More Than Meets the Eye Transforming the User Experience of Home Network Management

More Than Meets the Eye: Transforming the User Experience of Home Network Management Erika Shehan Poole, Marshini Chetty, Rebecca E. Grinter and W. Keith Edwards

GVU Center, School of Interactive Computing

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

{erika, marshini, beki, keith}@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e518917966.html,

ABSTRACT

As computing migrates from the workplace to the home, householders must tackle problems of home network maintenance. Often they lack the technical knowledge or motivation to complete these tasks, making the user experience of home network maintenance frustrating. In response to these difficulties, many householders rely on handwritten reminders or interactive networking tools that are ill-suited for the home environment. In this paper, we seek to understand how to design better home network management tools through a study of sketches created by 40 people in 18 households. In our study, we obtained information about householders’ knowledge, practices and needs with respect to home networking. Based on our results, we present guidelines for transforming the user experience of home network management.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation: Miscellaneous. General Terms

Human Factors.

Keywords

home networks, sketching, troubleshooting

1.INTRODUCTION

Recently, a growing body of research in the human-computer interaction community has focused on the user experience difficulties of home networking (see, as recent examples, [4,7,9,17,21,26,36]). As computer networking has migrated from managed environments to the home, householders—whether they want to or not—are having to tackle problems of network setup, maintenance, and repair. These users are confronted with protocols, tools, and terminology that were created during a time when networks were architected and maintained by skilled (and paid) network administrators; the result is that home network management is a frustrating and tedious experience for most householders.

Much of this body of research presents the results of fieldwork designed to highlight the difficulties faced by home network users, and unpacks the root problem areas that are the sources of trouble. These impediments include (but are not limited to) factors such as unequal distribution of network knowledge in the home, the “invisibility” of the settings and configuration information required to properly set up the network, poor strategies for diagnosis and troubleshooting, and tensions between individual and household ownership of devices. Although this fieldwork has identified many of the problems of home networking, it has illuminated relatively few solutions to those problems. How can designers create tools that help (largely disinterested) householders to more easily set up, manage, maintain, fix, and even understand their networks? Further, how can these tools calmly accommodate and support the practices and routines of the home, while at the same time allowing for householders to complete “housekeeping” chores of network management?

Addressing the problems of home network management poses a difficult design challenge, as there is a gap between the data we can elicit from householders and the specific insights required for designing new technologies for the home network. For example, as noted by Grinter et al. [21], householders are often unable to verbally articulate accurate information about their networks, meaning that conventional interviews and think-aloud techniques may yield few specific design insights beyond “it should just work.”

In this paper, we seek to bridge this gap by providing insight on how to design home networking management tools matching the knowledge, needs, and practices of ordinary householders. Our approach to gaining such insight is a set of studies analyzing the sketches householders drew of their own home networks. Our results suggest that sketching is a promising technique for uncovering the (often unspoken) details about technology that may otherwise be invisible in practice. We report our analysis of 40 sketches from 18 households. The sketches yield not only low-level data about how users conceive of the home network, but also data about the usage and evolution of individual home networks. Our findings highlight and reaffirm insights by Brand [6], Star [33], and others about the relationship of humans to the various infrastructures in the home environment.

In the next section we examine more closely why we chose sketching as a method for gaining insight into users’ conceptions of networking. Following this discussion, we examine two bodies of work that relate to our own research. The first body of research focuses on studies of the networking in the home, and the second focuses on technical attempts at

addressing some of the challenges posed by network management (and why these attempts have not succeeded in the home). We then present our methods and the results of our studies, organized along key findings. Finally, we conclude with

a set of design implications drawn from our analyses.

2.Why Sketching?

Due to unfamiliarity with networking terminology, householders are often unable to verbally describe the current state of their network, detailed information about an intended ideal state, or their own internal conceptions of how the network works. Faced with this conundrum, we were encouraged by several pieces of research that relied on sketching to elicit information about peoples’ conceptions of complex topics. For example, Vosniadou and Brewer used sketching to uncover children's perceptions about the world [38]. Elementary school students were asked to sketch what they thought the earth “looked like,” in order to elicit details about their internal models of the earth (Is it flat or round? Do people live inside it or on it?). Similar methods have also been used in behavioral psychology to find how children reason about the Internet [41]. In a study with adults, Hendry used sketches to elicit mental models of search engines and created a set of mappings from user sketches to abstractions that may be useful in the search engine domain [23]. Other studies have examined users’ conceptions of their email structure [16]. Given these prior results, we believed that sketching could be employed to uncover householder conceptions about home networks, at a level of detail that would support in-depth analysis in a way that interviews might not. Beyond the uncovering of internal models, however, researchers have also relied on user sketches to elicit more reflective feedback as input to design. Tohidi, for example, reports on a design process for a house climate control system [35], in which users sketched their ideal thermostat design as a method to gather design ideas for interfaces that went beyond what could be collected using think-aloud and interview data. In Tohidi’s study, sketches allowed quick analysis and visual comparisons as well as deep interpretation by the researchers. More closely related to the topic of networking, Friedman et al.[20] studied the use of sketching to uncover users' conceptions of web security. Researchers asked users to draw and explain concepts such as a “secure connection” on the web, and analyzed subjects’ drawings to categorize them into several groups, based on the representations they sketched.

Previous studies of home networking have shown that users already use drawings and other self-created visual representations to help them with managing the network [9,36]. Further, all these studies demonstrate the promise of end-user produced sketches as a tool for eliciting information about how users conceive of entities that may be difficult to verbalize otherwise. Thus, we believed that a more systematic collection and analysis of householder-created sketches could yield insights into how better to design tools to support these users

We therefore developed a study design in which end-users would create sketches of their own networks. In multi-person households, we asked each householder to create separate sketches without consulting one another. The sketches were later analyzed for key commonalities and themes. The analysis technique is described in depth in the Methods section. 3.RELATED WORK

Here we describe two threads of prior research on network usability: studies of the problems of networking in the home, and technical solutions intended to make networking easier.

3.1Home Networking

In the last few years, researchers have become increasingly interested in usability issues associated with home networking. As the complexity of the home network increases, so do the difficulties of configuring, upgrading, and troubleshooting. Envisioned “smart home” and ubiquitous computing applications (such as [10,30,40]) require more devices and more complex network topologies; these in turn lead to more burden on the householder to understand and maintain the network [7,26]. Yet, even in homes that could hardly be considered a ubiquitous computing “smart home,” many occupants have significant difficulty setting up and troubleshooting their existing networks[4,9,13,21,36].

Some researchers—from both the networking and the HCI communities—have argued that these user experience problems are in fact inherent in the design of the core Internet technology (such as TCP/IP, and basic end-to-end architectural principles) that is the basis of current home networking (see [3,8] and [31] for a more complete discussion of this issue). Similar arguments are, in part, impetus to a host of efforts aimed at “redesigning” the Internet to provide better security, manageability, and so forth (see, for example, the National Science Foundation’s GENI initiative in the US). Such “clean slate” approaches have the potential to lead to a greatly improved user experience for networking in the home; however, there is much inertia in the current infrastructure, leading to path dependencies that make the current technology hard to replace [29]. Without such wholesale revamping of the Internet architecture and protocols, users will likely be faced with some degree of network maintenance for the foreseeable future. Focusing on homes using the current Internet-based technology, Grinter et al. [21] found that networks are difficult for even sophisticated householders to understand and manage. One of the reasons for this difficulty is the effective invisibility of the network, meaning that the configurations of individual machines, parameters needed for communication with the network, and patterns of traffic flow are all hidden unless one explicitly looks for them. Looking for this information may require skill with arcane tools and seldom-used configuration panels. One result of this effective invisibility is that householders are often confused about how to pursue fixes to problems, often relying on a strategy of systematically rebooting devices [4]. To compound this difficulty, oftentimes householders do not even know which devices are on their networks. Networking equipment may be added or removed by one occupant without the others knowing that this change had occurred. Furthermore, some householders may not know that certain devices exist at all if they have been placed in hard-to-see areas because of aesthetic concerns [9,21].

Other researchers have found that in response to the difficulties of home networking, some people create visual reminders—such as Visio diagrams, post-it notes and instructions—to help them understand and manage their networks [9,36]. These aids, however, are of limited usefulness; Chetty et al. [9] remark that

householders need aids that go beyond simple post-it notes to more interactive tools that allow them to “see” the dynamic state of the network within their homes. Tolmie et al.[36]note that householder network diagrams are good for a local understanding of the home network but not as useful for external service providers.

Although a number of researchers have called for better management tools for the home network [9,17], the form these tools should take is unclear. We have little data explaining how users conceive of their home networks, nor do previous research efforts suggest how to use this information to influence the design of tools to support home network management. Further, given that home network management occurs around other daily routines and practices [12,34,37], it is not clear which aspects of the network may need to be represented in any visually-oriented tool. For instance, both simple network oriented details as well as intricate depictions of the network as they relate to the physical and social dynamics of the household may have merits and limitations.

