A Translational Science Model for HCI

Lucas Colusso
Lucas Colusso
Ridley Jones
Ridley Jones

CHI, pp. 12019.

Cited by: 14|Views138
EI
Weibo:
We describe multiple steps and gaps between basic and applied research, and design practice

Abstract:

Using scientific discoveries to inform design practice is an important, but difficult, objective in HCI. In this paper, we provide an overview of Translational Science in HCI by triangulating literature related to the research-practice gap with interview data from many parties engaged (or not) in translating HCI knowledge. We propose a mo...More

Code:

Data:

Introduction
  • Translational Science (TS) is the study of scientific knowledge progression from academia to practice and back.
  • The authors work under the premise that there is a general goal in applied fields to translate scientific knowledge to inform the work of professionals.
  • HCI papers offer limited support for practice.
  • Only 7% of CHI 2011 papers were oriented towards supporting design practice [56].
  • Mapping the Translational Science process is necessary to understand how to increase the use of HCI discoveries in design practice
Highlights
  • Translational Science (TS) is the study of scientific knowledge progression from academia to practice and back
  • If the research-practice gap metaphor is limited, what model might better depict Translational Science in Human-Computer Interaction? In this paper, we present a literature review and interview study of Human-Computer Interaction community members representing various parties to the Translational Science process
  • Our literature review consisted of publications on Translational Science, translational research, and research-practice gaps in Human-Computer Interaction and other applied fields, such as public health, management science, communication, and education
  • By triangulating information from multiple stakeholders involved in the Translational Science process in Human-Computer Interaction and models from other applied fields, we develop a model for Translational Science in Human-Computer Interaction that presents a more nuanced view, with multiple gaps, barriers within each, and corresponding translation efforts
  • The presence of barriers that hamper the progression of knowledge into design practice is a significant issue within
  • We describe multiple steps and gaps between basic and applied research, and design practice
Methods
  • Following Zimmerman et al.’s process to create the model of interaction design research within HCI [75], the authors conducted a literature review, interviewed stakeholders in the HCI community, and constructed a model for Translational Science in HCI.
  • The authors' literature review consisted of publications on TS, translational research, and research-practice gaps in HCI and other applied fields, such as public health, management science, communication, and education.
  • In the second interview stage, the authors broadened recruiting criteria and interviewed 37 participants engaged in HCI-related research and practice fields.
  • See detailed participant information on Table 1, and in Supplementary materials
Conclusion
  • By triangulating information from multiple stakeholders involved in the TS process in HCI and models from other applied fields, the authors develop a model for TS in HCI that presents a more nuanced view, with multiple gaps, barriers within each, and corresponding translation efforts.
  • This model offers insights on how to bridge translational gaps and how to work with and train translators effectively
  • It acts as a foundation for future research on Translational Science in HCI
Summary
  • Introduction:

    Translational Science (TS) is the study of scientific knowledge progression from academia to practice and back.
  • The authors work under the premise that there is a general goal in applied fields to translate scientific knowledge to inform the work of professionals.
  • HCI papers offer limited support for practice.
  • Only 7% of CHI 2011 papers were oriented towards supporting design practice [56].
  • Mapping the Translational Science process is necessary to understand how to increase the use of HCI discoveries in design practice
  • Methods:

    Following Zimmerman et al.’s process to create the model of interaction design research within HCI [75], the authors conducted a literature review, interviewed stakeholders in the HCI community, and constructed a model for Translational Science in HCI.
  • The authors' literature review consisted of publications on TS, translational research, and research-practice gaps in HCI and other applied fields, such as public health, management science, communication, and education.
  • In the second interview stage, the authors broadened recruiting criteria and interviewed 37 participants engaged in HCI-related research and practice fields.
  • See detailed participant information on Table 1, and in Supplementary materials
  • Conclusion:

    By triangulating information from multiple stakeholders involved in the TS process in HCI and models from other applied fields, the authors develop a model for TS in HCI that presents a more nuanced view, with multiple gaps, barriers within each, and corresponding translation efforts.
  • This model offers insights on how to bridge translational gaps and how to work with and train translators effectively
  • It acts as a foundation for future research on Translational Science in HCI
Tables
  • Table1: Summary of participant information. First, selfreported percentage of participants with experience in different areas within HCI. *Basic research experience contains research in Social Psychology, Philosophy, Chemistry. Consequently, experience in Basic research did not count towards Years of experience in HCI. Second, at the bottom, we show our participants’ of experience in the HCI field
  • Table2: Description of the steps and gaps of the HCI Translational Science model. Definitions drawn from our data, Schneiderman [<a class="ref-link" id="c64" href="#r64">64</a>], and the NSF — National Science Foundation [<a class="ref-link" id="c1" href="#r1">1</a>]. Of note, similar to their academic counterparts, industry researchers can engage in both Basic and Applied research. The model does not designate where academic or industry researchers reside in the continuum
  • Table3: Additional Translators that can facilitate Translational Science in HCI and should be further investigated
Download tables as Excel
Funding
  • Funding agencies Evidence Mentioned by participants as a growing and effective role for regulating practice (P1, P3, P7, P26). Policymakers have a need for facts based on the best knowledge currently available [72]. Lazar [43] even affirms that, for example, for accessibility researchers to have any real impact outside of the research community, they need to understand law and work with policymakers. UXPA or IxDA for example are organizations that frequently set up local events for the HCI community. Our participants believe that a stronger link with these associations can help establish interfaces between researchers and practitioners. Researchers have partnered with meetup groups and professional organizations to organize events combining academic and industry talks [19], but practitioners rarely meet with researchers at these events [50, 66] and it is unclear how effective they are at supporting adoption of HCI knowledge. Business-related stakeholders, such as marketing, financing, and venture capital. There is an understudied pathway in turning academic research into commercial products and services, a path documented in [17] and mentioned by a few participants in our study (P1, P3, P7, P8, P13, P15, P17). Some HCI researchers said that they are not interested in influencing design practice, but in working directly with the populations that can benefit from their work (P5, P8). Ladner points to working with end-users to tackle their problems through an open science approach as an alternative [41]. Some participants also mentioned working with the media to influence public opinion. This way, users would demand change from companies. (P1, P7, P43). as described in the discussion session, top-down stimuli can promote structural change and reorganize infrastructures to facilitate Translational Science. More work about — and with — decision-makers of funding agencies is necessary.
Reference
  • 2018. NSF Definitions of Research and Development: An Annotated Compilation of Official Sources. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/randdef/rd-definitions.pdf. September 10 2018.
    Findings
  • n.d.. /r/userexperience/. https://www.reddit.com/r/userexperience/. Retrieved Sep.16 2018.
    Findings
  • n.d.. Stanford Scholar. https://scholar.stanford.edu/. Retrieved Sep.14 2018.
    Findings
  • n.d.. UX Collective. https://uxdesign.cc/. Retrieved Sep.16 2018.
    Findings
  • Christopher Alexander. 1977. A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford university press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Dan Ariely. 2008. Predictably Irrational. HarperCollins, New York, NY, USA.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Jordan Beck and Hamid R. Ekbia. 2018. The Theory-Practice Gap As Generative Metaphor. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 620, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174194
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Lisa A Bero, Roberto Grilli, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Emma Harvey, Andrew D Oxman, and Mary Ann Thomson. 199Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 317, 7156 (1998), 465–468.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Susanne Bødker. 2015. Third-wave HCI, 10 Years Later—participation and Sharing. interactions 22, 5 (Aug. 2015), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2804405
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Andrew Booth. 2003. Bridging the research-practice gap? The role of evidence based librarianship. New Review of Information and Library Research 9, 1 (2003), 3–23.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Elizabeth A. Buie, Susan M. Dray, Keith E. Instone, Jhilmil Jain, Gitte Lindgaard, and Arnold M. Lund. 2010. Researcher-practitioner Interaction. In CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4469–4472. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1754176
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Keith A. Butler. 1985. Connecting Theory and Practice: A Case Study of Achieving Usability Goals. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’85). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/317456.317472
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • John M Carroll. 1995. Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. (1995).
    Google ScholarFindings
  • John M Carroll. 1997. Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. Annual review of psychology 48, 1 (1997), 61–83.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Craig R Carter. 2008. Knowledge production and knowledge transfer: closing the research–practice gap. Journal of Supply Chain Management 44, 2 (2008), 78–82.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Martin A Cheever, James P Allison, Andrea S Ferris, Olivera J Finn, Benjamin M Hastings, Toby T Hecht, Ira Mellman, Sheila A Prindiville, Jaye L Viner, Louis M Weiner, et al. 2009. The prioritization of cancer antigens: a national cancer institute pilot project for the acceleration of translational research. Clinical cancer research 15, 17 (2009), 5323– 5337.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Parmit K. Chilana, Andrew J. Ko, and Jacob Wobbrock. 2015. From User-Centered to Adoption-Centered Design: A Case Study of an HCI Research Innovation Becoming a Product. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1749–1758. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702412
