techhub.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A hub primarily for passionate technologists, but everyone is welcome

Administered by:

Server stats:

4.9K
active users

#hcireview

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
naoto<p><a href="https://social.toplap.org/tags/HCIReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HCIReview</span></a> Music, Search, and IoT: How People (Really) Use Voice Assistants (<a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3311956" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/331</span><span class="invisible">1956</span></a>) - TOCHI ‘19, study on the use of Alexa and Google Home during 2015-2017 with 82 and 88 log collected respectively. 19 interviews were conducted (recruited via Reddit) and inductive coding. Note that 3/4 of the authors are from the industry (Mozilla and Verizon). Most of the uses are playing music, then web search and controlling IoT, but it is still immature (macros need to be set, and the protocol is not standardized - as in 7-challenge paper in ‘01). Privacy issues are mentioned but only scratching from the user point of view (suggesting to indicate muted or not via LED) not critical enough from the security standpoint. For example the comment that switching off voice assistant while having sex but it doesn’t matter when talking to the partner about hummus recipe sounds like an interesting one because obviously Amazon would know who to sell sex toys and chickpeas</p>
naoto<p><a href="https://social.toplap.org/tags/HCIReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HCIReview</span></a> HCI and environmental sustainability: the politics of design and the design of politics (<a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/1858171.1858173" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/185</span><span class="invisible">8171.1858173</span></a>) - DIS ‘10, argument paper / essay by Dourish on environmental sustainability. Questioning awareness of environmental issues as driven by the market (neoliberalism). As he discusses the politics of scale (“think globally, act locally”) he continues how HCI and ICT are relevant to the scale. For example, in the social context as in Facebook (social software), suggesting “rather than using technology to provoke reflection on environmental impact of individual actions, we might use it instead to show how particular actions or concerns link one into a broader coalition of concerned citizens, social groups, and organizations.”</p>
naoto<p><a href="https://social.toplap.org/tags/HCIReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HCIReview</span></a> Cross-Cultural Dialogical Probes (<a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2998581.2998591" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2998581</span><span class="invisible">.2998591</span></a>) - AfriCHI ‘16, preceding “situational when” paper on designing a digital noticeboard for a remote Australian Aboriginal community. They question cultural and technical probes as it is difficult to run unattended - also they noticed that storytelling on a noticeboard happens collectively so an app for story sharing isn’t appealing. I get the point but what they propose as cross-cultural dialogical probes are after all workshop / participatory design, and I don’t know why they need to stick to the term probes.</p>
naoto<p><a href="https://social.toplap.org/tags/HCIReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HCIReview</span></a> Challenges and Opportunities in Contemporary Participatory Design (<a href="https://direct.mit.edu/desi/article-abstract/28/3/3/69062/Challenges-and-Opportunities-in-Contemporary" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">direct.mit.edu/desi/article-ab</span><span class="invisible">stract/28/3/3/69062/Challenges-and-Opportunities-in-Contemporary</span></a>) - Foreword on special issue on contemporary participatory design (PD). PD’s scope has been widened (“design of the tools, environments, businesses, and social institution”). Roots in Scandinavia and PDCs have been taken place since 1990. The challenge “is to ensure that they [projects] continue long enough through the development and implementation of new products and situations to fully explore the mutual learning and to both reflect on and otherwise evaluate the process and its outcomes.” They reflect that this has become more difficult because of available off-the-shelf products. Also they point out different voices have to be heard for flexible and robust design.</p>
naoto<p>I’ve been reading HCI/CSCW related articles for my PhD research so I try to post my commentary here too <a href="https://social.toplap.org/tags/HCI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HCI</span></a> <a href="https://social.toplap.org/tags/CSCW" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>CSCW</span></a> <a href="https://social.toplap.org/tags/HCIReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>HCIReview</span></a></p><p>Moving with the Times: IT Research and the Boundaries of CSCW<br> (<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10606-005-3642-x" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">link.springer.com/article/10.1</span><span class="invisible">007/s10606-005-3642-x</span></a>) - JCSCW 05 by Crabtree, Rodden &amp; Benford. They talk about the location based game “can you see me now?” as ludic design, which is also in Benford’s performance-led research paper and make an analogy in CSCW. They cite Hughes and other papers to find several concepts that are common in the game play and CSCW: routines, distributed coordination, working with constant interruption (technical difficulties), distributed awareness, local knowledge (locally situated info), and surreptitious monitoring (reference to their colleagues). I see that this can be also translated to dance context</p>