3.2Existing Tools for Network Management The research and commercial spheres have developed a number of network management tools. Most of these tools, however, were designed for workplace network management, where there are different constraints and assumptions than one would see in the home environment. First, many of these tools are designed for use by people with advanced technical knowledge of networking [5]; tools such as HP OpenView1, for example, provide a complete network management suite intended for use by entire professional technical support departments. In contrast, most householders who manage home networks today tend to have informal knowledge of networking at best, and little motivation to learn and use complex management suites [9,21]. Second, many of these tools—such as VISUAL and EtherApe, and a range of 3D tools—focus on highly scalable visual representations that are necessary for large networks (e.g., thousands of nodes) [1,24]. Home networks are typically orders of magnitude smaller, and thus visual representations that put scalability in a position of primacy over other considerations may be inappropriate in this context. Third, tools such as Ethereal2, and a wide range of command line programs including ping, netstat, and traceroute, generally provide low-level details on latency, traffic patterns and bandwidth consumption, leaving the user to interpret data and make the necessary conclusions about possible causes of problems; the home network—with its less experienced or motivated users—is likely better served by tools that provide more directed troubleshooting guidance.

Recently, several tools designed for a context of use other than the workplace and non-expert users have appeared. For example, one of the only tools that specifically targets home network management is Pure Networks’ Network Magic3 software. The program provides a map of devices on the home network, capabilities to monitor network intruders, and views of shared files and printers. Although it provides a much simpler

1 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e518917966.html,/

2 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e518917966.html,

3 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e518917966.html,/ view than the enterprise or expert oriented tools described above, Network Magic omits a number of details that appear even on householders own self-created diagrams, including detailed configuration settings of individual devices, as well as other aspects of dynamic state such as network activity.

Still other tools provide awareness of network activity, but are not aimed at management. For example, Etherpeg4 provides network users with collages of image files that are flowing over a network. Natalie Jeremijenko’s LiveWire system, described by Weiser and Brown [39] is an ambient display of network traffic in which the movement of a hanging string is proportional to the amount of traffic on the network. In addition to these examples, there are tools that can provide some visibility of hidden aspects of networking, such as software indicators revealing strength of wireless signals [14].

All of these tools, however, provide only a narrow window into the state and activity of the network, and provide no support for understanding the nuances of the network that may be useful for overall management. In effect, a collection of narrow, ambient displays for network status – in the form of the indicator lights on routers, cable modems, and access points – is what most householders rely on at present. In reaction to these impoverished interfaces, a number of researchers have called for better interoperability standards, a set of usability principles intended for connected consumer products [22,25,28,32], and animated instructions for device setup [19]. While these recommendations are certainly a step in the right direction, most of this work focuses on improving the setup and use of single devices, rather than the holistic experience of setting up and using the complex constellations of devices normally found on entire networks.

4.METHODS

We collected data for this work during two studies focused on exploring householders’ use of complex home networks. We have previously reported some findings from these studies [9,21], but in this paper our attention is on the data that was generated in a sketching exercise we asked the participants to undertake. Although we focus on the sketch data collected, our studies employed three primary instruments. The first instrument was an inventory form designed to filter out homes that did not have networks of sufficient complexity for investigation—those without devices connected together or to the wider Internet via a wired or wireless network. In this instrument, we also collected demographic information about each participant, including any professional IT experience, advanced degrees in technology-related fields (e.g. engineering, information systems), and role in setting up and maintaining the home network.

The second instrument was a sketching exercise in which occupants drew their home networks. During the course of the studies, 40 people from 18 homes in two metropolitan areas in the United States completed an exercise in which they independently drew visual representations of their home computer networks (routers, modems and other computing devices), audio/visual (AV) networks (televisions, receivers, VCRs and other AV equipment primarily for recreation), as well 4 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e518917966.html,/

as their “ideal” home network—one that they would like to have independent of any constraints on time, finances, or reality. The sheets of paper provided for the sketches informed study participants that they could use boxes and lines for representations. Participants were also verbally instructed to draw their networks in whatever form or shape they desired. All participants worked independently, and were not allowed to view or discuss each others’ sketches until completion of the exercise.

The third instrument used was a home tour followed by semi-structured interviews. The tour provided us with additional details about the uses of technology in the home, and surfaced the occupants’ problems in trying to control, use, and adapt technology to their needs. Study participants’ sketches served as a prop and a pre-home-tour primer for the researchers. First, seeing the sketches helped the researchers gain a sense of the layout of the home network so that they were prepared for which equipment to seek or be on the lookout for on the home tour. Further, the sketches themselves served as a tool for eliciting discussions about the home network. For instance, householders could point to items in their drawings as they spoke with the researchers. (Likewise, the researchers could also point to items drawn by householders and inquire about them). As each householder explained his or her sketches, issues such as how the network was connected and who was responsible for various devices surfaced.

We analyzed the sketches by coding every single item in every drawing, using a technique similar to those used in previous sketch-based studies [23,35]; our scheme resulted in over 100 codes in three groupings. The first group of codes referred to how networking devices—including end-user devices, peripherals, audio/visual equipment, and infrastructure devices—were drawn and labeled. Several sketches also included old or broken devices that were once on the network but were not necessarily connected to the network at the time of the study. For each device, we noted whether representations were depicted pictorially (for example, a small picture of a laptop) or abstractly (such as a box representing a particular laptop). We also noted how items in the drawings were labeled. For instance, we coded whether labels referred to the person who owned the item (“Bob’s laptop”), brand (“TiVo”), location (“Living room PC”), or other nomenclature such as technical terms.

The second group of codes referred to how connected items—including the network as a whole—were represented in sketches. For example, we examined the representations of links between items drawn by users. For example, these links usually were depicted as lines, waves or a textual label such as ‘wireless’ or ‘wired’. In this part of the coding, we also noted whether householders mentioned groupings of items or networks external to the home, such as ‘the Internet’ or perhaps a neighbor’s wireless access point.

The third group of codes referred to how householders drew aspects of the physical infrastructure of their homes—for instance, whether they drew rooms in their houses, icons to represent furniture, or parts of the house such as cable/phone jacks or electrical outlets.

Finally, in addition to analyzing the sketch data, we compared the themes emerging out of this data with other information collected from our interviews and home tours as well as from studies conducted by other groups on householder needs and routines surrounding home network management [4,9,21,36]. 5.RESULTS

In this section, we describe the results of our sketching analysis. First, we discuss the different ways that people organized their networks in their sketches. Second, we highlight how for some of our participants, elements of the network conceptually blurred together. Third, we review the types of labels householders used to talk about their networks.Throughout our discussion, we categorize study participants based on their degree of engagement with the home network (i.e. as users, or also as people who actively worked to set up, maintain and repair the network). Based on suggestions contained in previous research, we sought to make this distinction among people to see whether differences manifested themselves in the sketches based on the different roles that householders had with respect to the network.

In the remainder of this paper, we refer to three distinct groups of householders. We call people who took responsibility for setting up, maintaining, and fixing the network gurus (n=19). Three households had two gurus, two had none, and the rest had one. Our second group, assisters, consists of people who assisted with network maintenance, but did not lead these activities; we encountered nine of them in our study. Finally, those individuals who used the network, but did not engage in any network administration we call consumers (n=12). We made these distinctions based on self-reports by the participants, and confirmed our hypotheses about the roles that they played through the home visit, since during these visits all participants provided great detail about their level of responsibility and engagement with the devices that comprised the home network. Note that we do not wish to imply any value judgments associated with these distinctions—rather we attempted to capture each household’s division of labor.

5.1Layout: Organizing Schemes

One of the most striking differences among the sketches coincided with the roles householders played in network administration. Perhaps unsurprisingly, gurus especially and some assisters tended to draw the home network following “traditional” networking conventions—those learned through the type of training (such as a computer science or electrical engineering degree, or learned through a career in systems administration) still largely required to own a home network today [21]. Specifically, our guru and assister participants often opted for diagrams that illustrated how devices were connected together: a “logical” view of the network that illustrated its topology without any reference to any other type of organizational scheme. In our data this represented 43% of our gurus and assisters—and is illustrated by the top sketch in Figure 1.

Another 21% of our gurus and assisters drew diagrams that were largely logical, but included elements drawn from another organizational scheme for describing the network—a physical/spatial organizational scheme that reflects spatial orientations and placements within the home, rather than simple connectivity. This style is illustrated in the top sketches in both Figures 2 and 3, which both include physical and spatial elements. In Figure 2 the wall appears and is shown connected to the cable modem. In Figure 3, the diagram makes reference to the “upstairs audio” implying that the device has a physical position within the house. This scheme—a hybrid of logical and physical—was particularly used by a subset of our assister population who identified as not having formal or practical network training.

By contrast with the assisters and gurus , our consumer participants drew heavily on the physical organization of the home as a method for organizing their view of the network.

Indeed, over two-thirds of our consumer participants used the physical layout of the home as a mechanism for showing where the home network was located. This is illustrated in the bottom sketches in Figure 1 and 2. Participants varied in their degree of expression about connectivity. In the bottom sketch of Figure 1, the participant draws a representation of connectivity among the rooms of the house, and a separate place that the participant referred to as “central networking”—her characterizations of the room in the house where the networking equipment was located. Figure 3 (which was not the only sketch that included the whole house in cross-section) goes so far as to include pieces of furniture in the diagram, a couch in this case. In other cases, beds and desks were drawn. The addition of furniture, not “logically” related to the network, appeared in 42% of all the sketches we saw by consumers. Through conversation, we learned that these pieces of furniture were—in the minds of these participants—in fact a “part” of the network. Furniture, alongside rooms, represented settings for home network usage. The couch was the place where some networking activities occurred for the participant who drew the bottom sketch in Figure 3. In other words, this participant also used routines of activity as a conceptual scheme for thinking about the home network.

