HCI and social issues: a framework for engagement · 2007. 11. 8. · HCI and societal issues 11/8/2007 working in areas such as interaction design, experience design, and usability

HCI and societal issues 11/8/2007

HCI and societal issues: a framework for engagement

Harry Hochheiser and Jonathan Lazar

Towson University

{hhochheiser,jlazar}@towson.edu

Running Head: HCI and societal issues

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Catherine Plaisant and Chris North for inviting us to participate in this project; to the anonymous reviewers, Gary Marchionini, and Bongwon Suh for their constructive comments; and to Ben Shneiderman for many years of enthusiastic mentoring and support.

Correspondence:

Harry Hochheiser Department of Computer and Information Sciences Towson University 7800 York Road, Suite 406 Towson, MD 21252 +1 410 704 3090 [email protected]


Abstract

In its broadest sense, Human-Computer Interaction includes considerations of the social,

political, ethical, and societal implications of computer systems. Concerns such as privacy,

accessibility, universal design, and voting usability, have led to active HCI research. The

interplay between HCI work and societal issues can be characterized by both the source of

the concern and the roles that HCI researchers and practitioners can play in addressing these

concerns. We present a categorization of previous work along these dimensions, as a tool for

comparing and contrasting various approaches. This model provides suggestions for

engagement of issues that are likely to either remain prominent or grow in importance over

the next several years. A focus on these issues may lead to opportunities for HCI research to

make a contribution towards addressing societal concerns.


1.0 Introduction

The assumption that the needs and concerns of human users are an intrinsically important

part of computer system design is central to HCI work. As this assumption leads researchers

and practitioners to move beyond specific interface design questions towards the

consideration of larger contextual issues, societal and political questions necessarily intrude.

The step between “which menu design is best for this task?” and “Is this task appropriately

designed? Does this tool meet the user's needs?” can be very small, but the implications can

be significant. A slight broadening of the view taken of a problem can move the researcher or

practitioner from a purely technical role to a one that might require balancing of technical,

societal, political, and personal concerns.

As the population of computer users and the range of applications expanded through the

1980s and 1990s, HCI professionals engaged in a variety of societal challenges posed by

these new uses. Accessibility research aimed at making computers usable by people with

disabilities; interfaces for specific subpopulations such as children and the elderly; and

explorations of the role of computers in various contexts were (and are) all active areas of HCI

work. Innovations often led to analysis, as researchers investigated the social implications of

tools for remote collaboration and communication. HCI expertise has also informed larger

societal and political debates around the proper role of technologies for issues such as voting

and privacy.

The expansion of the scope of problems in human-computer interaction was accompanied

by a similar evolution in the participants and activities involved. From the early work of

cognitive and computer scientists in academic, corporate and research labs, human-computer

interaction has grown to include designers, sociologists, anthropologists, artists, and others


working in areas such as interaction design, experience design, and usability. In this

discussion, we use the term human-computer interaction to include all of these efforts and

related fields.

Engagement with broader concerns has proven to be enormously constructive, playing a

hand in the opening of new fields of research (participatory design, universal usability) the

development of technological solutions for addressing human challenges (accessibility,

education), and countless innovations, both large and small, that make computer and

communication systems easier for millions of people to use on a daily basis. The impact of

these efforts is significant: bad interfaces can and have lead to discomfort, injury, death, or

catastrophe, with user interface problems contributing to disasters such as the partial core

meltdown at Three Mile Island (Burns, 1991; Schultz & Johnson, 1988) and the crash of

American Airlines Flight 965 in December 1995 (Landsberg, 2001). Good interfaces can lead

to improved communication among friends and family, improved access to health care

information, and increased productivity, safety, creativity, and satisfaction (Shneiderman,

2002).

The HCI community can certainly play a constructive role in responding to concerns and

questions raised by policy-makers, citizens, and other stakeholders. However, proactive

efforts aimed at addressing concerns before technologies are widely developed and

implemented will arguably have greater impact. A framework for understanding the interaction

between HCI and societal/political issues can provide some context that can inform efforts to

proactively contribute to our collective understanding of appropriate design and uses of

computer technology.

The range of factors that might stimulate the involvement of HCI researchers provides a

starting point for categorizing efforts. HCI efforts that arise out of opportunities created by

other computing research can be quite different from those that are motivated by the need to


respond to societal problems that are largely non-technical. These motivating factors will be

referred to as the influences that motivate HCI involvement in societal issues

The nature of the community's involvement provides a second dimension for

characterization. Traditions of building systems, evaluating designs, and proposing both

theoretical models and approaches to research are found throughout HCI work that engages

in societal and political issues. When tackling societal and political issues, HCI workers have

often transcended these research-based approaches to engage in calls to action, both

implicitly and explicitly arguing for the active participation of the HCI community in formulating

appropriate solutions to various problems. Discussion of the types of responses of HCI

involvement can be useful for characterizing these various responses. Examples of these

influences and responses are given in Table 1.

