In conventional software development, user experience (UX) designers and engineers collaborate through separation of concerns (SoC): designers create human interface specifications, and engineers build to those specifications. However, we argue that Human-AI systems thwart SoC because human needs must shape the design of the AI interface, the underlying AI sub-components, and training data. How do designers and engineers currently collaborate on AI and UX design? To find out, we interviewed 21 industry professionals (UX researchers, AI engineers, data scientists, and managers) across 14 organizations about their collaborative work practices and associated challenges. We find that hidden information encapsulated by SoC challenges collaboration across design and engineering concerns. Practitioners describe inventing ad-hoc representations exposing low-level design and implementation details (which we characterize as leaky abstractions) to "puncture" SoC and share information across expertise boundaries. We identify how leaky abstractions are employed to collaborate at the AI-UX boundary and formalize a process of creating and using leaky abstractions.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3517537
We present a performance-led inquiry that involved a live coder programming movement-based interactive sound and two dance improvisers. During two years of collaboration, we developed a joint improvisation practice where the interactions between the dancers’ movement and the sound feedback are programmed on the fly through live coding and movement sensing. To that end, we designed a new live coding environment called CO/DA that facilitates the real-time manipulation of continuous streams of the dancers’ motion data for interactive sound synthesis. Through an autoethnographic inquiry, we describe our practice of sound and movement improvisation where live coding dynamically changes how the dancers’ movements generate sound, which in turn influences the dancers’ improvisation. We then discuss the value, potential and challenges of our dance/code improvisation practice, along with its implications as a design method.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3501916
HCI research has explored AI as a design material, suggesting that designers can envision AI's design opportunities to improve UX. Recent research claimed that enterprise applications offer an opportunity for AI innovation at the user experience level. We conducted design workshops to explore the practices of experienced designers who work on cross-functional AI teams in the enterprise. We discussed how designers successfully work with and struggle with AI. Our findings revealed that designers can innovate at the system and service levels. We also discovered that making a case for an AI feature's return on investment is a barrier for designers when they propose AI concepts and ideas. Our discussions produced novel insights on designers' role on AI teams, and the boundary objects they used for collaborating with data scientists. We discuss the implications of these findings as opportunities for future research aiming to empower designers in working with data and AI.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3517491
Participatory design facilitators have a significant impact on participatory activities, processes, and outcomes. However, the facilitator role has not yet been thoroughly debated in existing design discourse, and support for role-related reflections is limited. As the first steps towards an enriched collective understanding of this specific role and its realization, we interviewed 14 respondents with an academic background in participatory design and extensive facilitation experience. Based on a content analysis of the interviews, we identified six facets of the role: (1) trust builder, (2) enabler, (3) inquirer, (4) direction setter, (5) value provider, and (6) users’ advocate. Each facet is presented as consisting of the respondents’ perceived associated responsibilities and corresponding strategies. Our results paint a complex picture of participatory design facilitation. We propose the multi-faceted understanding of the facilitator role emerging from this work as a basis for problematized reflection on the role and its realization.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3502013
Smart home cameras present new challenges for understanding behaviors and relationships surrounding always-on, domestic recording systems. We designed a series of discursive activities involving 16 individuals from ten households for six weeks in their everyday settings. These activities functioned as speculative probes—prompting participants to reflect on themes of privacy and power through filming with cameras in their households. Our research design foregrounded critical-playful enactments that allowed participants to speculate potentials for relationships with cameras in the home beyond everyday use. We present four key dynamics with participants and home cameras by examining their relationships to: the camera's eye, filming, their data, and camera’s societal contexts. We contribute discussions about the mundane, information privacy, and post-hoc reflection with one’s camera footage. Overall, our findings reveal the camera as a strange, yet banal entity in the home—interrogating how participants compose and handle their own and others’ video data.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3491102.3502109