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Francis S Collins. 2011. Reengineering translational science: the time is right. Science translational medicine 3, 90 (2011), 90cm17–90cm17.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lucas Colusso, Cynthia L. Bennett, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A. Munson. 2017. Translational Resources: Reducing the Gap Between Academic Research and HCI Practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 957–968. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064667
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Alan Cooper, Robert Reimann, and David Cronin. 2007. About face 3: the essentials of interaction design. John Wiley & Sons.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Juri Dachtera, Dave Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2014. Research on Research: Design Research at the Margins: Academia, Industry and End-users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557261
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Peter Dalsgaard and Christian Dindler. 2014. Between Theory and Practice: Bridging Concepts in HCI Research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1635–1644. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557342
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Diana L Deadrick and Pamela A Gibson. 2007. An examination of the research–practice gap in HR: Comparing topics of interest to HR academics and HR professionals. Human Resource Management Review 17, 2 (2007), 131–139.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • JAMES W Dearing and KERK F Kee. 2012. Historical roots of dissemination and implementation science. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice 55 (2012), 71.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Audrey Desjardins, Ron Wakkary, Will Odom, Henry Lin, and Markus Lorenz Schilling. 2017. Exploring DIY Tutorials As a Way to Disseminate Research Through Design. Interactions 24, 4 (June 2017), 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098319
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Alan Dix, Janet E. Finlay, Gregory D. Abowd, and Russell Beale. 2003. Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition). Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Paul Dourish. 2006. Implications for Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124855
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Brian C Drolet and Nancy M Lorenzi. 2011. Translational research: understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational Research 157, 1 (2011), 1–5.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Nir Eyal. 2014. Hooked: How to build habit-forming products. Penguin.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Dean L Fixsen, Sandra F Naoom, Karen A Blase, and Robert M Friedman. 2005. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. (2005).
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Elizabeth Goodman, Erik Stolterman, and Ron Wakkary. 2011. Understanding Interaction Design Practices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1061–1070. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979100
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Colin M. Gray, Erik Stolterman, and Martin A. Siegel. 2014. Reprioritizing the Relationship Between HCI Research and Practice: Bubble-up and Trickle-down Effects. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 725–734. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598595
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Kristina Höök and Jonas Löwgren. 2012. Strong Concepts: Intermediate-level Knowledge in Interaction Design Research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 19, 3, Article 23 (Oct. 2012), 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2362364.2362371
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Edwin Hutchins. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. MIT press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Google Inc. n.d.. Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/.
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Keith Instone. 2010. Researcher-practitioner interaction update (UXRPI). http://instone.org/uxrpi-blogtopic. Retrieved August 9, 2018.
    Findings
  • Jon Kolko. 2010. On Academic Knowledge Production. Interactions 17, 5 (Sept. 2010), 80–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/1836216.1836237
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Ilpo Koskinen, John Zimmerman, Thomas Binder, Johan Redstrom, and Stephan Wensveen. 2011. Design research through practice: From the lab, field, and showroom. Elsevier.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Yubo Kou and Colin M. Gray. 2018. Distinctions between the Communication of Experiential and Academic Design Knowledge: A Linguistic Analysis. Design Research Society (DRS) (2018). https://doi.org/DOI:10.21606/dma.2018.532
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Yubo Kou and Colin M. Gray. 2018. "What Do You Recommend a Complete Beginner Like Me to Practice?": Professional Self-Disclosure in an Online Community. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW, Article 94 (Nov. 2018), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274363
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Richard E. Ladner. 2014. My Path to Becoming an Accessibility Researcher. SIGACCESS Access. Comput. 110 (Sept. 2014), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670962.2670964
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Carine Lallemand. 2015. Towards consolidated methods for the design and evaluation of user experience. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Luxembourg,âĂŃâĂŃ Luxembourg.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Jonathan Lazar. 2017. Let’s Strengthen the HCI Community by Taking a Gap Year! Interactions 25, 1 (Dec. 2017), 20–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3155054
    Findings
  • Aleksei Leontiev. [n. d.]. Activity, consciousness, and personality. ([n. d.]).
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Joseph Lindley, Paul Coulton, and Miriam Sturdee. 2017. Implications for Adoption. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025742