The range of HCI efforts and problems that might be described will defy any neat and clean

categorizations. Despite these inevitable shortcomings, an investigation of the influences that

motivate HCI involvement with societal concern and the forms that responses might take can

be a useful starting point for a model that can describe both research and development

efforts. The goal of this analysis is to provide the basis for a generative theory (Shneiderman,

2006) that will help our community identify opportunities and constructively contribute to future

societal and political challenges. Case studies of HCI involvement with accessibility, privacy,

and voting will illustrate some of the challenges in these areas, and examples from current

domains will suggest opportunities for action.

2.0 Influences motivating HCI Involvement in Societal Issues

The HCI literature includes numerous examples of HCI engagement with societal issues. A

review of this literature led to the identification of two main classes of forces that have


motivated these efforts. The needs of various constituencies – individuals, families,

communities, governments, and businesses – often drive the development of new tools or the

assessment of their impact. Technological innovation provides the other primary motivation:

as new technologies present new possibilities, associated societal concerns have led to HCI

involvement. Taken together, we will refer to these forces as the influences that drive societal

engagement of HCI researchers

2.1 Personal and Community Needs

The next few sections focus on some personal and community needs that have served as

influences for the societal involvement of HCI researchers. Additional examples of efforts

motivated by personal and community needs are given in Table 2.

2.1.1 Accessibility

The computing community’s involvement with the use of technology to meet the needs of

people with disabilities predates the emergence of HCI as a field of study. Work at the TRACE

center at the University of Wisconsin has progressed from early work on communication

devices for people with physical disabilities (Vanderheiden et al., 1973), to the awarding of the

SIGCHI Social Impact award to Greg Vanderheiden in 2005. A panel at CHI ’86 (Buxton et al.,

1986) was soon followed by several early papers that both proposed systems designs

(Edwards, 1988; Ladner et al., 1987) and explored issues such as needs assessment for

users with disabilities (Kane & Yuschik, 1987). Early CHI discussions of disabilities also led to

the direct engagements of HCI researchers with accessibility policy, in the form of a

discussion of the usability requirements of the US Rehabilitation Act of 1986 (Ladner et al.,


1988). The design and evaluation of accessible user interfaces has been a constant theme in

HCI research ever since, including efforts for people with visual (Coroama, 2006; Lazar et al.,

2007; Lazar et al., 2004; Lumbreras & Rossi, 1995; Mereu & Kazman, 1996; Raman, 1996),

cognitive (Carmien et al., 2005; Cole & Dehdashti, 1992; Tuedor, 2006; Wu et al., 2005) and

muscular (Noirhomme-Fraiture et al., 1993; Roy et al., 1994; Steriadis & Constantinou, 2003)

disabilities. This work has also led to theoretical models (Boyd-Graber et al., 2006), and

contributed to the success of the ACM ASSETS conference.

2.1.2 Children & Education

One of the few early efforts at computing for children was the Logo language in the early

1980s, created by Seymour Papert to help teach programming skills (Papert, 1993). Druin’s

pioneering work has focused on getting children involved with the design process using

techniques such as participatory design, contextual inquiry, and paper (and furry) prototypes.

(Druin, 1999, 2002). Others have focused on the design of screen interfaces (Sullivan et al.,

2000) and input devices (Hourcade et al., 2004; Inkpen, 2001). Children helped create new

applications for storytelling (Benford et al., 2000) and collaborative drawing (Stewart et al.,

1999). As the varying needs of children in differing age groups can complicate interface

evaluation, involving age-representative children in development and testing is especially

important (Hanna et al., 1997). While many educational computing tools are aimed at

enhancing learning, teachers, not children, are the end users of these tools, and their needs,

limitations on time, and external influences (such as the “No Child Left Behind” Act) also need

to be understood and addressed (Carroll et al., 2000).

2.1.3 Elderly


Communication is the main reason for many older users to get online (Fox, 2004). E-mail is

the most popular application for older users, who may communicate to stay connected with

others, especially if their mobility is limited (Hirsch et al., 2000). Researchers have therefore

been very interested in how declining motor and cognitive skills will impact the ability of older

users to interact with web sites and communication tools, (Ellis & Kurniawan, 2000; Hirsch et

al., 2000). There is evidence that older users have more trouble finding information on web

sites and dealing with multiple browser windows (Ellis & Kurniawan, 2000; Mead et al., 1997),

and that they find pointing devices challenging to use (Worden et al., 1997). Errors can be

especially problematic, given that these users may make errors more frequently and have

stronger negative reactions to errors (Birdi & Zapf, 1997). Usability guidelines (National

Institute on Aging, 2001) and automated site analysis tools (Becker & Nowak, 2003) provide

assistance in designing web interfaces for older users.

