AI measurement science has a wide variety of methodologies and measurements for comparing AI systems, resulting in what often appear to be "apples-to-oranges" comparisons across AI evaluations. To move toward "apples-to-apples" comparisons in real-world AI evaluations, this work advocates for methodological transparency in evaluation scenarios, operational grounding, and human-centered design (HCD) principles. We propose a repeatable process for transforming high-level use cases to detailed scenarios by eliciting use cases from subject matter experts (SMEs) via a structured AI Use Case Worksheet with six key elements: use case, sector, user (direct and indirect), intended outcomes, expected impacts (positive and negative), and KPIs and metrics. We demonstrate utility of the worksheet and process in the U.S. financial services sector. This paper reports on example high-level AI use cases identified by financial services sector SMEs: cyber defense enablement, developer productivity, financial crime aggregation, suspicious activity report (SAR) filing, credit memo generation, and internal call center support. These AI use cases provided are illustrative of the process and not exhaustive. Central to our work is a three-stage expansion pipeline combining LLM prompting with human reviews to generate 107 scenarios from those use cases elicited from SMEs. This process integrates iterative human reviews at every juncture to ensure operational grounding: for scenario titles and descriptions; for core scenario elements like users, benefits and risks, and metrics; and for scenario narratives and evaluation objectives. Human checkpoints ensure scenarios remain reflective of real-world usage and human needs. We describe a validation rubric to assess scenario quality. By defining key scenario components, this work supports a more consistent and meaningful paradigm for human-centered AI evaluations.

Rapid adoption of generative AI has outpaced the infrastructure needed to red team systems responsibly. This workshop tackles a core tension: scaling AI red teaming while centering human expertise and well-being. We convene academic, industry, and nonprofit practitioners for two threads. (A) Vision: surface high-level goals and principles for effective, humane red teaming. (B) Build: identify opportunities to support human-AI red teaming, such as scenario libraries, role prompts for red teamers, and calibration methods that align automated efforts with human expertise. Through this workshop, we will develop a vision for the future of effective AI red teaming that leverages and protects human expertise while meeting the needs of evaluation at scale.

People candidly discuss sensitive topics online under the perceived safety of anonymity; yet, for many, this perceived safety is tenuous, as miscalibrated risk perceptions can lead to over-disclosure. Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) afford an unprecedented opportunity to present users with quantified disclosure-based re-identification risk (i.e., "population risk estimates", PREs). How can PREs be presented to users in a way that promotes informed decision-making, mitigating risk without encouraging unnecessary self-censorship? Using design fictions and comic-boarding, we story-boarded five design concepts for presenting PREs to users and evaluated them through an online survey with N = 44 Reddit users. We found participants had detailed conceptions of how PREs may impact risk awareness and motivation, but envisioned needing additional context and support to effectively interpret and act on risks. We distill our findings into four key design recommendations for how best to present users with quantified privacy risks to support informed disclosure decision-making.

As AI systems are increasingly tested and deployed in open-ended and high-stakes domains, crowdworkers are often tasked with responsible AI (RAI) content work. These tasks include labeling violent content, moderating disturbing text, or simulating harmful behavior for red teaming exercises to shape AI system behaviors. While prior research efforts have highlighted the risks to worker well-being associated with RAI content work, far less attention has been paid to how these risks are communicated to workers by task designers or individuals who design and post RAI tasks. Existing transparency frameworks and guidelines, such as model cards, datasheets, and crowdworksheets, focus on documenting model information and dataset collection processes, but they overlook an important aspect of disclosing well-being risks to workers. In the absence of standard workflows or clear guidance, the consistent application of content warnings, consent flows, or other forms of well-being risk disclosure remains unclear. This study investigates how task designers approach risk disclosure in crowdsourced RAI tasks. Drawing on interviews with 23 task designers across academic and industry sectors, we examine how well-being risk is recognized, interpreted, and communicated in practice. Our findings highlight the need to support task designers in identifying and communicating risks not only to support crowdworker well-being but also to strengthen the ethical integrity and technical efficacy of AI development pipelines.

