Some Personal Reflections on HCI Research

From Computers to Humans: Understanding the Core of HCI

As someone with an engineering background, my initial understanding of HCI was heavily focused on the “computer” aspect. When reading research papers, I paid more attention to system design and technical implementation, often overlooking the discussions about the “human” element. This mindset led me to prioritize complex technical solutions during the early stages of projects, equating technical sophistication with research quality.

However, as my research deepened, I gradually realized that the core value of HCI lies in understanding the “human” aspect. This understanding sets HCI apart from other fields in computer science. Without thoroughly analyzing user needs and clarifying the essence of the problem, proposing technical solutions often results in wasted effort or even misguided outcomes.

In contrast, other fields in computer science often have well-defined tasks and benchmarks, allowing researchers to focus on technical innovations. In HCI, however, the complexity of human behavior and needs means that many problems lack clear definitions. Neglecting this complexity and pursuing only technical breakthroughs can lead to ambiguous evaluation criteria and ineffective solutions. Therefore, understanding “humans” and the problem itself is the starting point and the key to HCI research.

From Points to Wholes: Exploring and Defining Problems

In research, there can be a tendency to start from a “point” to achieve quick results and publications. However, this goal-driven approach risks producing superficial or even erroneous conclusions. It is akin to the parable of blind men touching an elephant—observing only one part often fails to capture the whole picture.

That said, the “blind men and the elephant” approach can still be effective in research. The key is to “touch more parts,” conducting pilot studies from various perspectives to comprehensively understand the problem. Ultimately, the main research thread should connect these seemingly unrelated parts, extracting patterns and insights.

This process can be daunting, as exploration may uncover more problems, increasing the complexity of the research. It’s natural to worry about not being able to resolve these emerging issues—much like students feeling anxious when encountering unfamiliar exam questions. However, in research, identifying and defining problems is a significant contribution in itself. A thorough and broad exploration not only helps understand the problem’s essence but also lays the groundwork for future solutions by uncovering clues and inspiration.

From Form to Meaning: Pursuing "Intent" Over "Appearance"

If a company’s product is akin to a realistic photograph, a research paper is more like a landscape painting. Research’s value lies not in fully capturing the “form” but in sketching possible future directions with a few strokes, leaving room for others to imagine and expand. In other words, research emphasizes conveying “intent.”

Therefore, research prototypes (proof of concept) should not be judged by the standards of commercial products. These prototypes may lack technical maturity, but they carry researchers’ deep reflections on problems. For instance, when boiling water generates steam that lifts a lid, the significance lies in understanding the principle behind it and imagining the potential of steam pressure, rather than immediately building a steam engine.

Initially, I felt that research papers and projects within the lab varied greatly, with little commonality. Over time, however, I realized that all the research ultimately addresses a fundamental issue: how to optimize human resources across various tasks. This core question manifests in different forms across scenarios and serves as the underlying thread of the research. In our work, we should focus more on these high-level ideas and less on getting caught up in specific details.