Routines-of-use also appeared in other sketches. In one sketch, we saw a laptop appear in multiple places in the physical-spatial diagram. Critically, it was the same laptop—and consequently a diagrammatic representation that would violate the logical view of the network. However, what it expressed for this participant, which we were immediately able to grasp, is the local mobility

Figure 1: Two sketches of the same network. The guru (top) depicts individual technical components of the network infrastructure, whereas the consumer (bottom) describes the backbone of the network as a single entity called “central

networking”.

Figure 2: Inclusion of physical/spatial information: Top

drawn by guru and bottom drawn by consumer.

provided by this laptop within the domestic setting. This participant’s view of the home network was coupled to different settings of use.

For some participants, it was not only their own usage that showed up in diagrams, but also that of other householders, notably children. For example, in Figure 4 we see a participant’s description of how her daughter’s computer is configured. It shows some network access; the computer could connect to the printer, but not to the Internet. As the householder explained, these restrictions were in place because the machine was in the child’s bedroom, and thus would not easily allow supervision of online usage; thus, the PC was disconnected from the Internet, but could access the printer so that the daughter could complete homework assignments in her bedroom.

When asked to draw their networks, our participants used a variety of resources to organize their diagrams. For some, notably gurus but to a lesser degree assisters as well, a degree of logical connection was depicted and likely a reflection of their knowledge of the links between devices on the network. Also, we saw some of our participants’ formal training emerge in their diagrams; indeed a few guru participants provided us with pre-drawn diagrams during the home visit that followed the traditional technical ways of organizing and depicting networked devices. Some turned to the built environment as a scheme, or included elements of the home infrastructure. Interestingly, this complements Rodden and Benford’s [27] argument that the physical systems of the home (such as its geographical location, its walls and floors and the central systems) as well as their evolution should all be taken into account when considering the design of domestic computational technologies. We suggest that participants are already in part expressing connections between the network and their homes by representing elements of their physical home and its infrastructural systems in their diagrams. Our previous research suggests that people do confront the physicality of their homes when using the network, so perhaps it is no wonder that these relationships are made manifest in their diagrams [9]. We also saw sketches that made reference to the routines of use in the home, for instance where laptops are frequently used. Previous research has demonstrated the importance of understanding routines when considering the design of domestic technologies [11,12,34]. Sketching, as a mechanism for eliciting information about the network, appears to capture some of those routines and situate the network within that context by showing us where certain activities take place.

In conclusion, we found that householders drew on a variety of resources to conceptualize their home networks. In addition to drawings that exhibited properties associated with network education or training, some householders employed other schemes such the physical layout or routines of the home as methods of organizing the network. Minimally, we suggest that these other mechanisms for ordering and making sense of the network present possibilities for tools to support all householders in networking tasks (for instance, by portraying the network in the familiar organizational schemes of physical home layout or routines of use). Such organizing schemes would be helpful during troubleshooting tasks, as they could, four instance, help householders pinpoint locations of

malfunctioning devices.

Figure 3: The home itself as a tool for organizing the view of the network. Top drawn by guru and bottom by consumer.

Figure 4: Access controls for a child’s PC. The text reads “9-yr-old girl bedroom desktop wired to network for printer

access, no Internet access (?), software block”.

5.2 What’s On: Devices, Blobs, and Legacy

Another common difference among the participants’ sketches was that consumers were much more likely to amalgamate certain types of networking devices in their sketches. In particular, consumers tended to merge infrastructure devices—such as modems, routers, cabling, and servers—essential for networking but not typically used directly by householders into one entity in their diagrams.

We wish to stress that our participants did not think that these devices were a single unit: in many diagrams they actually labeled the object in such a way that it was clear that multiple devices existed. For example, in Figure 1 (bottom sketch) the participant clearly draws a box with multiple lines, and labels it “central networking equipment”. What is missing are distinctions among the devices that give each a unique function within the network, as well as the connections among each element. Again, Figure 5 refers to the presence of a “main network dealy (maybe several dealies)” that the participant drew next to the printer (which was where the “network dealies” were physically within the home), yet did not distinguish among them or express their connectivity.

Another common pattern among the consumers (and one that was in stark contrast to the guru participants in our study) was to omit any details about the connection type, for instance, seventy-five percent of consumers did not indicate the type of connection in use (Ethernet, Wifi, Bluetooth and so forth). Again, we do not suggest that this is because they do not know—conversations during the home tour suggested that they were aware of these connections—but rather that it was not the way that they thought about, or could easily depict, their network in diagrammatic form.

A final type of difficulty that we saw was a breakdown in the physical organization scheme. In one case, a participant knew that a cable modem provided Internet connectivity to the home. However, when drawing the house in a spatial representation scheme, it was necessary to know where it was physically located in the home. This participant did not know the location of the device, and instead noted on his sketch that the device existed, but he did not know where it was within the home. As might be expected, both gurus and assisters generally provided more technically accurate diagrams. They included

more devices and connection types, and by doing so their sketches provided critical information for understanding how the network functioned. Yet, even people with significant technical expertise, as well as day-to-day knowledge with their home networks, sometimes forgot core devices such as the network router (occurring in 37% of these drawings).

A final difference emerged around legacy devices. Gurus more than any other group were likely to include devices that no longer worked in their network diagrams. These typically showed up as connected into the network, but annotated with a comment about their offline nature (see Figure 6). Again, we suggest that this likely stems from the guru ’s administrative responsibility of knowing how all the devices – even those out of commission – fit into the network.

Of course, the fact that users—even gurus —forgot devices could partially stem from the nature of the sketching exercise, since the participants were asked to produce a diagram in a constrained period of time with a stranger present in their home. (We did not tell householders in advance that they would be asked to produce a sketch, in order to avoid having householders discuss the network, and potentially learn about the network from each other in preparation for the exercise.) But the more systematic difficulties that consumers had in articulating some of the fundamentals that make their home network function suggest possibilities for the design of home network management tools.

In particular, where this sort of knowledge becomes critical is in troubleshooting. As we have previously described [9,21], consumers sometimes ended up in a situation where the network failed when the householder typically responsible was not available to troubleshoot the problem. We learned that consumers had considerable difficulty tracing the problems—even simply rebooting devices gets complicated if their presence on the network is not known. Tracing the problem back through the network turns on understanding its logical connectivity. However, visualizations of home networks—particularly those that could be generated automatically—offer householders another resource to remember the structure of the network. Visualizations to support consumers, assisters, and even gurus are becoming more of a necessity as visions of a ubiquitous computing future come to pass where the number of connected devices is ever increasing; particularly when these technologies provides little end-user interaction but must be present for the

network to function. In this we are reminded of Star’s [33]

Figure 5: This consumer’s sketch describes network infrastructure as “network dealy (maybe several dealies)” and “crazy energy waves that communicate with our

computers”.

Figure 6: This guru’s sketch includes a broken device that

was available “until last week but soon to return”.

observation that a challenge with infrastructure—into which home networking clearly falls—is that in use it often fades into the background (hence becoming invisible or, in other words, unremarkable, to paraphrase Tolmie et al. [37]).

5.3Labels: Networks in the Object World Thus far, we have largely described the sketching diagrams themselves with little reference to the labels. However, the labels merit attention for they also speak to the ways that our participants saw their networks and constituent devices – both through issues of physicality, spatiality, and ownership, as well as technical properties of the network. In labeling, many of the gurus in our study abandoned technical terminology in their diagrams. While gurus were most likely to label connections by using technical nomenclature (Ethernet, Wifi, and so forth), they

often used other types of names to refer to objects on the network. No one in our guru group, for example, labeled any devices by their Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, or their hardware or Media Access Control (MAC) addresses. Rather, both gurus and assisters labeled devices on the home network by householder ownership. Over half of those participants referred to devices using terms like “Bob’s laptop” or “Jill’s desktop” (for example, see Figure 6). Indeed, this scheme was ubiquitous and it speaks to two observations associated with the network. First, it shows how dominant the nature of ownership is in computing. Devices, even those that support multiple users, were often “owned” by one person. This was not to say that that person had purchased it, but rather that that device was dominantly used by that person.

Second, labeling also reflects the object’s status within a broader context of the world of goods that our participants have and consume in their home. Drawing on Douglas and Isherwood’s [15] idea that individuals do not just purchase goods for psychological needs, objects become a part of identity, a way to make sense of and participate in the world. Hence the labels tell us about who owns a device, expressing a relationship that tells us something about the person and their participation in a world which has home computing being something that makes sense, that is valued, that is to be consumed, and that is to be known. Taking this second view of labeling also helps in considering those devices that are not associated with a particular person, but with a room, such as “kitchen computer.” These labels invite us to explore the household’s “value” system. Labels remind us that kitchens are now, for some, appropriate places to consume networked computing technology within the home.