Responsible AI (RAI) content work, such as annotation, moderation, or red teaming for AI safety, often exposes crowd workers to potentially harmful content. While prior work has underscored the importance of communicating well-being risk to employed content moderators, designing effective disclosure mechanisms for crowd workers while balancing worker protection with the needs of task designers and platforms remains largely unexamined. To address this gap, we conducted individual co-design sessions with 15 task designers, 11 crowdworkers, and 3 platform representatives. We investigated task designer preferences for support in disclosing tasks, worker preferences for receiving risk disclosure warnings, and how platform representatives envision their role in shaping risk disclosure practices. We identify design tensions and map the sociotechnical tradeoffs that shape disclosure practices. We contribute design recommendations and feature concepts for risk disclosure mechanisms in the context of RAI content work.

As AI systems become more advanced and are taken up in a widening set of applications, the need to identify risks for new AI innovations is growing. AI red teaming—the adversarial testing of AI systems for risks—has been proposed as one approach to address this. It involves practices ranging from manual evaluation to fully automated methods that use AI models to generate and assess test cases. While automated and hybrid human-AI approaches are valued for scalability and cost-effectiveness, they risk deprioritizing human expertise, obscuring the labor and judgment needed to surface meaningful harms, and potentially harming workers’ well-being. Our SIG builds on efforts to theorize AI red teaming as a sociotechnical practice and explores how automation is reshaping the human infrastructure of AI red teaming. Drawing from CSCW research on labor in data annotation and content moderation, we ask: What forms of human expertise remain essential in red teaming? Which tasks can or should be automated, and under what conditions? How do choices about automation redistribute responsibility, agency, and labor? By convening scholars and practitioners across CSCW, HCI, and adjacent fields, we aim to surface key sociotechnical challenges in AI red teaming automation and foster a community to advance thoughtful, responsible practices.

The maker movement embodies a resurgence in DIY creation, merging physical craftsmanship and arts with digital technology support. However, mere technological skills and creativity are insufficient for economically and psychologically sustainable practice. By illuminating and smoothing the path from “maker" to “maker entrepreneur," we can help broaden the viability of making as a livelihood. Our research centers on makers who design, produce, and sell physical goods. In this work, we explore the transition to entrepreneurship for these makers and how technology can facilitate this transition online and offline. We present results from interviews with 20 USA-based maker entrepreneurs (i.e., lamps, stickers), six creative service entrepreneurs (i.e., photographers, fabrication), and seven support personnel (i.e., art curator, incubator director). Our findings reveal that many maker entrepreneurs 1) are makers first and entrepreneurs second; 2) struggle with business logistics and learn business skills as they go; and 3) are motivated by non-monetary values. We discuss training and technology-based design implications and opportunities for addressing challenges in developing economically sustainable businesses around making.

In pseudonymous online fora like Reddit, the benefits of self-disclosure are often apparent to users (e.g., I can vent about my in-laws to understanding strangers), but the privacy risks are more abstract (e.g., will my partner be able to tell that this is me?). Prior work has sought to develop natural language processing (NLP) tools that help users identify potentially risky self-disclosures in their text, but none have been designed for or evaluated with the users they hope to protect. Absent this assessment, these tools will be limited by the social-technical gap: users need assistive tools that help them make informed decisions, not paternalistic tools that tell them to avoid self-disclosure altogether. To bridge this gap, we conducted a study with N = 21 Reddit users; we had them use a state-of-the-art NLP disclosure detection model on two of their authored posts and asked them questions to understand if and how the model helped, where it fell short, and how it could be improved to help them make more informed decisions. Despite its imperfections, users responded positively to the model and highlighted its use as a tool that can help them catch mistakes, inform them of risks they were unaware of, and encourage self-reflection. However, our work also shows how, to be useful and usable, AI for supporting privacy decision-making must account for posting context, disclosure norms, and users' lived threat models, and provide explanations that help contextualize detected risks.

Young adults often encounter challenges in career exploration. Self-guided interventions, such as the letter-exchange exercise, where participants envision and adopt the perspective of their future selves by exchanging letters with their envisioned future selves, can support career development. However, the broader adoption of such interventions may be limited without structured guidance. To address this, we integrated Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents that simulate participants' future selves into the letter-exchange exercise and evaluated their effectiveness. A one-week experiment (N=36) compared three conditions: (1) participants manually writing replies to themselves from the perspective of their future selves (baseline), (2) future-self agents generating letters to participants, and (3) future-self agents engaging in chat conversations with participants. Results indicated that exchanging letters with future-self agents enhanced participants' engagement during the exercise, while overall benefits of the intervention on future orientation, career self-concept, and psychological support remained comparable across conditions. We discuss design implications for AI-augmented interventions for supporting young adults' career exploration.

