CSER and CASCON

This past Sunday and Monday I went to a meeting of the Consortium for Software Engineering Research (CSER). Popular topics there were empirical software engineering, research ethics, diagnostics, and models and visualization. There were a couple of talks from Peggy Storey and Ian Bull, from the University of Victoria’s Chisel Group, which has built some very cool tools for information visualization that I’ll talk about later. From our own group, Greg Wilson presented Dr Project as a tool to manage undergraduate software teams, which sparked an interesting discussion on student data collection for research. Aaand I presented one of the 22 student posters that graced the reception.

The rest of my week was for CASCON, a free conference put together by the Center for Advanced Studies at IBM. There I went to two social computing workshops – for me, the highlight of the first was Joey deVilla‘s refreshing no-powerpoint, democamp-style speech on “Failures 2.0” (“go out there and flop!”, he yelled); and I very much enjoyed the second workshop’s panel discussion between web 2.0 evangelists and some healthily skeptic audience members. The downside, however, is that I’m still numb from drinking so much web 2.0 kool-aid. My delicate brain must have heard the term (and its crazy Enterprise 2.0, Office 2.0, and Collaboration 2.0 variants) literally hundreds of times. Yuk.

About Jorge Aranda

I'm currently a Postdoctoral Fellow at the SEGAL and CHISEL labs in the Department of Computer Science of the University of Victoria.
This entry was posted in General, Information visualization, Software development. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to CSER and CASCON

  1. Yoni says:

    Jorge, I wish I was there as well. This is the first in quite a few years that I haven’t been to CASCON.
    That web 2.0 kool-aid is sweet, eh? we had some discussion about it at work, and no matter how much we drink, no one can accurately define what exactly web 2.0 is🙂

  2. Jorge says:

    Yeah, that should raise a flag. I got three shaky definitions from the panelists: (1) web applications that let users generate content, (2) AJAX stuff, and (3) “anything cool we’ve been doing for the past 18 months”. The third is the most honest, but I just wish they’d drop the term (and the hype!).

  3. I am a firmer believer that Web 2.0 comply with the definition (3), adding “and we expect to make a bunch of money from”

  4. Jorge says:

    “…if Google buys us.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s