In our study of labels, we found information about the objects on the network and through this information we could see the place of computers as “things in the home.” Labels suggest that individual ownership and room usage are ways that people orient to these objects in the home: some objects belong to individuals, yet others invite new purposes for old rooms. More pragmatically, we suggest that flexibility in labeling in any form of network management tool will be essential for the home. People have adopted these objects, and categorized them for people and places: rather than asking them to take up new terms that may reflect technology, we think allowing people to continue to sort and manage their devices on their terms will prove more useful and usable in the domestic context. 6.DISCUSSION

Based on our results, we discuss design implications for home network management tools. We present three themes to consider when implementing various types of tools to support householders. These themes include: (1) designing for time, (2) designing for space, and (3) designing for household routines. 6.1Designing for Time

Chetty et al.found that home networks are frequently evolving do-it-yourself projects, with alterations and upgrades as part of the norm [9]. The sketches created by gurus and assisters in our study reflected the dynamic character of the home network. Several sketches depicted broken or legacy devices (for example, old laptops that were stored in a closet but not used). For home network tools that depict devices on the network (visually or otherwise), it may be useful to keep track of what once was on a network or what is temporarily missing. Having the ability to visualize the evolution of the network over time using a tool, as well as having the ability to roll back to previous configurations may help householders resolve problems. Additionally, interactive tools that can show how a network has evolved over time could be used by home networking researchers as a probe for discussion in interviews with householders. Combined with visualizing how devices and their configurations have changed over time, tools might also depict network events that have occurred in the past. For example, householders may wish to keep a record of when an intruder accessed the home network while no one was present in the house. Displaying changes over large periods of time, however, can result in information overload if not carefully designed. Using techniques from information visualization such as dynamic sliders [18] or magic lenses [2] to assist with representing large amounts of data may result in more manageable, understandable interfaces.

6.2Designing for Space

Participants in our study drew their networks in three types of organizational layouts: spatial, logical or hybrid. When developing home network management tools focused on visualizing data, there are tradeoffs that come with depicting the network in terms of its logical structure or its spatial structure. Visual representations that are true to the logical structure of the network may be better candidates for in-depth, focused troubleshooting, as they provide more detailed information about how the network infrastructure is connected. On the other

hand, such representations are deeply technical, may not Figure 7: This guru’s sketch labels devices by ownership.

correlate well with non-expert users’ understanding of the network, may not readily provide an overall sense of network health, and may be inappropriate for activities other than focused troubleshooting.

Using a purely spatial representation of a home network in a visualization tool, however, exemplifies the opposite set of tradeoffs. A spatial representation maps onto the physical structure of the home, and correlates with how consumers seem to conceive of the network. On the other hand, it obscures important details about the network structure that are essential for problem solving. The underlying logical network topology, for instance, is hidden in this approach; further, diagrammatical depictions of details such as traffic flows—which may be straightforward and clean in a logical view—are cluttered and messy in a spatial view. For example, traffic between two nearby devices may wind their way through infrastructure components in other rooms and back again in a spatial representation.

Although spatial views are comfortable to most householders, logical views may be necessary for problem solving because they can reveal whether links are broken between devices for example. Additionally, detail is needed for problem solving, but quickly becomes overwhelming when there are no breakdowns (or the steady-state case) and may obscure more important aspects of overall network health by providing too much information. Moreover, designing tools that ‘know’ the spatial layout of a home are difficult to implement – each home is different; hence having visualizations that show a house’s structures require significant input from the users themselves to ‘build’ an accurate picture of their houses in the visualization. Moreover, spatial depictions make the placement of mobile devices problematic. Since these devices may roam from room to room (and even outside the house completely), it is infeasible to expect that users will manually update the positioning of these devices.

6.3Designing for Household Routines Underlying many householder problems with network breakdowns is a fundamental issue inherent in digital networking: home networks are, by-and-large, invisible to their users. Even though users may see the wires, routers, access points, and other devices, the logical topology that sits above this physical infrastructure layer is hidden, and data about network function remains unseen unless explicitly examined with arcane networking tools. Even researchers studying home computing can find that obtaining accurate, complete technical information about individual networks is difficult. For example, it may be impossible to obtain information about every service, configuration detail and so forth of every machine on the home network or to get information about physical topology that is largely invisible even from the networking point of view without being extremely disruptive to householders.

Through use of householder sketching, however, we were able to obtain certain useful pieces of information about the home network that would otherwise be unobtainable by physical or other technical means of inspection. Although sketches provided by our study participants did not provide a ‘ground truth’ from a technical perspective of the structure and function of the network, these householder-created sketches provide insight into the values and routines that are embedded into home networking technology. For example, in households with children, parents were often concerned with restricting access to some networked resources in the home (e.g. the Internet at large on a child’s bedroom computer). This suggests that network management tools for the home need to take into consideration (and possibly notify householders or people helping them with network setup or maintenance tasks) the social aspects of the household affecting home networking. At the same time, however, the domestic ecology is a setting of subtle interplay among the routines of its occupants, and privacy is a core concern. Any tool, for instance, that visualizes network traffic in the home has privacy implications. In order to support troubleshooting, tools must provide substantial detail about the network and the traffic over it; and yet, such detail may compromise individual privacy preferences of householders.

7.CONCLUSION

Addressing the user experience problems of home network management poses a difficult design challenge. Householders are often unable to verbally describe accurate information about their networks, meaning that conventional interviews and think-aloud techniques may yield little information. To better understand the needs, knowledge, and practices of home network management, we analyzed sketches created by 40 people from 18 homes. Our results suggest that sketching is a promising technique for uncovering the details about networked technology that are difficult for householders to verbalize. We believe that this technique may be useful for eliciting information related to the design of other complex technologies. Based on the results of our analysis, we have discussed implications for design of the user experience of home network management. Network management tools for the home should take into consideration issues of time, space, and householder routine. By creating appropriate tools for home network management, designers are taking essential steps to empowering householders to understand and manage their digital devices. 8.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is supported by grants from Cisco and NSF-CNS #0626281. One of the authors was on appointment as a US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Fellow during this project. All opinions expressed in this paper belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of these funding agencies.

9.REFERENCES

[1]Ball, R., Fink, G.A. and North, C. HomeCentric

Visualization of Network Traffic for Security

Administration. VizSEC/DMSEC’04, ACM, Washington,

DC, USA, 2004.

[2]Bier, E.A., Stone, M.C., Pier, K., Buxton, W. and DeRose,

T.D. Toolglass and Magic Lenses: the See-Through

Interface. 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics

and Interactive Techniques ACM Press, 1993.

[3]Blumenthal, M.S. and Clark, D.D. Rethinking the Design

of the Internet. ACM Transactions. on Internet Technology,

1, 1 (2001), 70-109.

[4]Bly, S., Schilit, B., McDonald, D., Rosario, B. and Saint-

Hilaire, Y. Broken Expectations in the Digital Home. CHI

2006 Extended Abstracts, ACM Press, Montreal, Quebec,

Canada, 2006, 568-569.

[5]Bragg, A.W. Which Network Design Tools Is Right For

You? IEEE IT Pro, September/October (2000).

[6]Brand, S. How Buildings Learn - What Happens After

They're Built. Penguin, New York, 1994.

[7]Brush, A.J. IT@Home: Often Best Left to Professionals.

IT@Home Workshop, CHI 2006, Montreal, Quebec

Canada, 2006.

[8]Calvert, K.L., Edwards, W.K. and Grinter, R.E. Moving

Toward the Middle: The Case Against the End-to-End

Argument in Home Networking. Sixth Workshop on Hot

Topics in Networks, Atlanta, GA, 2007.

[9]Chetty, M., Sung, J. and Grinter, R.E. How Smart Homes

Learn: The Evolution of the Networked Home and

Household. Ubicomp 2007, Springer-Verlag, Innsbruck,

Austria, 2007.

[10]Consolvo, S., Roessler, P. and Shelton, B.E. The CareNet

Display: Lessons Learned from an In Home Evaluation of

an Ambient Display. Ubicomp 2004, Springer-Verlag,

Nottingham, England, 2004, 1-17.

[11]Crabtree, A. and Rodden, T. Domestic Routines and

Design for the Home Journal of Computer Supported

Cooperative Work (JCSCW), 13, 2 (2004).

[12]Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Hemmings, T. and Benford, S.

Finding a Place for UbiComp in the Home. Ubicomp 2003, Springer-Verlag, Seattle, WA, USA, 2003, 208-226.

[13]Davidoff, S., Lee, M.K., Yiu, C., Zimmerman, J. and Dey,

A.K., Principles of Smart Home Control. Ubicomp 2006,

Springer-Verlag, Orange County, CA, USA, 2006, 19-34.

[14]Dix, A. Network-Based Interaction. in The Human-

Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Lawrence

Erlbaum Assoc., 2003.

[15]Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. The World of Goods. Basic

Books, New York, 1979.

[16]Ducheneat, N. and Bellotti, V. Ceci n’est pas un Objet?

Talking About Objects in E-mail. Human-Computer

Interaction, 18, 1-2 (2003), 85-110.

[17]Edwards, W.K. and Grinter, R.E. At Home with Ubiquitous

Computing: Seven Challenges. Ubicomp 2001, Springer-

Verlag, Atlanta, GA, 2001, 256-272.

[18]Eick, S. Data Visualization Sliders UIST 1994, ACM Press,

Marina Del Rey, CA, 1994.

[19]Elmore, B., Ivaturi, S. and Hamilton, S. Designing

Software for Consumers to Easily Set Up a Secure Home

Network, CHI 2007, ACM Press, San Jose, CA, USA,

2007.

[20]Friedman, B., Hurley, D., Howe, D.C., Felten, E. and

Nissenbaum, H. Users' Conceptions of Web Security: A

Comparative Study. CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts, ACM

Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2002.

[21]Grinter, R.E., Ducheneaut, N., Edwards, W.K. and

Newman, M. The Work To Make The Home Network

Work. ECSCW, Springer/Kluwer, Paris, France, 2005, 469-488.