2.1.4 Universal Usability

These interests in younger users, older users, and users with disabilities converged in the

late 1990s to form the new field of Universal Usability, which marks a shift in thinking from

interfaces aimed at specific populations to interfaces that are easy for all to use. The term,

first introduced by Shneiderman in 2000, focuses on three areas—user diversity, technology

diversity, and bridging the gap between what users know and what users need to know

(Shneiderman, 2000). Universal usability includes populations that have been well-studied

(users with perceptual or motor disabilities, older users, younger users), as well as

populations that have not received much attention yet (users with cognitive or learning

disabilities, low education or illiterate users, low motivation users, etc.). While these are all


being described as separate populations, they cover multiple dimensions—age, disability,

education level, computer experience, income level, and language, with most users fitting into

multiple categories. Universal usability includes technology diversity as well, ranging from

modern laptops, cell phones, or PDAs with fast network connections to older machines with

dial-up modems. The third leg of universal usability - bridging the gap between what users

know and what users need to know - includes methods such as online help; user tutorials and

demos; natural language systems; and documentation.

The concerns of international users raise issues closely related to universal usability.

Appropriate design and testing of user interfaces that will work well for users in countries with

differing cultures requires careful attention to language, colors, layouts, visual depictions, and

cultural sensitivity (Fernandes, 1994; Jennings, 1994; Khaslavsky, 1998; Nielsen, 1990a;

Nielsen, 1990b; Russo & Boor, 1993). These differences can increase the complexity of

empirical evaluations (Law & Hvannberg, 2004), and may even necessitate the exploration of

distinctions between cultures that may lead to the need for systems with fundamentally

different designs for how computer work is done (Hugo et al., 2002). Challenges faced by

people in the developing world have stimulated the design of innovative tools for addressing

specific local needs in areas such as finance (Parikh et al., 2006) and health care (Grisedale

et al., 1997),

2.1.5 Social Computing

The second half of the 1990s saw an explosion of social forms of computing. Online

communities, involving tools for group communication (e.g. listservs, newsgroups, bulletin

boards, chat rooms) and shared resources, seemed to sprout up everywhere, from

communities for those going through health crises, to those who share a passion for sports,


and those who are interested in similar books on Amazon.com (Lazar et al., 1999; Preece,

2000). The worries about increased time online leading to isolation seem to have been tossed

by the wayside, as multiple studies found online communities to actually be helpful in reducing

isolation (Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005; Preece, 1998) . More recently, new sites and

aspects of social computing have emerged, such flickr, wikipedia, social networking sites

(myspace, facebook, etc.) and online dating. Video games and virtual environments also

became more social, as individuals could easily compete with players across the country and

across the world.

Significant recent efforts have focused on the application of emotion in computer interfaces

(Norman, 2004). Some researchers have attempted to let users send a hug over a network

(Mueller et al., 2005). Devices mimic the sensation of being hugged, providing beneficial

contact for older individuals living alone. Others have attempted to measure human emotion

through techniques such as facial EMG (Hazlett, 2003), or heart rate changes (Anttonen &

Surakka, 2005), to determine which interfaces impact on the mood of users and why.

Emotion, user diversity, and societal goals can converge. A recent project examined how

cell phones could be used to improve communication among a group of teenage girls, to

persuade them to exercise more often (Toscos et al., 2006). This project has societal goals

(improving health), social computing, mobile devices, and user diversity (teenage girls). Both

teenagers and registered dieticians took part in the development. In another example of

convergence, the topics of interface design, conservation, and global warming have

influenced HCI researchers to create new interface projects that make users more aware of

their energy consumption, with the hope that this will help encourage conservation (see last

row of table 2 for more details).


2.2 Business and Organizational Needs

Business and management concerns about the ergonomics and human factors of

computers predate the establishment of HCI as a research field (Ackoff, 1967; Grudin, 2005).

When most computing was done in corporate or academic contexts, improved interfaces and

functionality implicitly served the needs of business users. Explicit consideration of the

organizational issues involved in promoting usability (Mosteller et al., 1987), cost-benefit

analyses of usability (Bias & Mayhew, 1994), and the implications of system design for

employee autonomy and control (Hochheiser, 1997) illustrate some of the tensions HCI efforts

might create in organizations.

Increasing health care costs and the need for active consumer involvement in health

information and decision-making has led to activity aimed at increasing the computerization of

health records (Goldschmidt, 2005) and building tools for patient-based data monitoring.

(Mamykina et al., 2006; Pratt et al., 2006). Questions regarding ownership, presentation

(Mamykina et al., 2006), access control (Adams & Blandford, 2005), and interpretation all

involve interface content.

2.3 Government Needs

Online provision of government information and services – collectively known as e-

government – requires careful design of interfaces for finding appropriate information (Brewer

et al., 2005; Delcambre & Giuiliano, 2005; Marchionini et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2002).

Proposals for advanced identification cards raise questions relating to privacy, access to

information, informed consent (Hagman et al., 2003; Karger, 2006; Shneiderman, 2001).

