How to Read a Scientific Paper
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Naviguer la littérature scientifique Aurélien Tabard - Université Lyon 1 - 05/2021 Pourquoi faut-il tant lire ? Dans votre mémoire de recherche, il faudra : • Se positionner par rapport à divers champs • Se positionner par rapport aux travaux réalisés en Design • Aborder avec un angle neuf un problème • S’appuyer sur des méthodes / approches établies • Suivre certaines conventions The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ Naviguer la littérature scientifique 1. Intro 2. L’anatomie d’un article 3. Quelques trucs sur la lecture d’articles scientifiques 4. Un aperçu du processus de publication Structure d’articles Etude de cas • Article publié à Eurovis 2021 • Sera présenté en juin • Travail réalisé à l’automne 2019 • Soumis en 2019 (rejeté) Re-soumis en 2021 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03203128 Eurographics Conference on Visualization (EuroVis) 2021 Volume 40 (2021), Number 3 R. Borgo, G. E. Marai, and T. von Landesberger R. Vuillemot, P. Rivière, A. Beignon, A. Tabard / R. Vuillemot, P. Rivière, A. Beignon, A. Tabard / R. Vuillemot, P. Rivière, A. Beignon, A. Tabard / (Guest Editors) reachability-related questions such as where can I go in 15 min with 2.2. Boundary Objects at building better reachability maps for decision-makers and urban us that dendrites and isolated accessible spots were hard to reason a bus? To tackle those issues, we leveraged cartographic general- planners. about. This motivated ?? and ??. We tackled the simplification re- Science and Technology Study scholars have developed the con- ization principles. They provide transformation guidelines to im- quirement by using the SELECTION generalization dimension that cept of boundary object [?] to describe artifacts that move and prove map readability and combine data sources. However, despite removes elements, as well as SIMPLIFICATION and SMOOTHING support communication across different communities of practice. Boundary Objects in Design Studies: many studies and a proposed visual semiotic [?,?,?], generalization 3.1. Actors and Resources dimensions. Showing underlying structure (??) and varying travel Maps and other graphical representations are canonical examples of remains a manual process or task-specific process [?], and there has durations (??) can be addressed with COMBINATION. Reflections on the Collaborative Creation of Isochrone Maps such boundary objects. Based on their analysis of inter-disciplinary We gathered an inter-disciplinary [?] team of 5 actors in this been few successes to automate it. project with skills that match the needs we identified prior to star research collaborations StarR: [?]?defines it as (quoting): ?? is motivated by the variable nature of isochrone maps un- We first discuss the role of artifacts in design studies and intro- our design study: derlying information, such as the location of departure, travel date, “Objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to lo- duce boundary objects. We then discuss our application domain, DES (Designer) is part-time Interaction Design student, with a mode, and duration. Thus reachability should reflect different types cal needs and constraints of the several parties employing • 1,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 our application domain geo-spatial analysis and approach (carto- background in graphics design; of reachability, e. g., for different travel times. R. Vuillemot , P. Rivière , A. Beignon , and A. Tabard them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity graphic generalization), and the context of our design study. We GIS (Geographic Information Systems post-doc) is full-time across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, • 1École Centrale de Lyon present the maps we built, but also unpack our design process using GIS Expert, with a background in geography; 2 and become strongly structured in individual-site use.” 3.3. Documentation method Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 boundary objects [?] as a novel perspective to analyze visualiza- Figure 2: Example of isochrone map: a central location with pe- MAP (Cartograph) is a freelance Cartographer with D3js [?] 3 • LIRIS, CNRS UMR5205, F-69621, France tion research by looking at the tools and artifacts we used system- The most noted property of boundary objects is their interpretive ripheral areas that are reachable according to multiple time steps: and ObservableHQ notebooks [?] expertise, and a background We conducted the design study over a period of 15 weeks within atically. We generalize from this study by characterizing five cat- flexibility, i.e., the same object can be understood and used differ- 5min, 10min, and 15min (each visible with a different red color in mathematics and journalism; the scope of the larger M2IPROJECT(other sub-projects happened egories of re-occurring artifacts: structured collections, structuring ently by different groups of people [?]