[22]Han, S.H., Yun, M.H., Kwahk, J. and Hong, S.W. Usability

of Consumer Electronic Products. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 3-4 (2001), 143-151. [23]Hendry, D.G. Sketching with Conceptual Metaphors to

Explain Computational Processes Visual Languages and

Human-Centric Computing (VL-HCC'06), IEEE, 2006. [24]Le Malecot, E., Kohara, M., Hori, Y. and Sakurai, K.

Interactively Combining 2D and 3D Visualization for

Network Traffic Monitoring VizSec 2006, ACM,

Alexandria, VA, USA, 2006.

[25]Miller, B., Nixon, T., Tai, C. and Wood, M.D. In-Home

Networking: Home Networking with Universal Plug and

Play. IEEE Communications Magazine, December (2001), 104-109.

[26]Randall, D. Living Inside a Smart Home: A Case Study. in

Harper, R. ed. Inside the Smart Home, Springer-Verlag,

2003.

[27]Rodden, T. and Benford, S., The evolution of buildings and

implications for the design of ubiquitous domestic

environments. CHI 2003, ACM Press, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 2003, 9-16.

[28]Rose, B. In Home Networking: Home Networks: A

Standards Perspective. IEEE Communications Magazine,

December (2001), 78-85.

[29]Rosenberg, N. Exploring the Black Box: Technology,

Economics, and History. Cambridge U. Press, 1994. [30]Rowan, J. and Mynatt, E., Digital Family Portrait Field

Trial: Support for Aging in Place. CHI 2005, ACM Press,

Portland, OR, USA, 2005, 521-530.

[31]Shehan, E. and Edwards, W.K. Home Networking and

HCI: What Hath God Wrought? CHI 2007, ACM Press,

San Jose, CA, USA, 2007.

[32]Spinellis, D.D. The information furnace: consolidated

home control Personal Ubiquitous Comput. , 7, 1 (2003),

53-69.

[33]Star, L. The Ethnography of Infrastructure. American

Behavioural Scientist, 43, 3 (1999), 377-391.

[34]Taylor, A.S. and Swan, L. Artful systems in the home. CHI

2005, ACM Press, Portland, OR, 2005.

[35]Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R. and Sellen, A. User

Sketches: A Quick, Inexpensive, and Effective way to

Elicit More Reflective User Feedback NordiCHI 2006,

2006.

[36]Tolmie, P., Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Greenhalgh, C. and

Benford, S. Making the Home Network at Home: Digital

Housekeeping ECSCW, Springer/Kluwer, Limerick,

Ireland, 2007.

[37]Tolmie, P., Pycock, J., Diggins, T., MacLean, A. and

Karsenty, A. Unremarkable Computing. CHI 2002, ACM

Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2002.

[38]Vosniadou, S. and Brewer, W. Mental Models of the Earth:

A Study of Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cognitive

Psychology, 24 (1992), 535-585.

[39]Weiser, M. and Brown, J. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e518917966.html,/

hypertext/weiser/calmtech/calmtech.htm.

[40]Woodruff, A., Augustin, S. and Foucault, B. Sabbath Day

Home Automation: "It's Like Mixing Technology and

Religion" CHI 2007, ACM Press, San Jose, CA, 2007. [41]Yan, Z. What Influences Children’s and Adolescents’

Understanding of the Complexity of the Internet?

Developmental Psychology, 42, 3 (2006), 418-428.

各种中药材的性味与归经汇总

可用于保健食品的中草药名单如外感初起，或里热炽盛，或肝阳上亢，以及湿阻、食滞等引起的胸闷腹胀、便溏泄泻等症，都应忌用。如体质壮实之火，并无虚弱现象，则不必再进服人参、人参叶、人参果、三七、土茯苓、大蓟、女贞子、山茱萸、川牛补药，膝、川贝母、川芎、马鹿胎、马鹿茸、马鹿骨、丹参、五加皮、五味子、升妄用本品，如误用或多用，往往反而导致闭气，而出现胸闷腹胀等症。此外，一般认为服用人参时，不可同时服食萝卜、茶叶等食物。麻、天门冬、天麻、太子参、巴戟天、木香、木贼、牛蒡子、牛蒡根、车前 2.子、车前草、北沙参、平贝母、玄参、生地黄、生何首乌、白及、白术、白人参叶 【性味归经】苦、甘、寒。归肺、胃经。芍、白豆蔻、石决明、石斛（需提供可使用症明）、地骨皮、当归、竹茹、【功能主治】补气，益肺，祛暑，生津。用于气虚咳嗽，暑热烦躁，红花、红景天、西洋参、吴茱萸、怀牛膝、杜仲、杜仲叶、沙苑子、牡丹皮、津伤口渴，头目不清，四肢倦乏。芦荟、苍术、补骨脂、诃子、赤芍、远志、麦门冬、龟甲、佩兰、侧柏叶、【用法用量】制大黄、制何首乌、刺五加、刺玫果、泽兰、泽泻、玫瑰花、玫瑰茄、知母、 3～9克。 【用药宜忌】不宜与黎芦同用。罗布麻、苦丁茶、金荞麦、金樱子、青皮、厚朴、厚朴花、姜黄、枳壳、枳 【按实、柏子仁、珍珠、绞股蓝、胡芦巴、茜草、荜茇、韭菜子、首乌藤、香附、语】本品市场所售较为混乱，或以大叶三七的叶、或以竹节三七的叶应用。骨碎补、党参、桑白皮、桑枝、浙贝母、益母草、积雪草、淫羊藿、菟丝子、 3.人参果野菊花、银杏叶、黄芪、湖北贝母、番泻叶、蛤蚧、越橘、槐实、蒲黄、蒺【性味归经】味甘，性温。归脾、胃二经。藜、蜂胶、酸角、墨旱莲、熟大黄、熟地黄、鳖甲。 【功能主治】号强心补肾、生津止渴、补脾健胃、调经活血。主治神经2002卫法监发［］51保健食品禁用物品名单衰弱、失眠头昏、烦躁口渴、不思饮食。 【用法用量】内服：煎汤，15八角莲、八里麻、千金子、土青木香、山莨菪、川乌、广防己、马桑叶、～20克；或泡黄酒饮。 4.马钱子、六角莲、天仙子、巴豆、水银、长春花、甘遂、生天南星、生半夏、三七 【性味归经】甘、微苦，温。归肝、胃经。生白附子、生狼毒、白降丹、石蒜、关木通、农吉痢、夹竹桃、朱砂、米壳【功能主治】（罂粟壳）、红升丹、红豆杉、红茴香、红粉、羊角拗、羊踯躅、丽江山慈散瘀止血，消肿定痛。用于咯血，吐血，衄血，便血，崩漏，外伤出血，胸腹剌痛，跌扑肿痛。姑、京大戟、昆明山海棠、河豚、闹羊花、青娘虫、鱼藤、洋地黄、洋金花、【用法用量】多研末服，每次1、草乌、香加皮（杠柳皮）牵牛子、砒石（白砒、红砒、砒霜）、骆驼蓬、鬼～1.5克；亦可入煎剂，3～10克，外用适量，研末外掺或调敷。臼、莽草、铁棒槌、铃兰、雪上一枝蒿、黄花夹竹桃、斑蝥、硫磺、雄黄、 【用药宜忌】雷公藤、颠茄、藜芦、蟾酥。孕妇慎用。 可用于保健食品中草药的药性归经5.土茯苓 【性味归经】甘、淡，平。归肝、胃经。人参1. 【功能主治】甘、微苦，平。归脾、肺、心经。【性味归经】除湿，解毒，通利关节。用于湿热淋浊，带下，痈肿，瘰疬，疥癣，梅毒及汞中毒所致的肢体拘挛，筋骨疼痛。大补元气，复脉固脱，补脾益肺，生津，安神。用于体【功能主治】 【用法用量】内服，煎汤，15～虚欲脱，肢冷脉微，脾虚食少，肺虚喘咳，津伤口渴，内热消渴，久病虚羸，30克；外用研末调敷。 【用药宜忌】惊悸失眠，阳痿宫冷；心力衰竭，心原性休克。肝肾阴亏者慎用。服药期间忌饮茶。 6.大蓟，15～2.5【用量用法】克，用文火另煎，单独服（先饮汁，再食渣） 【性味归经】甘，凉。归肝经。克，煎50～25或将参汁加入其它药汁内饮服；如用于急救虚

感官动词和使役动词

感官动词和使役动词 默认分类2010-05-28 23:14:26 阅读46 评论0 字号：大中小订阅 使役动词，比如let make have就是3个比较重要的 have sb to do 没有这个用法的 只有have sb doing.听凭某人做某事 have sb do 让某人做某事 have sth done 让某事被完成（就是让别人做） 另外： 使役动词 1.使役动词是表示使、令、让、帮、叫等意义的不完全及物动词,主要有make(使,令), let(让), help(帮助), have(叫)等。 2.使役动词后接受词,再接原形不定词作受词补语。 He made me laugh. 他使我发笑。 I let him go. 我让他走开。 I helped him repair the car. 我帮他修理汽车。 Please have him come here. 请叫他到这里来。 3.使役动词还可以接过去分词作受词补语。 I have my hair cut every month. 我每个月理发。 4.使役动词的被动语态的受词补语用不定词,不用原形不定词。 (主)He made me laugh. 他使我笑了。 (被)I was made to laugh by him. 我被他逗笑了。 使役动词有以下用法： a. have somebody do sth让某人去做某事 ??i had him arrange for a car. b. have somebody doing sth.让某人持续做某事。 ??he had us laughing all through lunch. 注意：用于否定名时，表示“允许” i won't have you running around in the house. 我不允许你在家里到处乱跑。 ******** 小议“使役动词”的用法 1. have sb do 让某人干某事 e.g:What would you have me do? have sb/sth doing 让某人或某事处于某种状态，听任 e.g: I won't have women working in our company. The two cheats had the light burning all night long. have sth done 让别人干某事，遭受到 e.g:you 'd better have your teeth pulled out. He had his pocket picked. notes: "done"这个动作不是主语发出来的。 2.make sb do sth 让某人干某事 e.g:They made me repeat the story. What makes the grass grow?