Recent concerns about terrorism and natural disasters have led to increased focus on the


analysis of large heterogeneous data sets and the dissemination of findings, in support of

decision-makers and responders who work to prevent attacks and recover from disaster. A

research agenda for visual analytics draws heavily on human-computer interaction, citing the

need for advanced interfaces, support for collaboration, and provision for dissemination of

results (Thomas & Cook, 2005). Examples of this work include interfaces for situational

awareness, which combine domain configuration details such as network layouts or

geographical maps with event timelines, allowing for visualizations that might indicate the

progression of an epidemic throughout the country (Livnat et al., 2005). The recognition of the

need for individual and community involvement in emergency response has also led to

proposals for “Community Response Grids”, which would support requests for assistance,

coordination, and information dissemination in the face of challenging emergencies

(Shneiderman & Preece, 2007).

2.4 Technological Innovations

Research and commercial innovation, both from HCI professionals and from the larger

computing community, repeatedly raises HCI questions of societal and political concern.

Wearable computing (McAtamney & Parker, 2006); mobile computing (Parikh et al., 2006;

Toscos et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2005); and ubiquitous and context-aware computing

(Consolvo et al., 2005) are just a few areas of active computing research where HCI

professionals have addressed societal concerns.

Advances in interface capabilities and functionality also generated activity. The advent of

more life-like interfaces spurred analysis into the impacts of interfaces that made computers

seem more human (Nass et al., 1995). Examination of persuasive interfaces (Fogg, 1998),

and trust (Friedman et al., 2000) raise similar questions about the ways in which people


interact with information and services presented through the mediation of a computer

interface.

The constructive use of technological approaches to addressing societal concerns can

often generate new problems requiring further consideration. Logging technologies such as

videotape are both useful and potentially troublesome, due to potential for abuse (Mackay,

1995). These concerns have led to innovative technological approaches (Hayes et al., 2004)

and analyses (Hayes & Abowd, 2006) aimed at preserving the value of data capture tools

while respecting privacy and related concerns. Additional examples are given in Table 3.

3.0 HCI Responses to Societal Concerns

Our review of the HCI literature showed that HCI engagement with societal and political

issues involves combinations of system design, evaluations, and models and theories.

3.1 Design and Development

Much of the HCI community’s involvement with societal issues has taken the form of

systems and designs aimed at solving specific problems. The engineering and computer-

science elements in the HCI community (Grudin, 2005) have designed countless systems to

address needs in many domains. Rural midwives(Grisedale et al., 1997), young children

(Johnson, et al., 1999b), emergency medical responders (Kristensen et al., 2006), and people

with cognitive and physical disabilities (Section 2.1.1) have been the focus of these efforts.

Additional examples are given in Table 4.


3.2 Evaluation and Analysis

Evaluations of voting systems (Bederson et al., 2003), assistive technologies (Dawe,

2006), health information practices (Mamykina et al., 2006), online communities (Maloney-

Krichmar & Preece, 2005), and privacy and security (Cranor et al., 2006; Dhamija et al., 2006;

Garfinkel & Miller, 2005; Gaw et al., 2006; Good et al., 2005; Karat, et al., 2006b; March &

Fleuriot, 2006; Whitten & Tygar, 1999; Wu, et al., 2006) have provided valuable insight into

how systems should be built to achieve specific goals and avoid problems. Other example

evaluations involved digital libraries (Adams et al., 2005), elderly users (Ogozalek, 1994;

Rowan & Mynatt, 2005; Worden et al., 1997), and children (Oosterholt et al., 1996; Rader et

al., 1997; Rueb et al., 1997).

3.3 Models, theories, and methods

Interest in societal and political concerns has played a significant role in extending HCI

theories and models. Participatory design techniques originally developed in Scandinavia as a

response to concerns about the impact of computerization on workers have been adopted and

adapted by HCI researchers (Muller, et al., 1991). Early examples in corporate environments

provided examples and experiences from various approaches (Blomberg & Henderson, 1990;

Muller, 1991, 1992; Schuler & Namioka, 1993) . Extensions to the theory of participatory

design include taxonomies (Muller, et al., 1992) and applications to heuristic evaluation

(Muller & McClard, 1995). This approach has been further validated by application to a variety

of domains, including middle and high school science teaching (Chin et al., 1997); emergency

medicine (Kristensen et al., 2006), orientation for people with amnesia (Wu, et al., 2005)


;support for people with aphasia (Boyd-Graber et al., 2006; Moffatt et al., 2004); cooperative

inquiry and the use of children as design partners(Druin, 1999, 2002); and shared family

calendars (Neustaedter & Brush, 2006; Plaisant et al., 2006).

The broadening of participatory design has arguably led to a less political focus on simply

including users in design processes, as opposed to the earlier, explicit inclusion of goals such

as workplace democracy. Value Sensitive Design (VSD) takes a slightly different view of

accounting for societal concerns. An outgrowth of earlier examinations of bias in computer

systems (Friedman & Nissenbaum, 1993, 1995, 1996), VSD focuses on inclusion of human

values in design processes, conceptual, empirical, and technical inquiries(Davis et al., 2006).

