The presenter must prepare a presentation in which he/she provides a brief summary of the assigned paper. The presenter should present the paper in a manner you think the authors would agree. That is, present the work factually, but in the best possible light.
Presenters must use these PowerPoint slides as a template for their talks.
Hard limit of 20 minutes—rehearse to get the length right!
Fill the time—talks too much under 20 minutes will be penalized!
Presenters should be able to tell what type of paper they are presenting: is it a tool or empirical paper?
Presentations should be structured as follows, depending on the type of paper (with some wiggle room on the slide counts).
| # Slides | What to cover |
|---|---|
| 1 | Title slide. Paper title, authors, venue, year, your name, presentation date, paper type. |
| 1 | Problem. What is the problem that the tool aims to solve (top-level and sub-problem)? |
| 0–2 | Background. What must we know about in order to understand the tool? |
| 2–4 | Tool. What is the tool like? How does it work? From a user perspective? What key design decisions did the authors make? What was the rationale for those decisions? |
| 1 | Evaluation method. How did the authors evaluate their tool? |
| 1–4 | Evaluation results. What results and/or findings came out of the evaluation? Do the results support the authors’ claims? |
| 0–2 | Discussion. Did the authors discuss any interesting insights or implications for design based on their work? (Don’t include threats to validity because the rebutter will do it.) |
| 1 | Claims/Conclusion. What key claims did the authors make about their tool? What key findings supported those claims? What, if any, other key contributions did they make? |
| # Slides | What to cover |
|---|---|
| 1 | Title slide. Paper title, authors, venue, year, your name, presentation date, paper type. |
| 1 | Research question/problem. What question(s) did the paper seek to answer? What problem(s) did the work study? Why are the questions/problems interesting or important? |
| 1 | High-level study approach. In brief, how did the researchers go about addressing their research questions? |
| 0–3 | Background. What must we know about in order to understand the study? |
| 1–2 | Study method. What were the details of the study design? Participants? Tasks? Environment? Procedure? Data collected? Analysis method? |
| 4–6 | Study results. What results and/or findings came out of the study? (The results are often the most interesting part of an empirical paper.) |
| 0–2 | Discussion. Did the authors discuss any interesting insights or implications for design based on their work? (Don’t include threats to validity because the rebutter will do it.) |
| 1 | Claims/Conclusion. What key claims did the authors make based on their study? What key findings supported those claims? What, if any, other key contributions did they make? |
Additionally, the presenter must follow the following style rules/criteria:
Slides must have a black background and white text (as in the template)
Minimum font size: 24pt (20pt for figures and code samples)
Copied figures/tables must include references to their sources
Copied figures/tables must not include captions
Colors, if used, must be used effectively
Animations, if used, must be used effectively
No “Questions?” slide at the end
No periods at the end of bullet points or lines of text (these are lists of keywords, not sentences)
Informative headings (avoid “Introduction”, “Background”, etc. headings; instead, do something like this “Background: Cognitive Load Theory”)
One idea per slide
Proper spacing around parentheses
Each presentation will be graded in terms of the completeness, clearness, and correctness of the informational content (with respect to the instructions above) and the presentation style. The points breakdown is as follows:
| Component | Points |
|---|---|
| Informational Content | 50 |
| Style | 50 |
| Total | 100 |
The points breakdown for the Informational Content component varies by paper type.
Tool Papers
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 4 | Title slide complete and correct |
| 6 | Problem clear and correct |
| 18 | Tool clear and correct (may depend on Background) |
| 6 | Evaluation Method clear and correct |
| 12 | Evaluation Results clear and correct |
| 4 | Discussion and Claims/Conclusion |
Empirical Papers
| Points | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 4 | Title slide complete and correct |
| 6 | Research Question/Problem clear and correct |
| 6 | High-Level Study Approach clear and correct |
| 12 | Study Method clear and correct (may depend on Background) |
| 18 | Study Results clear and correct |
| 4 | Discussion and Claims/Conclusion |
Note that presenting the various items in an order other than the one specified in the instructions may hurt the clarity of the presentation, and may therefore result in clarity deductions under one or more criteria.
Style grading will use a deduction-based grading system. That is, initially there will be 50 points, and any style violations will result in deductions from those points. The exact size of a deduction will vary based on how much it detracted from the presentation. Below are the maximum deductions for various criteria. It is possible that more than 50 points worth of deductions will be applied; however, the minimum style score will be held at 0.
| Max Deduction | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 25 | Speaker Leads (when appropriate) |
| 25 | Slide Leads (when appropriate) |
| 15 | Black background, white text |
| 10 | Font Size |
| 5 | Figures/Tables source references |
| 5 | Figures/Tables captions |
| 10 | Use of Colors |
| 5 | Use of Animation |
| 5 | No “Questions?” Slide |
| 5 | No periods at the end of lines |
| 10 | Informative headings |
| 15 | One idea per slide |
| 5 | Parenthesis spacing |
| 5 | Proper capitalization |
If the presentation is too long or too short, a length deduction will be taken off the total score as follows:
| Deduction | Time Over or Under 20 minutes |
|---|---|
| -0 | 0–3 minutes |
| -10 | 4–5 minutes |
| -20 | 6–10 minutes |
| -40 | 11–15 minutes |
| -80 | 16–20 minutes |