The RADAR project developed a large multi-agent system with a mixed-initiative user interface designed to help office workers cope with email overload. Most RADAR agents observe experts performing tasks and then assist other users who are performing similar tasks. The interaction design for RADAR focused on developing user interfaces that allowed the intelligent functionality to improve the user's workflow without frustrating the user when the system's suggestions were either unhelpful or simply incorrect. A large evaluation of RADAR demonstrated that novice users confronted with an email overload test performed significantly better, achieving a 37% better overall score when assisted by RADAR.

When creating algorithms or systems that are supposed to be used by people, we should be able to adopt a "binocular" view of users' interaction with intelligent systems: a view that regards the design of interaction and the design of intelligent algorithms as interrelated parts of a single design problem. This special issue offers a coherent set of articles on two levels of generality that illustrate the binocular view and help readers to adopt it.

This case study article describes the iterative design process of an adaptive, mixed-initiative calendaring tool with embedded artificial intelligence. We establish the specific types of assistance in which the target user population expressed interest, and we highlight our findings regarding the scheduling practices and the reminding preferences of these users. These findings motivated the redesign and enhancement of our intelligent system. Lessons learned from the study--namely, highlighting the merits of usability toward widespread adoption and retention, and that simple problems that perhaps do not necessitate complex AI-based solutions should not go unattended merely due to their inherent simplicity--conclude the article, along with a discussion of the importance of the iterative design process for any user adaptive system.

Programming by demonstration systems have long attempted to make it possible for people to program computers without writing code. However, while these systems have resulted in many publications in AI venues, none of the technologies have yet achieved widespread.adoption. Usability remains a critical barrier to their success. On the basis of lessons learned from three different programming by demonstration systems, we present a set of guidelines to consider when designing usable AI-based systems.

The conference Robotics: Science and Systems was held at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich Switzerland, from June 25 to June 28, 2008. More than 280 international researchers attended this single track conference to learn about the most exciting robotics research and most advanced robotic systems. The program committee, led by sixteen area chairs, selected 40 papers out of 163 submissions. The program also included seven invited talks and two early career spotlight presentations. The plenary presentations were complemented by thirteen workshops. 

The development of intelligent environments is considered an important step toward the realization of the ambient intelligence vision. Greece, served as program chairs. The previous four editions of the IE conference have been held at the University of Essex, UK (in 2005), at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece (in 2006), at the University of Ulm, Germany (in 2007), and at the University of Washington campus in Seattle, Washington, USA (in 2008). The development of intelligent environments is About 120 delegates attended the workshops considered the first and primary step toward the and the conference. These included representatives realization of the ambient intelligence vision.

ICAART 2010 will be held January 22-24, 2010, in Valencia, Spain. This page includes forthcoming AAAI sponsored conferences, conferences presented International Conference on Intelligent by AAAI Affiliates, and conferences held in cooperation with AAAI. IUI 2010 will be Magazine also maintains a calendar listing that includes nonaffiliated conferences held February 7-10, 2010, in Hong at www.aaai.org/Magazine/calendar.php. The Twelfth International Conference The Third Conference on Artificial AAAI Spring Symposium Series will be on Principles of Knowledge Representation General Intelligence. AGI-08 will be held March 22-24, 2010 at Stanford and Reasoning.

There is considerable validity to this point of view: Anyone who develops systems that are intended for use by people can benefit from familiarity with and application of these methods. Accordingly, this article offers a brief introduction to these methods, including examples and suggestions for additional reading (see in particular the Further Reading section). Even people who are already experts in the application of these methods should be aware of potential adaptations and extensions to the methods when applied to systems that are designed to incorporate significant use of AI. The theme articles by Lieberman (2009) and by Jameson (2009) in this issue discuss some of the ways in which systems that incorporate intelligence tend to differ from systems that do not, both in terms of their potential to help users and in terms of possible side effects. These and other properties of intelligent systems can affect the application of design and evaluation methods in various ways, some of which are illustrated in the case studies of this special issue. To organize our discussion, we distinguish broadly three types of activity that are involved in usability engineering: understanding users' needs, interaction design, and evaluation. Except for the fact that understanding users' needs tends to occur early in the design process, these activities generally proceed in parallel and complement each other.

Interface personalization aims to streamline the process of working in a feature-rich application by providing the user with an adapted interface tailored specifically to his/her needs. The MICA (Mixed-Initiative Customization Assistance) system explores a middle ground between two opposing approaches to personalization: (1) an adaptable approach, where personalization is fully user controlled and (2) and adaptive approach, where personalization is fully system controlled. We overview MICA’s strategy for providing user-adaptive recommendations to help users decide how to personalize their interfaces. In doing so, we focus primarily on how MICA handles threats to usability that are often found in adaptive interfaces including obtrusiveness and lack of understandability and control. We also describe how we evaluated MICA and highlight results from these evaluations.

Although AI and HCI explore computing and intelligent behavior and the fields have seen some cross-over, until recently there was not very much. This article outlines a history of the fields that identifies some of the forces that kept the fields at arm’s length. AI was generally marked by a very ambitious, long-term vision requiring expensive systems, although the term was rarely envisioned as being as long as it proved to be, whereas HCI focused more on innovation and improvement of widely-used hardware within a short time-scale. These differences led to different priorities, methods, and assessment approaches.  A consequence was competition for resources, with HCI flourishing in AI winters and moving more slowly when AI was in favor. The situation today is much more promising, in part because of platform convergence: AI can be exploited on widely-used systems.