Human–Computer Interaction and International Public Policymaking: A Framework for Understanding and Taking Future Actions

Lazar, Jonathan; Abascal, Julio; Barbosa, Simone Diniz Junqueira; Barksdale, Jeremy; Friedman, Batya; Großklags, Jens; Gulliksen, Jan; Johnson, Jeff; McEwan, Tom; Martínez-Normand, Loïc; Michalk, Wibke; Tsai, Janice; Veer, Gerrit van der; Axelson, Hans von; Walldius, Åke; Whitney, Gill; Winckler, Marco; Wulf, Volker; Churchill, Elizabeth F.; Cranor, Lorrie Faith; Davis, Janet; Hedge, Alan; Hochheiser, Harry; Hourcade, Juan Pablo; Lewis, Clayton; Nathan, Lisa P.; Paternò, Fabio; Reid, Blake E.; Quesenbery, Whitney; Selker, Ted; Wentz, Brian

doi:10.1561/1100000062

Cited by 39 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Algorithmic fairness, therefore, appears to be a "wicked problem" [72], with diverse stakeholders but, as yet, no clear agreement on problem statement or solution. The human computer interaction (HCI) community and related disciplines are of course highly interested in influencing positive action on such issues [25], having for example an established tradition of conducting research to inform public policy for societal-scale challenges [50,84] as well as providing companies information about how they can best serve their users. Indeed, recent work by Plane et al on discrimination in online advertising is positioned as informing public policy as well as company initiatives [67].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

Woodruff

Fox

Rousso-Schindler

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

195

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Algorithmic systems increasingly shape information people are exposed to as well as influence decisions about employment, finances, and other opportunities. In some cases, algorithmic systems may be more or less favorable to certain groups or individuals, sparking substantial discussion of algorithmic fairness in public policy circles, academia, and the press. We broaden this discussion by exploring how members of potentially affected communities feel about algorithmic fairness. We conducted workshops and interviews with 44 participants from several populations traditionally marginalized by categories of race or class in the United States. While the concept of algorithmic fairness was largely unfamiliar, learning about algorithmic (un)fairness elicited negative feelings that connect to current national discussions about racial injustice and economic inequality. In addition to their concerns about potential harms to themselves and society, participants also indicated that algorithmic fairness (or lack thereof) could substantially affect their trust in a company or product.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

Woodruff

Fox

Rousso-Schindler

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

195

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It took multiple years and extensive networking, time, and resources to gain access and trust from employees in Congress. But such efforts toward building trust in these institutions should continue, especially as the field continues to advocate for more policy interaction [41]. This work speaks to the growing body of research at the intersection of policy and HCI.…”

Section: Implications For Cscwmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This work speaks to the growing body of research at the intersection of policy and HCI. The research community is aware that we have not made significant efforts to engage with public policy-making [41]. However, these scholars call for change center on influencing policy or understanding how policy affects the research community.…”

Section: Implications For Cscwmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Materialities of Citizen Communication in the U.S. Congress

McDonald

Mazmanian

2019

Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we use a materiality lens to explore how information and communication technologies condition interaction between citizens and policymakers of the U.S. Congress. We work with ethnographic data-six months of observation in Washington D.C. and 48 interviews with staff in the House of Representatives. Customer relation management systems (CRMs) used by Congress are one of numerous technologies expected to enhance responsive communication between citizens and representatives. We find, instead, that these technologies promote the datafication of citizen information that configures and constrains how policymakers engage citizens as legitimate actors within the policy-making process. CRMs not only mediate communication between citizens and policymakers, they shape the idea of what communication between citizens and policymakers can be and how citizens are viewed in the eyes of policymakers and their staff. Thus, we extend our understanding of the ways in which material configurations of communication technologies influence not only how communication acts unfolds, but also how each partner conceives of and engages with the other. This has dramatic implications for the possibilities of digital communication channels to enhance, or uphold, the ideals of a representative democracy. CCS Concepts: • Social and professional topics → Governmental regulations.

show abstract

“…83-92]. Many international standards in uence computing and design processes, including standards related to web accessibility, privacy, and research involving human subjects [18,19].…”

Section: Hcd and Iso 9241-210:2010mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Limits of HCD

Thomas

Remy

Bates

2017

Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Computing Within Limits

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-centred design (HCD) is just that: human-centred. As we approach the limits of Earth's biophysical systems, it no longer feels appropriate to place humans at the centre of design decisions. Yet HCD and its ISO-ISO-9241-210:2010-continue to be powerful and popular tools within many computing and design departments, as well as in their a liated industries. ese design approaches are perpetuating the trend of incremental improvements to the living standards of the already privileged and digitally connected whilst ignoring the broader environmental and socio-political e ects of digital technologies. In this paper, we a empt to reimagine HCD and its ISO by drawing on elds and concepts such as sustainable interaction design (SID), animal-computer interaction (ACI), and object oriented ontology (OOO). rough this, we contribute a preliminary set of proposals about what needs to change with HCD and its ISO. We close by discussing the ISO development process and suggesting routes for environmentally concerned researchers to in uence the evolution of HCD's ISO. CCS CONCEPTS •General and →Computing standards, RFCs and guidelines; •Human-centered computing →HCI design and evaluation methods; HCI theory, concepts and models; User centered design; •Social and professional topics →Governmental regulations;

show abstract

Human–Computer Interaction and International Public Policymaking: A Framework for Understanding and Taking Future Actions

Cited by 39 publications

References 79 publications

A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

A Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

Information Materialities of Citizen Communication in the U.S. Congress

The Limits of HCD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About