As AI systems are increasingly tested and deployed in open-ended and high-stakes domains, crowd workers are often tasked with responsible AI (RAI) content work. These tasks include labeling violent content, moderating disturbing text, or simulating harmful behavior for red teaming exercises to shape AI system behaviors. While prior efforts have highlighted the risks to worker well-being associated with RAI content work, far less attention has been paid to how these risks are communicated to workers. Existing transparency frameworks and guidelines such as model cards, datasheets, and crowdworksheets focus on documenting model information and dataset collection processes, but they overlook an important aspect of disclosing well-being risks to workers. In the absence of standard workflows or clear guidance, the consistent application of content warnings, consent flows, or other forms of well-being risk disclosure remain unclear. This study investigates how task designers approach risk disclosure in crowdsourced RAI tasks. Drawing on interviews with 23 task designers across academic and industry sectors, we examine how well-being risk is recognized, interpreted, and communicated in practice. Our findings surface a need to support task designers in identifying and communicating well-being risk not only to support crowdworker well-being but also to strengthen the ethical integrity and technical efficacy of AI development pipelines.

Much research has found that social influences (such as social proof, storytelling, and advice-seeking) help boost security awareness. But we have lacked a systematic approach to tracing how awareness leads to action, and to identifying which social influences can be leveraged at each step. Toward this goal, we develop a framework that synthesizes our design ideation, expertise, prior work, and new interview data into a six-step adoption process. This work contributes a prototype framework that accounts for social influences by step. It adds to what is known in the literature and the SIGCHI community about the social-psychological drivers of security adoption. Future work should establish whether this process is the same regardless of culture, demographic variation, or work vs. home context, and whether it is a reliable theoretical basis and method for designing experiments and focusing efforts where they are likely to be most productive.

AbstractHuilian Sophie Qiu, Zihe H. Zhao, Tielin Katy Yu, Laura Dabbish, and Bogdan Vasilescu

The involvement of companies and public institutions in open source software (OSS) has become widespread. While studies have explored the business models of for-profit organizations and their impact on software quality, little is known about their influence on OSS communities, especially in terms of diversity and inclu. sion. This knowledge gap is significant, considering that many organizations have the resources to enhance diversity and inclu sion internally, but whether these efforts extend to OSS remains uncertain. To address this gap, we conducted interviews with main. tainers of community-owned and organization-owned OSS projects. revealing tensions between organizations and their projects and identifying the impact of internal policies on OSS communities. Our findings reveal that, on the one hand, organization-owned projects often restrict external contributions due to stringent operating procedures and segmented communication, leading to limited external engagement. On the other hand, these organizations positively influence diversity and inclusion, notably in the representation and roles of women and the implementation of mentorship programs.

Cybersecurity campaigns often fail because tools and practices, like password managers, appear too daunting or difficult to implement. While prior work has shown that transformational game design approaches to improving players' security self-efficacy can show promise in encouraging more secure behaviors in players, we still lack a systematic understanding of how and why these features work, or how these approaches differ in their impact on players' behavior change. This paper presents and describes the design and implementation of a transformational game called C.A.L.Y.P.S.O., incorporating 12 dynamically toggle-able design patterns inspired by Bandura's principles for self-efficacy design [7] in order to encourage users' adoption of expert-recommended cybersecurity tools and best practices. These 12 design patterns consist of self-efficacy design features explored in other work [9], and other techniques of the authors' own design. The goal of this work is to draw on psychological theories of self-efficacy to develop design patterns that can be translated to other contexts to enhance end-user cybersecurity behaviors and to build a game that will enable researchers to assess the effectiveness of these design patterns in comparison to one another.