VSD efforts include investigations of the impact of browser interface design on the ability to

make informed decisions (Millett et al., 2001), examination of user understanding of web

security concerns (Friedman et al., 2002b), the design of urban simulation (Davis et al., 2006),

open-source software licenses that respect privacy concerns (Friedman et al., 2006), and

social games for teaching programming to girls in middle-schools (Flanagan et al., 2005).

Like participatory design, Value Sensitive Design uses explicit consideration of specific

values as a means of achieving goals such as democracy, fairness, inclusion, and the

appropriate use of technology. Although incorporating these values into design projects may

prove challenging (Flanagan et al., 2005), these combinations of theoretical background and

example applications in many domains provides developers and designers with some

understanding of how to address concerns about societal values.

As design methods for building information systems, participatory design and value

sensitive design differ fundamentally from reflective methods aimed at understanding systems

and impacts. Participatory action research (PAR) is a research method, primarily qualitative,


aimed at building understanding of systems, processes, and social issues within organizations

(Byrne, 2005). PAR focuses on not only performing a research project, but also working to

improve the infrastructure or understanding so that a problem can be improved or resolved

(Baskerville, 2001), making societal engagement in the interest of solving a practical,

immediate problem a primary goal. As a result, the research is almost a byproduct

(Baskerville, 1999). Although similar to PAR, “Service-Research” (Lazar & Norcio, 2002)

focuses more on quantitative methods. In service-research, quantitative research projects are

performed in a way that also provides benefits to a community-based organization. However,

for both PAR and service-research, the focus is on engaging the greater community through

the research itself. Although it maybe challenging to identify projects that provide benefits for

a community or organization, these projects are often very rewarding.

Additional models and analyses provide domain-specific insights and guidance. CHI

researchers have proposed models and theories for topics including privacy (Palen & Dourish,

2003), computers as social actors (Fogg & Nass, 1997; Nass et al., 1995; Nass et al., 1994),

persuasive technologies (Fogg, 1997; Fogg et al., 2001), universal usability (Hochheiser &

Shneiderman, 2001; Shneiderman & Hochheiser, 2001) accessibility (Lazar et al., 2004;

Petrie et al., 2006) and voting system evaluation (Selker et al., 2006).

3.4 Testimony and reports

HCI engagement with societal issues has also taken the form of direct work with policy-

makers. Congressional testimony regarding national ID cards (Shneiderman, 2001) and

empirical and analytical reports regarding the interface implications of electronic voting

(Center for American Politics and Citizenship & Human-Computer Interaction Lab, 2006) are

recent examples. The role of HCI institutions such as ACM’s SIGCHI in addressing policy


issues has been discussed (Johnson et al., 1999a), with the ACM SIGCHI US Public Policy

committee providing an institutional venue for HCI professionals in the US to become involved

in policy efforts (Bederson et al., 2006; Lazar et al., 2005a; Lazar et al., 2005b).

Direct involvement in policy issues involves many challenges. Involvement in debates over

controversial topics such as electronic voting can invite critical responses (Maryland State

Board of Elections, 2003), seemingly iron-clad technical and scientific arguments may be

over-ridden by political concerns, and diverging opinions within the HCI community may

preclude the development of a consensus viewpoint. However, carefully-presented expert

opinion from computing professionals has proven influential in policy discussions (Johnson,

1998), and the HCI community is uniquely situated to comment on concerns regarding

computers and usability.

3.5 Calls to Action

Constructive visions, proposed research programs, and declarations of beliefs and values

have defined opportunities and galvanized efforts. Shneiderman’s “Declaration of

Responsibility” challenged the HCI community to directly tackle issues not normally

associated with computing professionals, including world peace, freedom of expression,

education, and health care (Shneiderman, 1990). A more concrete research agenda

expanded upon some of these ideas, focusing on accessibility; information and

communication poverty; and an explicit reconsideration of measures of success (Muller, et al.,

1997). Recent books have called for greater attention to emotional aspects of interface design

(Norman, 2004), and for increased efforts to build computers to augment human capabilities

(Shneiderman, 2002). Other efforts have included proposals for increased disclosure of the

human impact of computer systems through social impact statements (Shneiderman & Rose,


1996) and universal usability statements (Hochheiser & Shneiderman, 2001); and calls for

explicit participation in public policy issues (Bederson et al., 2006; Lazar et al., 2005a, 2005b;

Johnson, et al., 1999a).

4.0 Case studies: Accessibility, Privacy, and Voting

Accessibility, privacy, and voting have all generated significant interest and concern in the

HCI community in recent years. A closer examination of these domains illustrates the

opportunities and challenges facing HCI researchers who are interested in having a

constructive impact.