morethan的多种用法

more than的多种用法 简简单单的“more than”，用法可多呢！ 下面是些好例子： ●A. “More than＋名词”表示“多于……”、“非但……尤其是”如： 1)Modern science is more than a large amount of information. 2)Jason is more than a lecturer; he is a writer, too. ●B. “More than＋数词”含“以上”或“不止”之意，如： 3) I have known David for more than 20 years. 4)Let's carry out the test with more than the sample copy. ●C. “More than＋形容词”等于“很”或“非常”的意思，如： 5)In doing scientific experiments, one must be more than careful with the instruments. 6)I assure you I am more than glad to help you. ●D. 在“More...than...”中，肯定“more”后面的而否定“than”后面的，约等于“是……而不是……”如： 7)The difference between pure linguistics and applied linguistics is more apparent than real. 8)This book seems to be more a manual than a text. 9)Catherine is more diligent than intelli-gent. 10)Hearing the loud noise, the boy was more surprised than frightened. ●E. “More than”或“More...than...”＋含“can”的分句时表示“否定意”，如： 11)That's more than I can do. 12) Don't bite off more than you can chew. 13)In delivering his lecture, Jason makes sure not to include more things than the students can understan d. ●F. “No more...than...”表示“不……；不如……”，如： 14) I can no more do that than anyone else.

学法用法工作总结

学法用法工作总结 学法用法工作总结（一） 加强依法治校，全面提高师生法制意识和学法用法自觉性是学校一项重要战略任务。近年来，我校坚持组织领导、建章立制、课内与课外、校内与校外相结合，将普法依法治理工作纳入学校重要议事日程，普法经费足额到位；结合实际，有针对性地开展学法用法活动，保证和促进了学校法制教育走上规范的管理和依法运行的轨道。 一、加强领导，形成依法治校的工作机制 组织建设是开展依法治校工作的根本保证。学校成立依法治校领导小组，由校长、党支部书记任组长，德育副校长、法制副校长任副组长，政教处、教务处、总务处、保卫科、团委负责人为成员，学校与交警队、消防队、派出所等单位建立了共建关系，保卫科负责具体抓落实工作，把依法治校工作摆上重要议事日程，做到依法治校工作与学校各项工作同计划、同实施，并把目标任务分解到各个处，确保依法治校工作齐抓、共管，各司其职、各负其责，层层抓落实的工作格局。 二、建章立制，确保依法治校的顺利实施 建章立制是落实依法治校的具体措施，依照宪法、法律、法规和规章结合学校实际情况，我校制定了一系列规章制度，如各处室管理制度、教职员工考核奖惩制度、德育规章制度等，保证学校各部门、各岗位工作有序高效运作，使学校法制管理走上了规范化、制度化轨

道。此外，学校通过板报、标语、横幅、集会、校园网、家校短信平台等形式，向全体师生和广大家长广泛宣传，在校报《校园之声》和校园广播《青春之音》上开辟专栏，进行宣传。通过广泛宣传，使“法律进校园”活动深入人心，增强了师生学法、守法的积极性和自觉性。 三、推进依法治教，构建法制校园。 我们开展“法律进校园”活动作为把依法治教、依法治校的前提，不断加大工作力度，积极实施，稳步推进。一是建立完善学校学法用法工作制度；二是加强学校领导、教职工的普法学法工作，号召全体教师自觉学法律、讲权利、讲义务、讲责任，进一步增强法制观念和法律素质。组织广大教师深入学习《宪法》、《教育法》、《教师法》、《刑法》、《治安管理处罚法》、《道路交通安全法》、《食品卫生法》等，在学法、用法和守法、护法中发挥表率作用。三是进一步建立健全符合法律法规、工作条例的学校管理制度，形成具有法治理念的校园秩序和文化氛围，使学校成为学生参与法治实践，培养法制观念，提高法制素质的重要场所。学校将管理制度汇编成册，装订成书，教师人手一册，加强了制度管理的透明度和执行的自觉性。 四、加强法制教育，普及法律知识。 1、立足课堂，充分发挥青少年法制教育主渠道作用。

感官动词的用法

感官动词 1.see, hear, listen to, watch, notice等词，后接宾语，再接省略to的动词不定式或ing形式。前者表全过程，后者表正在进行。句中有频率词时，以上的词也常跟动词原形。 注释:省略to的动词不定式--to do是动词不定式，省略了to,剩下do，其形式和动词原形是一样的，但说法不同。 see sb do sth 看到某人做了某事 see sb doing sth 看到某人在做某事 hear sb do sth 听到某人做了某事 hear sb doing sth 听到某人在做某事 以此类推... I heard someone knocking at the door when I fell asleep. (我入睡时有人正敲门,强调当时正在敲门) I heard someone knock at the door three times. (听到有人敲门的全过程) I often watch my classmates play volleyball after school. (此处有频率词often) （了解）若以上词用于被动语态，须将省略的to还原： see sb do sth----sb be seen to do sth hear sb do sth----sb be seen to do sth 以此类推... We saw him go into the restaurant. → He was seen to go into the restaurant. I hear the boy cry every day. → The boy is heard to cry every day. 2.感官动词look, sound, smell, taste, feel可当系动词，后接形容词。 He looks angry. His explanation sounds reasonable. The cakes smell nice.

more...than用法

more than... 与more ...than ... more than 与more …than 短语在英语中使用得十分广泛。其用法和意义并不简单，一不留神就可能用错。因为more than 与more …than 除了具备其基本用法外，还有些特殊用法。理解和翻译时要特别小心，不能一看到more than就简单地按照字面上的意思将其理解为“比……更……”或“超过”等，而是要根据上下文找出more than 短语的确切含义，只有这样才不至于贻笑大方。 more than 相当于一个形容词或副词短语，在句中作定语或状语，修饰其后的动词、副词、数词或名词等。 一. more than 的用法 1. more than 后跟数词，相当于over，翻译成“……多、超过……”等，强调某物数量上超出某一范围。 More than 1,500 people were killed in the earthquake. 地震中有一千五百多人遇难。 I have collected more than 3 hundred stamps so far. 到目前为止，我已收集了300多张邮票。 I’ve known him for more than 20 years. 我认识他已经二十多年了。 Their college enrolled more than five hundred new students this year. 他们学院今年招收了五百多名新生。 2. more than 后跟名词或动名词，相当于over, not just, not only，表示“不只是、不仅仅是”等。例如： She is more than a teacher to us, she is our friend. 他不只是教师，她还是我们的朋友。 Hibernation is more than sleep. 冬眠不仅仅是睡眠。 Wood is used for more than building. 木头不仅仅用于建筑。 Blood is much more than the simple fluid it seems to be. 血液不仅仅是一种外表似乎简单的液体。 My trip to Beijing is more than sightseeing. 我去北京不仅仅是旅游观光。 I like autumn more than summer. 我喜欢秋天胜过夏天。

英语中感官动词的用法

英语中感官动词的用法 一、感官动词 1、感官动词(及物动词)有：see/notice/look at/watch/observe/listen to/hear/feel(Vt)/taste(Vt)/smell(Vt) 2、连缀动词(含感官不及物动词) be/get/become/feel/look/sound/smell/taste/keep/stay/seem/ appear/grow/turn/prove/remain/go/run 二、具体用法： 1、see, hear, smell, taste, feel,这五个动词均可作连系动词，后面接形容词作表语，说明主语所处的状态。其意思分别为"看/听/闻/尝/摸起来……"。除look之外，其它几个动词的主语往往是物，而不是人。 例如：These flowers smell very sweet.这些花闻起来很香。 The tomatoes feel very soft.这些西红柿摸起来很软。 2、这些动词后面也可接介词like短语，like后面常用名词。 例如：Her idea sounds like fun.她的主意听起来很有趣。 3、这五个感官动词也可作实义动词,除look(当"看起来……"讲时)只能作不及物动词外,其余四个既可作及物动词也可作不及物动词,此时作为实义动词讲时其主语一般为人。 例如:She smelt the meat.她闻了闻那块肉。 I felt in my pocket for cigarettes.我用手在口袋里摸香烟。 4、taste, smell作不及物动词时,可用于"t aste / smell + of +名词"结构,意为"有……味道/气味"。 例如:The air in the room smells of earth.房间里的空气有股泥土味。 5、它们(sound除外)可以直接作名词,与have或take构成短语。 例如：May I have a taste of the mooncakes?我可以尝一口这月饼吗？taste有品位、味道的意思。 例如：I don’t like the taste of the garlic.我不喜欢大蒜的味道。 She dresses in poor taste.她穿着没有品位。 look有外观，特色的意思，例：The place has a European look.此地具有欧洲特色。 feel有感觉，感受的意思，watch有手表，观察的意思。例：My watch is expensive.我的手表很贵。 6、其中look, sound, feel还能构成"look / sound / feel + as if +从句"结构，意为"看起来/听起来/感觉好像……"。 例如：It looks as if our class is going to win.看来我们班好像要获胜了。 7、感官动词+do与+doing的区别： see, watch, observe, notice, look at, hear, listen to, smell, taste, feel + do表示动作的完整性，真实性；+doing 表示动作的连续性，进行性。 I saw him work in the garden yesterday.昨天我看见他在花园里干活了。(强调"我看见了"