Past work has sought to design AI ethics interventions--such as checklists or toolkits--to help practitioners design more ethical AI systems. However, other work demonstrates how these interventions may instead serve to limit critique to that addressed within the intervention, while rendering broader concerns illegitimate. In this paper, drawing on work examining how standards enact discursive closure and how power relations affect whether and how people raise critique, we recruit three corporate teams, and one activist team, each with prior context working with one another, to play a game designed to trigger broad discussion around AI ethics. We use this as a point of contrast to trigger reflection on their teams' past discussions, examining factors which may affect their ''license to critique'' in AI ethics discussions. We then report on how particular affordances of this game may influence discussion, and find that the hypothetical context created in the game is unlikely to be a viable mechanism for real world change. We discuss how power dynamics within a group and notions of ''scope'' affect whether people may be willing to raise critique in AI ethics discussions, and discuss our finding that games are unlikely to enable direct changes to products or practice, but may be more likely to allow members to find critically-aligned allies for future collective action.

In recent years, concerns have increased over the lack of contributor diversity in open source software (OSS), despite its status as a paragon of open collaboration. OSS is an important form of digital infrastructure and part of a career path for many developers. While there exists a growing body of literature on cisgender women's under-representation in OSS, the experiences of contributors from other marginalized groups are comparatively absent from the literature. Such is the case for trans contributors, a historically influential group in OSS. In this study, we interviewed 21 trans participants to understand and represent their experiences in the OSS literature. From their experiences, we theorize two related paradoxes of openness in OSS: the paradox of openness and display and the paradox of openness and governance. In an increasingly violent world for trans people, we draw on our theorizing to build recommendations for more inclusive and safer OSS projects for contributors.

Open-source software projects have become an integral part of our daily life, supporting virtually every software we use today. Since open-source software forms the digital infrastructure, maintaining them is of utmost importance. We present Climate Coach, a dashboard that helps open-source project maintainers monitor the health of their community in terms of team climate and inclusion. Through a literature review and an exploratory survey (N=18), we identified important signals that can reflect a project’s health, and display them on a dashboard. We evaluated and refined our dashboard through two rounds of think-aloud studies (N=19). We then conducted a two-week longitudinal diary study (N=10) to test the usefulness of our dashboard. We found that displaying signals that are related to a project’s inclusion help improve maintainers’ management strategies.

Much of our modern digital infrastructure relies critically upon open sourced software. The communities responsible for building this cyberinfrastructure require maintenance and moderation, which is often supported by volunteer efforts. Moderation, as a non-technical form of labor, is a necessary but often overlooked task that maintainers undertake to sustain the community around an OSS project. This study examines the various structures and norms that support community moderation, describes the strategies moderators use to mitigate conflicts, and assesses how bots can play a role in assisting these processes. We interviewed 14 practitioners to uncover existing moderation practices and ways that automation can provide assistance. Our main contributions include a characterization of moderated content in OSS projects, moderation techniques, as well as perceptions of and recommendations for improving the automation of moderation tasks. We hope that these findings will inform the implementation of more effective moderation practices in open source communities.

Experiential training, where mental health professionals practice their learned skills, remains the most costly component of therapeutic training. We introduce Pin-MI, a video-call-based tool that supports experiential learning of counseling skills used in motivational interviewing (MI)through interactive role-play as client and counselor. In Pin-MI, counselors annotate, or “pin” the important moments in their role-play sessions in real-time. The pins are then used post-session to facilitate a reflective learning process, in which both client and counselor can provide feedback about what went well or poorly during each pinned moment. We discuss the design of Pin-MI and a qualitative evaluation with a set of healthcare professionals learning MI. Our evaluation suggests that Pin-MI helped users develop empathy, be more aware of their skill usage, guaranteed immediate and targeted feedback, and helped users correct misconceptions about their performance. We discuss implications for the design of experiential training tools for learning counseling skills.

Open-source software projects have become an integral part of our daily life, supporting virtually every software we use today. Since open-source software forms the digital infrastructure, maintaining them is of utmost importance. We present Climate Coach, a dashboard that helps open-source project maintainers monitor the health of their community in terms of team climate and inclusion. Through a literature review and an exploratory survey (N=18), we identified important signals that can reflect a project's health, and display them on a dashboard. We evaluated and refined our dashboard through two rounds of think-aloud studies (N=19). We then conducted a two-week longitudinal diary study (N=10) to test the usefulness of our dashboard. We found that displaying signals that are related to a project's inclusion help improve maintainers' management strategies.