. Griesemer and Star give the gradient). VIS (InfoVis researcher) is Assistant Professor splitting time be- in parallel within and outside this project, all related to urban mo- • artifacts, process-centric artifacts, generative artifacts, and bridging example of a map used to locate a place of recreation by one group, tween this research project, teaching and administrative duties; bility). We tracked all interactions within the team by turning on the artifacts. We conclude on the usefulness of considering transient ar- or animal habitats by another [?]. HCI (Human-Computer Interaction researcher): Assistant Pro- history features of our digital tools to date and identify authors of Figure 3: Screenshot of our interactive notebook generating para- • tifacts used to better account for the collaborative dynamics of the fessor splitting time between research projects. the changes. This way, we gathered an analysis corpus that is rep- design process, and suggest how to better capture and reflect on While flexibility is key, and boundary objects allow groups to metric isochrones maps. It is based on an ObservableHQ notebook resentative of most interactions (except informal face-to-face dis- boundary objects beyond our application domain. work together without consensus, this does not mean a complete Although many scholars used the boundary concepts as is, and and exposes its design parameters as widgets (e. g., checkboxes) or The actors have different backgrounds and expertise: they belong cussions). We focus our reporting in the next sections on the: lack of structure. To become boundary objects, an arrangement on reused Star’s categories. Some explored other types of collaborative code (e. g., CSS). to different communities of practice [?]. In our case, we are situated how to operate and collaborate must be established. Groups can situations and proposed other categories [?]. This has been the case within a funded project with deliverables and industry partners, a 1. lifecycle of tools and artifacts we organized as a timeline 2. Related Work work on common objects locally, making them more tailored to notably by the Computer Supporter Cooperative Work community, 2.4. Cartographic Generalization university research group, a computer science laboratory, informal 2. main artifacts produced and used during the project their local use and needs, i. e. something that is not interdisciplinary with a focus on digital artifacts. For instance, Lee proposes to con- research networks for academics, or professional networks for free- 3. final outcome we presented to our external project partners 2.1. Design Studies In this project, we drew on principles of cartographic generaliza- and then share it back in a way that works across the various groups. sider boundary negotiating artifacts rather than boundary objects, lancers, engineers, and designers. Both VIS and HCI act as co-PIs tion. Generalization is the process of abstracting maps by either While we provide transparency in our reporting for those ele- Figure 1: Sample of boundary objects used is the study. (1) A mood board, (2) a paper prototype, (3) a concept illustration in vector graphics, Design studies are a widely used methodology in InfoVis research. The capacity to move back and forth between local specialized arguing that some artifacts are there either to negotiate roles, re- of the project and are leads writing this article. They also were re- adding, removing, or transforming existing elements. Such a pro- ments (and provide some of them as supplemental material), inter- and (4) a parametric interactive notebook. By describing projects from problem framing to final outcomes, work and common share-able objects is constitutive of boundary sponsibilities, and agency in collaborative settings. She defines five sponsible for the early design study stages (pre-condition ones [?]) cess is useful to improve map readability and is for instance cur- nal and detailed working documents (Google Documents, Calen- they seek to contextualize visualization questions and contribu- objects, but it is also something that is dynamic and negotiated. types of boundary negotiating artifacts: (1) self-explanation, (2) in- and lead the structure of the analysis part. tions, with an attention to processes and to the knowledge of do- rently used to render different maps at different zoom levels. Gen- dars) cannot be shared for privacy and disclosure agreement rea- Abstract clusion, (3) compilation, (4) structuring, and (5) borrowing [?]. main experts [ ]. More importantly, design studies emphasize crit- Star emphasizes two criteria, scale and scope, to delineate what eralization roots back to paper cartography