This paper addresses how facilitation can implicate what, whose and how perspectives and values become embedded in the results from participatory design activities. Inspired by Donald Schön's reflection-on-action theory, an analysis of our facilitator performances in three design activities involving health care stakeholder groups with asymmetric relations has been performed. The analysis highlights the often subtle and unforeseen ways by which facilitator actions influence who "has a say". The results emphasize how continuous introspective analyses and reflections may improve the facilitator's attentiveness to actions that may inadvertently impede the disfavored party. In the long-term, neglect may threaten the integrity of participatory design as a democratic and empowering design approach. The shift towards a practice-perspective on facilitation goes beyond the efforts of the individual practitioner. The cultivation of the reflective facilitator, a concern of relevance for the Human–Computer Interaction and Participatory Design community as a whole, is considered.
HCI researchers are increasingly interested in describing the complexity of design practice, including ethical, organizational, and societal concerns. Recent studies have identified individual practitioners as key actors in driving the design process and culture within their respective organizations, and we build upon these efforts to reveal practitioner concerns regarding ethics on their own terms. In this paper, we report on the results of an interview study with eleven UX practitioners, capturing their experiences that highlight dimensions of design practice that impact ethical awareness and action. Using a bottom-up thematic analysis, we identified five dimensions of design complexity that influence ethical outcomes and span individual, collaborative, and methodological framing of UX activity. Based on these findings, we propose a set of implications for the creation of ethically-centered design methods that resonate with this complexity and inform the education of future UX practitioners.
In open-source software (OSS), the design of usability is often influenced by the discussions among community members on platforms such as issue tracking systems (ITSs). However, digesting the rich information embedded in issue discussions can be a major challenge due to the vast number and diversity of the comments. We propose and evaluate ArguLens, a conceptual framework and automated technique leveraging an argumentation model to support effective understanding and consolidation of community opinions in ITSs. Through content analysis, we anatomized highly discussed usability issues from a large, active OSS project, into their argumentation components and standpoints. We then experimented with supervised machine learning techniques for automated argument extraction. Finally, through a study with experienced ITS users, we show that the information provided by ArguLens supported the digestion of usability-related opinions and facilitated the review of lengthy issues. ArguLens provides the direction of designing valuable tools for high-level reasoning and effective discussion about usability.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376218
Scholarship on algorithms has drawn on the analogy between algorithmic systems and bureaucracies to diagnose shortcomings in algorithmic decision-making. We extend the analogy further by drawing on Michel Crozier's theory of bureaucratic organizations to analyze the relationship between algorithmic and human decision-making power. We present algorithms as analogous to impartial bureaucratic rules for controlling action, and argue that discretionary decision-making power in algorithmic systems accumulates at locations where uncertainty about the operation of algorithms persists. This key point of our essay connects with Alkhatib and Bernstein's theory of 'street-level algorithms', and highlights that the role of human discretion in algorithmic systems is to accommodate uncertain situations which inflexible algorithms cannot handle. We conclude by discussing how the analysis and design of algorithmic systems could seek to identify and cultivate important sources of uncertainty, to enable the human discretionary work that enhances systemic resilience in the face of algorithmic errors.
Writing and its means have become detached. Unlike written and drawn practices developed prior to the 20th century, notation for programming computers developed in concert and conflict with discretizing infrastructure such as the shift-key typewriter and data processing pipelines. In this paper, I recall the emergence of high-level notation for representing computation. I show how the earliest inventors of programming notations borrowed from various written cultural practices, some of which came into conflict with the constraints of digitizing machines, most prominently the typewriter. As such, I trace how practices of "writing code" were fabricated along social, cultural, and material lines at the time of their emergence. By juxtaposing early visions with the modern status quo, I question long-standing terminology, dichotomies, and epistemological tendencies in the field of computer programming. Finally, I argue that translation work is a fundamental property of the practice of writing code by advancing an intercultural lens on programming practice rooted in history.