The project I’ve been working on is focused on human-robot interaction. A telepresence robot approaches someone in a library and a staff member asks them a few questions. I look at aspects of their body language and the interaction itself to judge, or come up with metrics, for the quality of the interaction. Without a lot of data, only seven or eight participants whose videos I can look at, my poster is super heavy on research, and very wordy. Also, not a lot of data means no useful graphs. I put some on their; but, I have to say I feel a bit like a catfish putting a bar graph comparing the Likert values on how reliable participants find the robot based on different head positions when on of the bars is the average of just two points. But, I think I came up with a pretty nifty graphic on how different things, like torso or head position, relate to positive or negative reactions to the robot. There’s a lot of lit review happening on my poster, which is due Monday week 9. I don’t really mind, most of the time a thoroughly enjoy the writing process anyways, but I don’t think it’s going to be winning any poster competitions. I just really like papers. Mostly that only applies to art history papers (hey what’s up I’m an art major, too) because it seems most of the historians have the freedom to add a little spice to their paper, stuff like colloquialisms or snappy editorial. HRI papers (and this might apply to most CS papers since they have to be so cutting edge, they may not have to be quite as formal) have, on the whole, shared the same pizazz.