4.1 Accessibility

The HCI community’s long history of accessibility work has occurred in the context of early

and continuing engagement with broader public policy questions. In the US, the Rehabilitation

Act Amendments of 1986 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 directly addressed

questions regarding the accessibility of computer technology (Gunderson, 1994; Ladner et al.,

1988). As the growth of visually-oriented web browsers threatened to bypass users with visual

disabilities, members of the HCI community worked together with standards efforts such as

the W3C consortium’s Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org/WAI) to develop

guidelines and tools for promoting and ensuring web accessibility. Section 508 of the

Rehabilitation Act required the US Federal government to only purchase or develop

accessible software and web sites. This greatly increased the visibility of the accessibility work

being done in the HCI community, moving accessibility a specialized HCI topic, to a broader

concern within the government and government contractor community. As legal challenges

have occurred, the topic of accessibility has even gained more attention in the corporate

community.

Field Code Changed

http://www.w3.org/WAI


Despite these successes, many HCI challenges remain. Many websites are still

inaccessible (Lazar et al., 2004), widespread deployment of dynamic web technologies known

as AJAX have introduced additional concerns (Gibson, 2006), and the difficulties of working

with users with motor and cognitive impairments provide continuing challenges (Boyd-Graber

et al., 2006). Government policies and the accessibility guidelines can sometimes be

confusing and subject to revision. National computing and information systems curriculum

models in the United States do not yet, cover accessibility.

4.2 Privacy

As the explosion of web commerce led to increased privacy concerns, policy-makers and

activists in the US and Europe became involved.leading to discussions with groups like the

Federal Trade Commission (Federal Trade Commission, 1998). As the model of “notice” and

“choice” grew out of these discussions, the World-Wide-Web Consortium developed the

platform for privacy preferences, known as P3P (Cranor et al., 2002), a language for

describing the privacy practices of web sites.

P3P illustrates many of the HCI challenges presented by privacy concerns. As a flexible

language for describing both the collection and use of data and user privacy preferences, P3P

and companion tools had rich vocabularies, including terminology that may not have been

clearly-defined to end users. The possible use of this framework to create a wide range of

policies led to criticism that P3P was unclear and difficult to use (Hochheiser, 2002). The HCI

challenges of reconciling the needs of information providers and users were described as

significant (Ackerman & Cranor, 1999). A study of proposed interfaces for P3P identified

several challenges for privacy interface designs, including the careful and consistent use of

language, appropriate default settings, icon design, and the use of layered interfaces (Cranor


et al., 2006). Subsequent work in the design of interfaces for authoring privacy policies

revealed the importance of meeting user needs, with user studies providing evidence of

successful use of proposed interfaces (Brodie et al., 2005; Karat et al., 2006b; Karat et al.,

2005b)

Recent privacy work has explored ssues such as phishing (Dhamija et al., 2006; Wu et al.,

2006) , spyware (Good et al., 2005), and secure e-mail (Garfinkel et al., 2005b; Gaw et al.,

2006). The challenge of building interfaces that present clear information in a manner that

meets user needs, goals and cognitive models is a recurring theme in this work..

Many of the core divisions regarding privacy remain. Consensus regarding the appropriate

balance between individual privacy and the goals of businesses or governments remains

elusive. As new technologies such as RFID tags, RFID technology (Garfinkel et al., 2005a)

and advanced identification cards (Karger, 2006) are more widely used and deployed, both

controversy and the opportunity for constructive engagement will likely continue.

4.3 Voting

With the notable exception of Susan King Roth’s analysis of the ergonomics of voting

equipment (Roth, 1998), the usability of voting machines did not generate much interest until

problematic ballot designs played a prominent role in the 2000 US presidential elections.

These difficulties, along with concerns about the usability of newer touch-screen voting

machines, have led to a flurry of activity in recent years. These efforts include empirical

evaluations of the usability of traditional voting machines (Greene et al., 2006) and newer

touch-screen devices (Bederson et al., 2003; Hernson et al., 2006); methodologies for testing

the usability of voting systems (Selker et al., 2006); attempts to track usability problems during

elections (Johnson & Marshall, 2005); exploration of voting and accessibility concerns (Selker


et al., 2005a); analyses of the usability of vote verification technologies (Center for American

Politics and Citizenship & Human-Computer Interaction Lab, 2006; Sherman et al., 2006); and

voting interface design proposals (Robertson, 2005; Selker et al., 2005b; Yee et al., 2006).

The debate over electronic voting illustrates some of the nuances involved when computing

researchers discuss public policy issues. While HCI studies provide some evidence that these

machines are usable (Bederson et al., 2003), security researchers have identified significant

concerns (Feldman et al., 2006) that have led to calls for voter-verified paper trails (Kohno et

al., 2004). Other investigations have identified usability concerns with currently-available tools

for vote verification (Center for American Politics and Citizenship & Human-Computer

Interaction Lab, 2006; Sherman et al., 2006).

4.4 Discussion

A history of successful accessibility efforts stands in stark contrast to the more mixed

records of privacy and voting efforts. Differences in the nature of these issues and in the

details of the responses of the HCI community can explain some of this difference in

outcomes.

