0: There is no difference between the ranking type and the amount of time. 
-H0: There is no difference between the interaction method and the amount of time. +  * H0: There is no difference between the interaction method and the amount of time. 
-H0: There is no difference between the nationality and the amount of time.+  * H0: There is no difference between the nationality and the amount of time.
  
 Within the main-study, on the other hand, we addressed similar aspects, such as the objects of investigation (within Fitts' Law tests), the technical and general setup (including a mix of printed and digital media), the use of a pre-questionnaire, the participants and the course of the study. For the writing of the paper, we therefore relied on a detailed investigation of the following hypotheses: Within the main-study, on the other hand, we addressed similar aspects, such as the objects of investigation (within Fitts' Law tests), the technical and general setup (including a mix of printed and digital media), the use of a pre-questionnaire, the participants and the course of the study. For the writing of the paper, we therefore relied on a detailed investigation of the following hypotheses:
  
-H0: The order does not influence the evaluation of the ranking system. +  * H0: The order does not influence the evaluation of the ranking system. 
-H0: The order does not influence the evaluation of the two subjective systems. +  * H0: The order does not influence the evaluation of the two subjective systems. 
-H0: The evaluation of the systems has no impact on the ranking result among the winners.+  * H0: The evaluation of the systems has no impact on the ranking result among the winners.
  
 Regarding the tips and suggestions that we could gain from the explicitly requested feedback session for the literature review, we planned to refine our scientific writing style to match those needs. Therefore, we e.g. tried to consider consistency and to eliminate superfluous phrases in terms of the scientific character of our paper.  Regarding the tips and suggestions that we could gain from the explicitly requested feedback session for the literature review, we planned to refine our scientific writing style to match those needs. Therefore, we e.g. tried to consider consistency and to eliminate superfluous phrases in terms of the scientific character of our paper. 
  
 +{{ :lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_d:paperpictureoriginal.png?direct&400 |}}