Refine
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Institut für Verbraucherinformatik (IVI) (252) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Object (134)
- Article (59)
- Part of a Book (32)
- Report (7)
- Book (monograph, edited volume) (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
- Working Paper (5)
- Contribution to a Periodical (4)
- Conference Proceedings (1)
Year of publication
Keywords
- ICT (8)
- User Experience (8)
- Sustainability (7)
- Verbraucherinformatik (6)
- Dementia (5)
- Exergame (5)
- Shared autonomous vehicles (5)
- Design (4)
- Eco-Feedback (4)
- GDPR (4)
In 1991 the researchers at the center for the Learning Sciences of Carnegie Mellon University were confronted with the confusing question of “where is AI” from the users, who were interacting with AI but did not realize it. Three decades of research and we are still facing the same issue with the AItechnology users. In the lack of users’ awareness and mutual understanding of AI-enabled systems between designers and users, informal theories of the users about how a system works (“Folk theories”) become inevitable but can lead to misconceptions and ineffective interactions. To shape appropriate mental models of AI-based systems, explainable AI has been suggested by AI practitioners. However, a profound understanding of the current users’ perception of AI is still missing. In this study, we introduce the term “Perceived AI” as “AI defined from the perspective of its users”. We then present our preliminary results from deep-interviews with 50 AItechnology users, which provide a framework for our future research approach towards a better understanding of PAI and users’ folk theories.
For most people, using their body to authenticate their identity is an integral part of daily life. From our fingerprints to our facial features, our physical characteristics store the information that identifies us as "us." This biometric information is becoming increasingly vital to the way we access and use technology. As more and more platform operators struggle with traffic from malicious bots on their servers, the burden of proof is on users, only this time they have to prove their very humanity and there is no court or jury to judge, but an invisible algorithmic system. In this paper, we critique the invisibilization of artificial intelligence policing. We argue that this practice obfuscates the underlying process of biometric verification. As a result, the new "invisible" tests leave no room for the user to question whether the process of questioning is even fair or ethical. We challenge this thesis by offering a juxtaposition with the science fiction imagining of the Turing test in Blade Runner to reevaluate the ethical grounds for reverse Turing tests, and we urge the research community to pursue alternative routes of bot identification that are more transparent and responsive.
Technological objects present themselves as necessary, only to become obsolete faster than ever before. This phenomenon has led to a population that experiences a plethora of technological objects and interfaces as they age, which become associated with certain stages of life and disappear thereafter. Noting the expanding body of literature within HCI about appropriation, our work pinpoints an area that needs more attention, “outdated technologies.” In other words, we assert that design practices can profit as much from imaginaries of the future as they can from reassessing artefacts from the past in a critical way. In a two-week fieldwork with 37 HCI students, we gathered an international collection of nostalgic devices from 14 different countries to investigate what memories people still have of older technologies and the ways in which these memories reveal normative and accidental use of technological objects. We found that participants primarily remembered older technologies with positive connotations and shared memories of how they had adapted and appropriated these technologies, rather than normative uses. We refer to this phenomenon as nostalgic reminiscence. In the future, we would like to develop this concept further by discussing how nostalgic reminiscence can be operationalized to stimulate speculative design in the present.
When dialogues with voice assistants (VAs) fall apart, users often become confused or even frustrated. To address these issues and related privacy concerns, Amazon recently introduced a feature allowing Alexa users to inquire about why it behaved in a certain way. But how do users perceive this new feature? In this paper, we present preliminary results from research conducted as part of a three-year project involving 33 German households. This project utilized interviews, fieldwork, and co-design workshops to identify common unexpected behaviors of VAs, as well as users’ needs and expectations for explanations. Our findings show that, contrary to its intended purpose, the new feature actually exacerbates user confusion and frustration instead of clarifying Alexa's behavior. We argue that such voice interactions should be characterized as explanatory dialogs that account for VA’s unexpected behavior by providing interpretable information and prompting users to take action to improve their current and future interactions.