A relative lack of controversy is perhaps the most notable factor that distinguishes

accessibility from privacy and voting. While the legal issues relating to the accessibility of

computer interfaces may not be clear cut, the rights of individuals with disabilities are well-

established in US law. This consensus has been enacted through legislation (Gunderson,

1994; Ladner et al., 1988) and re-affirmed through recent legal decisions (Bangeman, 2006).

Privacy debates have often been much more contentious, pitting those who would collect and

use information about individuals against privacy advocates. Privacy protection advocates

argue that privacy should be protected through minimization of data collection, as opposed to


through the use of notice and choice to support informed user consent

Voting stands out as perhaps the one instance where accessibility issues are controversial.

Although there are very few studies usability studies that address the usability of voting

systems for users with disabilities, direct-recording electronic (DRE) touch-screen voting

devices have been promoted as being most appropriate for these users (Dickson, 2006). One

expert review found advantages for electronic voting machines (Norden et al., 2006), but

these conclusions are hotly contested (Lipari & Berry, 2006). In a study of reading disabled

users, usability results were mixed: when compared with people with similar, undiagnosed

symptoms, participants with diagnosed reading disabilities performed better on some voting

interfaces and worse on others (Selker et al., 2005a).

HCI involvement in privacy and voting issues is further complicated by regulatory and

cultural differences in different countries. Conflicting privacy laws in different parts of the world

– most notably, between the European Union and the U.S. – present legal challenges

(Reidenberg, 2000) that have ramifications for the design of systems that use personal data to

provide personalized services (Kobsa, 2002). Concerns over the implications of electronic

voting systems have been raised in various countries, including experiences with electronic

voting in Brazil (Rezende, 2004) and Estonia (Breuer & Trechsel, 2006), and international

surveys of voter perceptions (Oostveen & van den Besselaar, 2004). Cultural and legal views

of voting and the democratic process will likely influence perceptions of usability in these

contexts for some time to come.

As before, accessibility is a different story. Many countries (Canada, Portugal, Australia,

UK) agree on the need for requiring certain categories of web sites to be fully accessible to

people with disabilities. While there might be differences in the types of web sites that are


covered by the laws in different countries, the guidelines used to enforce accessibility are

based on the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines developed by the Web Accessibility

Initiative. Thus, an accepted international definition of accessibility is due, at least in part, to

the contributions of the HCI community.

Timing may have played an important role in the HCI community’s ability to constructively

contribute to these issues. Early understandings of the needs and goals of accessibility efforts

(Buxton et al., 1986) likely contributed to the adoption of accessibility techniques adopted in

mainstream operating environments (Microsoft, 2006) and, later, to web accessibility efforts.

For instance, the Web Accessibility Initiative, a project of the World Wide Web Consortium,

came out with web accessibility guidelines in 1999. These guidelines served as the foundation

for laws in many countries. The Section 508 guidelines (in force since June 2001) in the US

cite the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines and note the influence of guidelines on

regulation. A full history of these efforts can be found in (Shneiderman, 2007).

HCI involvement in privacy and voting discussions has been much more reactive. Most of

the studies of the privacy implications of various interfaces and how they influence internet

behavior (Dhamija et al., 2006; Friedman et al., 2002a; Friedman et al., 2002b; Good et al.,

2005; Good & Krekelberg, 2003; Millett et al., 2001; Wu et al., 2006) came long after web

protocols and software tools were well-established and the policy concerns were aggressively

debated by US policy- makers. Earlier involvement in these debates might have increased the

influence of HCI researchers. Although HCI activity regarding voting has been similarly

reactive, this is largely a reflection of the relative lack of interest in voting technologies prior to

the US presidential election in 2000.

These contrasts and similarities may provide some guidance for HCI professionals hoping


to engage in societal and political issues. Early involvement in uncontroversial issues such as

accessibility may be the most obvious route to a constructive contribution, both in terms of

specific designs and more theoretical contributions. More contentious issues might involve

wading into charged debates, but appropriate empirical studies and innovative designs can

play a constructive role in providing guidance to policymakers.

5.0 Towards a Generative Theory for HCI involvement in Societal and Policy Issues

Previous sections discussed some of the involvement of the field of HCI in societal issues

and warned of the pitfalls of delayed engagement. A two-part generative model of HCI and

societal issues can help both in identifying areas that may need more attention either now or

in the near future. The combination of proactive engagement and a willingness to tackle

potentially controversial issues can aid in the identification and framing of opportunities for

constructive participation. Once an issue has been identified, engagement matrices (based on

the responses from Section 3) can be used to explore the possible contributions that HCI can

make to these discussions. The application of these matrices to several domains illustrates

possible uses of these matrices.

5.1 Proactive Engagement

Effective proactive engagement in societal issues will require a broader, critical view of

emerging computer technologies and proposed applications. Visionary discussions of

ambitious long-term goals for computing systems (Shneiderman, 2002) must be balanced by

focused analysis and understanding of short and medium-term trends, moving beyond HCI

research, into other areas of computing and general societal concern. Both privacy (Johnson

& Nissenbuam, 1995) and voting systems (Friedman, 1990; Wilcox & Nilsson, 1998) attracted


the notice of others in the computing community long before HCI practitioners became

involved: identification of similar issues can both help generate appropriate responses and

stimulate innovative research and development.

