Final Report

You will present your findings in a final paper. Revisit your proposal. You can either update your proposal or start a new document. The final paper should follow the ACM CHI format.

Page limit: Final papers should be up to 8 pages long (without references).

Much of the advice from above for preparing your presentation applies to the paper as well. Here are a few more suggestions for preparing your paper:

• Find a paper that you particularly like because of how it's written, and use it as a template. This paper will give you more guidance as to how to structure your paper. Example Paper
• Please make sure to follow the guidelines of the final paper/presentation structure and contents.
• The title and abstract are often the most important parts of a paper, and should clearly convey what you did. Motivate your specific problem (not the field as a whole), and focus on what you did. After reading the abstract, the reader should know what your contribution is – don't speak in generalities. For example, instead of saying "We evaluate a new method for preventing online behavior tracking by running a user study.", say "We present Stall-man, a new browser extension that prevents online behavior tracking while retaining webpage functionality by dynamically executing javascript in a sandboxed emulator that runs requests through Tor, awaits server-side results, and then copies over the resultant static HTML to the end-user's browser. In a between-subjects field experiment with 30 participants, we found that while Stall-man was noticeably slower than standard web browsing, participants preferred browsing with Stall-man at a 2:1 ratio because of the privacy benefits it provided."
• Review the Project proposal assignment. Make sure you clearly address each of the important bullets from the proposal in your final paper.
• Clearly tie your analysis to your hypotheses.
• Use pictures to show your interface and graphs to present your data. Graphs should generally aggregate across participants, and show standard error bars. (Only show individual data points if the reader learns something more by doing so.)
• Figures should be captioned with what you believe the reader should infer from the figure (e.g. Participants who used Stall-man were 60% more likely to feel that their privacy had not been compromised after a two-week study than those who did not).

Grading

	Insufficient	Adequate	Proficient	Mastery
Research idea (4 points)	1: Unclear or indistinguishable from standard application development.	2: Vague, only of tangential relevance to the usable privacy and security research community, or incremental in nature.	3: A clear research question or goal, but not cleanly articulated as a novel contribution beyond prior work or is not a major contribution.	4: A clear research question or goal that makes a significant addition to usable privacy and security research.
Execution (4 points)	1: The project has some complete components, but critical aspects are incomplete.	2: The basic elements of the research are complete, but either they are flawed or important aspects are still missing.	3: All relevant aspects of the project have been completed, but they have flaws.	4: The research question has been explored and answered thoroughly through the project and writeup.
Evidence (3 points)	1: The evaluation or study is incomplete or has major analysis flaws.	2: The evaluation or the study is complete, but has significant analysis flaws. More leniency is applied to systems projects on this rubric item.	3: The evaluation or the study is complete and convincingly argues for a result.
Related work (2 points)	1: The description of related work is incomplete or surface-level.		2: The writeup covers major points of related work, and explains how this research extends them.