morethan的详细用法

一、 more than 1. more than 可放在数词之前，意为“超过；不止；以上”，用于此意义时可与 over 互换使用。例如： Altogether more than 70 percent of the surface of our planet is covered by water. 整体说来，我们这个星球表面有 70% 以上都为水所覆盖。 2. more than 可放在名词之前，表示“不只是；不仅仅”。例如： Hibernation is more than sleep. 冬眠不仅仅是睡眠。 Bamboo is used for more than building. 竹子不只是用于建筑。 3. more than 用于形容词或副词前，作“非常；十分”解，与 very 同义。例如： She is more than careful in doing things. 她做事非常细心。 In class, he listens more than attentively. 在课堂上，他听讲十分认真。 4. more than 之后接含有 can 的从句时，常表示否定意义。此时，从句中的谓语动词必须是及物动词，并且与句子的主语呈现逻辑上的动宾关系。例如： This secret is more than we can let out. 这个秘密我们是不能泄露的。（主语 secret 是 let out 的逻辑宾语） 比较：less than 后面接形容词、副词时，意为“不；很少；不到”，具有否定意义。例如： a) We were busy and less than delighted to have company that day. 那天我们很忙，不高兴有客人来。 b) The young man is less than twenty years old. 这个年轻人不到 20 岁。 二、more … than 1. more … than 意为“与其……不如……”；“是……而不是……”，常可与“ rather than ”或“ not so much … as”互换使用。例如： He is more like a spear than anything else. = He is like a spear rather than anything else. = He is not so much like anything else as like a spear.

红景天的用法总结

红景天用法汇总 1. 简介 红景天是历朝历代帝王延寿抗衰老的首选之品，也是各朝名医心领神仪的名贵药材。红景天生长在深山大川、悬崖峭壁之上，红景天的足迹往往在人迹罕见的冰川脚下、在白雪覆盖的林海深处，红景天几乎统治了2000公尺雪线生长带，以其生命不衰的顽强生存意识，成为历代皇家御用药材。据《神农本草经》（2200年）记载红景天被列为上品：“主大热生疮、身热烦、邪恶气”。红景天含有具有生物活性的微量元素钙、镁、铁、铅、锌、银、钴、镉、钼、钛、镭等21种。还有人体所需要的十几种氨基酸，其中几种是人体必须的而体内有不能合成的氨基酸，含有丰富的维生素。 2. 食用方法 每日用量：保健3g，治病6g-12g（仅作参考）。 服法：泡开水当茶喝。红景天性寒多服也不会造热生火，且消炎清热，可常年服用。 1）活血消肿：红景天（泡高度白酒） 2）美容润肤：红景天（熬汤汁）+牛奶（敷脸） 3）抗疲劳、抗高原反应：红景天（泡水当茶） 3. 红景天功效1 具有抗缺氧、抗寒冷、抗疲劳、抗微波辐射、抗毒、抗瘟疫、双向调解功能。其具有提高工作效率，补充心脑血氧浓度、抗氧化，延缓人体细胞介质水渗透互换，改善微循环作用，大量增加抗体，提高免疫力，使之延缓衰老，防治老年疾病等功能。 1）抗缺氧作用：红景天可增强人体对缺氧的耐受性，降低氧耗量，同时又加大动脉氧压差，提高氧的利用率，保护肌体脏器官在低氧环境中不受损害，使细胞代谢旺盛。 2）抗疲劳作用：功效类似人参，可明显提高运动员的无氧阀，降低心肌和脑组织的血乳酸值，加快清除疲劳，恢复体力，可提高运动成绩和人们的工作效率，增强记忆能力。 3）双向调节作用：能使“亢进”的功能下降，也能使衰弱的肌体兴奋，从正负两方面使肌体趋向正常。对糖尿病、甲亢、甲低，高低血压病有明显的治疗作用，对高血压患者的降压作用优于复方降压片。 4）活血化淤作用：防止缺氧使血液流变的发生“粘、浓、聚”变化形成血栓，还可用于妇女月经不调、红崩、白带，外用止血消肿等。 5）抗病毒作用：能阻止病毒颗粒的吸附，保护细胞不受病毒的损害，并有一定抑制病毒的作用。 6）抗衰老悦颜健美作用：能消除自由基能力，阻止过氧化反应，抑制此处褐素形成和堆积，从而提高细胞生命力，延缓细胞衰老。 7）抗幅射、抗癌作用：抑制癌细胞，减轻化疗、放疗的副作用。 8）提气升阳，清音利喉作用：慢性咽炎成了歌唱家、教师、公务人员的顽症，泡水常服可消除顽疾。 4. 红景天功效2 红景天可以补气清肺；健脾益气，活血化瘀、益智养心；收涩止血；散瘀消肿。主要针对气虚体弱；病后畏寒；气短乏力；肺热咳嗽；咯血；白带腹泻；跌打损伤；烫火伤；神经症；高原反应等症状。 红景天可以泡水喝，不过这样红景天中的有效成分不能够充分的溶解到水中。相比之下，煎煮会好些，一般先将红景天浸泡3到4个小时，然后用小火煎煮40分钟，让红景天中的有效成分能够溶解出来。当然还有红景天胶囊，提取出来的红景天，更能够容易被人体吸收。.红景天，藏语名：苏罗玛保。在民间被喻为“长生不老草”和“九死还魂草”。盛产于青藏高原，生长在海拔3500—5000米的高寒地段，在缺氧、低温、干燥、狂风、强紫外线辐射的恶劣环境里具有极强的生命力。

感官动词的用法

1.感官动词用法之一：see, hear, listen to, watch, notice等词，后接宾语，再接动词原形或ing形式。前者表全过程，后者表正在进行。句中有频率词时，以上的词也常跟动词原形。 I heard someone knocking at the door when I fell asleep. (我入睡时有人正敲门) I heard someone knock at the door three times. (听的是全过程) I often watch my classmates play volleyball after school.(此处有频率词often) 若以上词用于被动语态，后面原有动词原形改为带to不定式： We saw him go into the restaurant. →He was seen to go into the restaurant. I hear the boy cry every day. →The boy is heard to cry every day. 2.感官动词用法之二：look, sound, smell, taste, feel可当系动词，后接形容词： He looks angry. It sounds good. The flowers smell beautiful. The sweets taste sweet. The silk feels soft. I felt tired. They all looked tired. 这些动词都不用于被动语态。如：The sweets are tasted sweet.是个病句。注意：如果加介词like,则后不可接形容词，而接名词或代词：

have got的详细用法回顾.doc

Module 4 ＆5需要掌握的重点语法和词组： 复习：have的用法及否定句、一般疑问句的变法。 ①have的意思是：________，它的单数形式是：_______。have是_______词。 例如：我有许多好朋友。_____ _____ many good friends.他有许多好朋友。_____ _____ many good friends. ②把下列两道题改为否定句： 1、I have many good friends：_____________________________ 总结：have 的句子改为否定句要_______________________________________________________________ 2、He has a dog：_________________________ 总结：has的句子改为否定句要_____________________________________ 同样的道理：请将下列两道题改为一般疑问句： I have many good friends：_____________________________ 总结：______________________________________ He has a dog：_________________________ 总结：________________________________________________________ 练习： 一、用have的正确形式填空： 1、He_____two brothers. 2、I_____a beautiful picture. 3、Betty_____ a lovely dog. 4、They_____some friends here. 二、请将下列的句子改为否定句和一般疑问句。 1-3题改为否定句：1、He has two brothers. ___________________________________________________ 2、I have a beautiful picture. ___________________________________________________ 3、Betty has some friends here. ___________________________________________________ 4-6题改为一般疑问句： 4、They have a good teacher. _________________________________肯定回答：_________________ 5、I have some cards. __________________________________________否定回答：____________________ 6、Tony has a sister. __________________________________________否定回答：____________________ 三、请用所给词的适当形式填空。 1、I _________ （have）a brother，but I_________ （not have）a sister. 2、He _________ （have）a beautiful pen. _________ you_________（have）a pen？ 3、Lingling _________ （have）an English dictionary. 4、_________ Tony_________（have）a car？ have got 的用法及否定句、一般疑问句的变法。 ①have got 表示_________________________________ 例：我有一只猫。I have got a cat. have got 的第三人称单数形式是：____________________________ ②have got可以缩写为：_______________ 例如：I have got a cat = ________________________ has got 可以缩写为：_______________ 例如：He has got a cat = ________________________ 练习:请用has got或have got填空。 1、I a bike. 2、He a bike. 3、You a bike.