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Daniel Lockton. 2013. Design with intent: a design pattern toolkit for environmental and social behaviour change. Ph.D. Dissertation. Brunel University School of Engineering and Design PhD Theses.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Matthew B Miles. 1964. Innovation in education. Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Zoë Slote Morris, Steven Wooding, and Jonathan Grant. 2011. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 104, 12 (2011), 510–520.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Donald Norman. 1986. A. & Draper., SW User Centered System Design. New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Assoc. Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA (1986).
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Donald A. Norman. 2010. The Research-practice Gap: The Need for Translational Developers. Interactions 17, 4 (July 2010), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/1806491.1806494
    Findings
  • William Odom, Tom Jenkins, Kristina Andersen, Bill Gaver, James Pierce, Anna Vallgårda, Andy Boucher, David Chatting, Janne van Kollenburg, and Kevin Lefeuvre. 2017. Crafting a Place for Attending to the Things of Design at CHI. Interactions 25, 1 (Dec. 2017), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3161605
    Findings
  • Carrie J Petrucci and Kathleen M Quinlan. 2007. Bridging the research-practice gap: Concept mapping as a mixed-methods strategy in practice-based research and evaluation. Journal of Social Service Research 34, 2 (2007), 25–42.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Stuart Reeves. n.d.. What Is the Relationship Between HCI Research and UX Practice? https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2014/08/what-is-the-relationship-between-hci-research-and-ux-practice.php. Retrieved Sep.4 2018.
    Findings
  • Christian Remy, Silke Gegenbauer, and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Bridging the Theory-Practice Gap: Lessons and Challenges of Applying the Attachment Framework for Sustainable HCI Design. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1305–1314. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702567
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Maxine Robertson, Jacky Swan, and Sue Newell. 1996. The role of networks in the diffusion of technological innovation. Journal of Management Studies 33, 3 (1996), 333–359.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • David J. Roedl and Erik Stolterman. 2013. Design Research at CHI and Its Applicability to Design Practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1951–1954. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466257
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Everett M Rogers. 2010. Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Yvonne Rogers. 2004. New theoretical approaches for human-computer interaction. Annual review of information science and technology 38, 1 (2004), 87–143.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Yvonne Rogers. 2012. HCI theory: classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 5, 2 (2012), 1–129.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Doris McGartland Rubio, Ellie E Schoenbaum, Linda S Lee, David E Schteingart, Paul R Marantz, Karl E Anderson, Lauren Dewey Platt, Adriana Baez, and Karin Esposito. 2010. Defining translational research: implications for training. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 85, 3 (2010), 470.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Sara L Rynes. 2012. The research-practice gap in I/O psychology and related fields: Challenges and potential solutions. The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology 1 (2012), 409–452.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Corina Sas, Steve Whittaker, Steven Dow, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Zimmerman. 2014. Generating Implications for Design Through Design Research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1971–1980. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557357
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Beth Seymour, Sue Kinn, and Norrie Sutherland. 2003. Valuing both critical and creative thinking in clinical practice: narrowing the research–practice gap? Journal of Advanced Nursing 42, 3 (2003), 288–296.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ben Shneiderman. 2016. The new ABCs of research: Achieving breakthrough collaborations. Oxford University Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • C. Estelle Smith, Xinyi Wang, Raghav Pavan Karumur, and Haiyi Zhu. 2018. [Un]Breaking News: Design Opportunities for Enhancing Collaboration in Scientific Media Production. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 381, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173955
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Erik Stolterman. 2008. The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design 2, 1 (2008).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lucy A Suchman. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Rachel G Tabak, Elaine C Khoong, David A Chambers, and Ross C Brownson. 2012. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. American journal of preventive medicine 43, 3 (2012), 337–350.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Stuart Card Tom Carey Jean Gasen Marilyn Mantei Gary Perlman Gary Strong Thomas T. Hewett, Ronald Baecker and William Verplank. 1996. ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. http://sigchi.org/cdg/cdg2.html#2_1. Retrieved Sept 10, 2018.
    Findings
  • Raphael Velt. 2018. Putting trajectories to work: translating a HCI framework into design practice. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Nottingham.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Abraham Wandersman, Jennifer Duffy, Paul Flaspohler, Rita Noonan, Keri Lubell, Lindsey Stillman, Morris Blachman, Richard Dunville, and Janet Saul. 2008. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American journal of community psychology 41, 3-4 (2008), 171–181.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Carol H Weiss. 1995. The haphazard connection: social science and public policy. International Journal of Educational Research 23, 2 (1995), 137–150.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Richmond Y. Wong, Ellen Van Wyk, and James Pierce. 2017. RealFictional Entanglements: Using Science Fiction and Design Fiction to Interrogate Sensing Technologies. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064682
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Steven H Woolf. 2008. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. Jama 299, 2 (2008), 211–213.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research Through Design As a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704
    Locate open access versionFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2019
Tags
Comments