英语单词,语法more than 结构用法小结

more than 结构用法小结 英语中more than 的用法比较复杂，它除了用于比较结构外，还可以与名词、形容词、动词或从句等连用，表达不同的含义。下面是more than 结构的一些常见用法 1. more than 结构后跟名词表示“不只是”；“不仅仅”等。例如： (1) However, we must consider more than the beginning of the motion. 然而，我们必须考虑的不只是运动的初始阶段。 (2) Peace is more than the absence of war. 和平不只是意味着没有战争。 2．more than 用来修饰形容词、分词和动词，表示所修饰的词份量不重或含义不够，而加以说明，译成汉语可为“非常”，相当于“very”或“much”。例如： (1) He is more than selfish. 他非常自私。 (2) He is more than happy about it. 他对此事极为高兴。 (3) I am sure conditions over there will more than satisfy your requirements. 我相信那边的条件会极大地满足你的要求。 3．more than 后接单数名词，谓语动词用单数。例如： (1) More than one person has been concerned in this. 这里涉及的不止是一个人。 (2) More than one member protested against the proposal. 不止一个成员反对这个建议。 4. more A than B 结构。用来比较两种说法的正确程度，即前一种说法（A项）比后一种说法（B项）要正确一些，表示“与其……不如……”。在这个句型里，more 后不能用形容词或副词的比较级形式，而要用原级形式，此外还可用名词、代词、动词、介词短语等。例如：(1) He is more good than bad. 与其说他坏不如说他好。 (2) It is more a poem than a picture. 与其说这是一幅画，不如说这是一首诗。 5. more than 或more... than 后接从句，可表示否定意义。例如： (1) The beauty of Hangzhou is more than words can describe. 杭州景色之美是说言所不能描述的。 (2) That is more than I can tell you,sir. 这一点我是不能告诉你的，先生。 （注意：在这种句型中，more than 后常接含有can 或could 的从句，表示“……不能”。）对于下列表示否定意义的句子，有的语法学家认为在than 后面省略了when，有的认为省掉了it，也有的认为than 用作关系代词，因而并无省略。这类句子在理解上并不困难，结构上变化也不大，从实用出发，可将其视为一种句型来学习。例如： a. You spent more money than was intended to be spent. 你花掉的钱比原计划的要多。（原计划要花的钱没有这么多。） b. This is more money than is needed. 这笔钱比需要的多。（需要的钱没有这么多。） c. We often advise him not to drink more wine than is good for his health.

红景天苷

红景天苷 红景天苷结构式 英文名称：Salidroside 分子式：C14H20O7 CAS:10338-51-9 分子量 300.30 药材来源：红景天，大花红景天，高山红景天的块根。 红景天为景天科，红景天属植物。即是本属一种的名称，也是本属统称，其中许多种均可用于提取本药物。 性状： 为类白色或浅黄色粉末。 药品规格： 红景天苷:98%, 红景天甙：3-5％（HPLC）肉桂醇苷：3-5％（HPLC） 质量控制方法： 色谱柱为C8柱(4．6mm×150mm，5μm)，流动相为水-甲醇(85：15)，流速为1．0mL·min^-1，柱温为25℃，荧光检测波长λEX=220nm，λEM=315nm。结果：该方法的线性范围为1．00～ 500ng(r=0．9999)。平均加样回收率为99．2％，RSD为1．4％(n=5)。最低检测限为1．5pg。南京泽朗杨东骋提供结论：本方法快速，简单，灵敏度极高。 药理作用： 1. 增强免疫力 红景天提取物通过改善T-细胞免疫而使免疫系统恢复正常。可提升机体对感染逐渐发展所积聚成的毒的抵抗能力 2. 消除忧郁感 红景天被用以提升人的精神状态，成为那些生活在因月份周期延长，而得不到足够阳光照射的国家和季节的人的宝贵医药。 3. 保护心血管 红景天提取物显示可缓和压力所致心血管组织损伤和功能紊乱，防止在急冻状态下因周围环境压力继发的心脏收缩力下降和有助于稳定收缩性。 其它 检测方式：高效液相色谱法HPLC≥98% 【规格】10mg 20mg 100mg 500mg 1g (可根据客户需求包装) 【性状】本品为浅棕色粉末

【作用与用途】本品用于含量测定。 【提取来源】 【药理性质】 味甜.极易溶于水, 易溶于甲醇, 溶于乙醇,难溶于乙醚.经浓氢氧化钾溶液的分解反应, 能生成三甲胺 【用法】 色谱条件: 流动相为甲醇-水（15：85）为流动相，检测波长为275nm, (仅供参考) 【贮藏方法】 2-8°C，避光保存。 【注意事项】本品应在低温下保存，长时间在暴露在空气中，含量会有所降低。 【植物名称】红景天 【英文名】Phooioin Rosea P.E. 【来源】景天科植物库页红景天Rhodiola sachalinensis A. Bor.的根及根茎 【资源分布】是景天科红景天属植物，在世界上有90余种，多分布在北半球的高寒地带，生长在海拔3500－5000米左右的高山流石或灌木丛林下。我国有73种，主要分布在青藏高原和长白山。 【有效成分】主要有效成分是红景天甙（Salidroside）及其甙元，即对酪醇 （P-Tyrosol）。此外，尚含鞣质18.07%，淀粉、脂肪、蜡、有机酸、蛋白质、黄酮类化合物及微量元素铁、铅、锌、银、钴、钛、钼、锰等。 【功效】主要有中枢抑制作用、抗疲劳作用、强心作用、抗炎作用、抑制血糖升高作用、抗过氧化作用、抗微波辐射作用。 【质量标准】一般以红景天甙的含量为标准 二、提取方法 1．传统方法：乙醇回流法。 2．另有人采用微波破壁法从高山红景天的根茎中提取红景天甙。 三、合成法： 以对-溴苯酚为原料，选择烯丙基保护酚羟基，制备了4-烯丙氧苯基－乙醇，后者经成苷及脱乙酰基得到中间体，采用并改进氯化钯/氯化亚酮法脱除烯丙基，合成了红景天苷。(北京医科大学有机化学教研室李中军王安邦蔡盂深等人实验)。

学法守法用法的工作总结

学法守法用法的工作总结 时间如白驹过隙，转眼间，20xx年已经接近尾声。这一年来， 我始终坚持把学习法律放在学习的中心位置，坚持依法办事，严格遵守法律法规，法治理念进一步巩固，业务水平进一步 提高。 一、问题导向，按需学法 一年来，我始终坚持问题导向，以工作和生活中遇到的实际 问题为切入点，不断加强法律知识学习，打牢法治理念基础。根据日常生活需要，学习了《民法》、《消费者权益保护法》、《物权法》等民事法律；依据本职工作性质，深入学习了《行政法》、《行政诉讼法》、《劳动法》、《劳动合同法》、《劳动合同法实施条例》、《社会保险法》、《工伤保险条例》、《治安管 理处罚法》、《信访条例》等法律法规和四川省、成都市关于 信访和劳动用工、社会保险方面的相关法规规章及文件，坚 持用法律法规来武装自己，提升信访、政法、劳动等业务工 作的法治水平，真正做到依法办事，依法为广大群众服务。 二、严守底线，时刻畏法 严格遵守国家法律法规和各级政府法规规章是每一个中国 公民的法定义务，在日常生活中，要时刻敬畏法律，不触摸 法律红线，遵法守法，真正做一个合格的公民。作为一名政 府工作人员，更应该模范遵守各种法律法规，切实履行法定 义务，落实法定职责，这是成为一名合格的公职人员的基本

要求。20xx年，我时刻紧绷依法办事、遵纪守法的弦，严守底线，按规矩办事，没有出现过任何违法违规情况。 三、积极履职，办事依法 中国已经建立了较为完善的中国特色社会主义法律体系，法制基本健全，基本实现了社会生活的各个方面均有法可依。作为一名政府公职人员，更应当自觉依法办事，依法履职，切实做好本职工作，严格落实法定职责，真正依法为民服务。这一年来，我严格按照《信访条例》及各级信访工作规定办理信访案件，实现了办结率100%；严格依据《劳动合同法》、《劳动合同法实施条例》、《劳动争议调解仲裁法》、《社会保险法》、《工伤保险条例》及国家、省、成都市等各级相关规定，依法受理、依法调解、依法结案、依法移交，全年未发生重大群体性劳动纠纷，案件调解率达95%；严格依据《治安管理处罚法》和成都市关于处置突发公共事件相关规定处置突发事件，处置合法，及时有效，确保了园区社会大局稳定。

感官动词

感官动词的概念和相关考点 1、什么是感官动词？ 听觉：listen to、hear 视觉：look at、seem、watch 嗅觉：smell 触觉：feel、touch 味觉：taste 2、感官动词如何正确使用？ Tom drove his car away. →I saw him drive away. (全过程) 用法一：somebody did sth + I saw this I saw somebody do something. Tom was waiting for the bus. →I saw Tom waiting for the bus. (看不到全过程) 用法二：somebody was doing sth + I saw this I saw somebody doing something 练习： 一、句子翻译 1. I didn,t hear you come in. 2. I suddenly felt sth touch me on the shoulder. 3. I could hear it raining. 4. Listen to the birds singing. 5. Can you smell sth burning? 6. I found Sue in my room reading my letters. 二、灵活运用 1. I saw Ann waiting for the bus. 2. I saw Dave and Helen playing tenins. 3. I saw Clair having her meal. 三、选择最佳选项 1. Did anybody see the accident (happen/happening)? 2. We listen to the old man (tell/telling) his story from beginning to the end. 3. Listen! Can you hear a baby (cry/crying)? 4.—Why did you turn around suddenly? — I heard someone (call/calling) my name. 5. We watched the two men (open/opening) a window and (climb/climbing) through it into house. 6. When we got there, we found our cat (sleep/sleeping) on the table. 四、感官动词的被动语态 Oh，the milk is tasted strange.