HCI researchers and practitioners may never escape the tension between the desire to

proactively anticipate concerns and the necessarily reactive nature of responding to issues as

they arise. Although the ability to respond quickly may always be constrained by available

human and financial resources, active and broad consideration of current and potential

concerns may lay the groundwork for effective responses.

Timing may also constrain the types of responses available in specific situations. Proactive

efforts may have time for implementations of designs and development of models, theories,

and frameworks due to the time available. Reactive responses may be limited to evaluations,

reports, and calls to action.

5.2 Controversy

Active participation in issues that involve consideration of values and goals may lead HCI

researchers into areas that are controversial. Some issues may lead HCI researchers to take

potentially controversial stands on public policy debates, such as the need for national ID

cards (Shneiderman, 2001). Disagreements between HCI professionals and other computing

professionals may lead to apparent inconsistencies that may confuse citizens and policy-

makers: do cautiously optimistic results regarding the usability of touch-screen voting systems

(Bederson et al., 2003) outweigh analyses that identify significant security concerns (Feldman

et al., 2006; Kohno et al., 2004)?


Trade-offs between usability and security present similar concerns. A fully usable but not

secure system is obviously not a good goal, but complex security measures may confuse

users, decreasing both usability and eventually security. Tensions between graphic design

and accessibility may require similar trade-offs. Even within the HCI community, there are

internal debates such as the legendary CHI and IUI debates on agents (Shneiderman &

Maes, 1997).

Recent work on “CAPTCHA” tests (von Ahn et al., 2004) – mechanisms for distinguishing

human web site visitors from computational agents - provides an example of the convergence

of all of these concerns. Those working on security feel a victory each time they develop a

newer and stronger CAPTCHA. Those working on artificial intelligence feel a victory each time

they break a CAPTCHA. The HCI community may feel that CAPTCHAs are inappropriate, as

they add a layer of complexity that may decrease usability, and accessibility advocates argue

that these tests limit the participation of individuals with visual impairment or learning

disabilities (May, 2005).

The likely persistence of both individual controversies and the general question of how they

should be handled should not prevent the HCI community from contributing. Attempts at

understanding differences and working towards consensus will help identify areas where

coordinated effort may be constructive.

5.3 Influences and Responses as Generators of Engagement

An examination of issues from each of the four influences (Table 1) provides some

examples of current and potential proactive efforts that might be undertaken to address issues

of societal and political concerns. The possibilities in each area are summarized in

engagement matrices, which suggest current and future work in each of the response areas


described in Section 3.

5.3.1 Personal and Community Needs: Energy Efficiency and Sustainability

The need for sustainable energy sources has led to a renewed interest in energy efficiency.

The HCI community can contribute to these efforts by developing tools and models that help

individuals and communities understand how they use energy, and how they might use it

more efficiently.

Recent design proposals have suggested ambient indications of household energy use: the

power-aware cord glows to indicate energy used through its outlets (Gustafsson &

Gyllenswärd, 2005). while the flower lamp “blooms” when household energy use is low

(Backlund et al., 2006). Process visualizations (Matkovic et al., 2002) could support detailed

analysis of energy usage profiles, with detailed monitoring of energy use changes over time

providing insight into the effects of specific conservation measures. Discussion and support

groups (Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005), tools for community process deliberation (Davis

et al., 2006), and social networks (Mankoff et al., 2007b) could help participants share ideas

for conservation and to discuss and debate larger changes in community-wide energy

practices.

Evaluations and analyses of these tools might start with traditional investigations into the

efficacy of various interface designs, moving into more general questions regarding the larger

goal. Researchers might ask whether these tools actually led to discernible changes in energy

usage, and whether such changes were significant enough to offset the energy requirements

of the devices needed for implementation. Study of the risks and unintended consequences

will be particularly important for these tools that could involve monitoring of potentially

sensitive data.


Theoretically, these efforts would both draw upon and influence emerging work in

sustainable interaction design (SID): the view that design involves choices among possible

futures, and that sustainability should be an important consideration in making those choices

(Blevis, 2007; Mankoff et al., 2007a). Other models and theories that might emerge from

these efforts would address the challenge of motivational user interfaces. Building on existing

efforts that explore the use of interfaces for encouraging exercise (Consolvo et al., 2006;

Goudarzi & Tomic, 2006; Lin et al., 2006; Toscos et al., 2006), and earlier work on persuasive

interfaces (Fogg, 1997), generalized models of this class of interfaces would identify common

features that work across problem domains. Attention to manipulative aspects of these tools

would identify concerns regarding potential abuses.

Dissemination of these efforts might involve working with regulators and representatives of

multiple industries to turn research prototypes into widely-used tools. Reports might detail

best practices in designs of interfaces, tools, and overall systems, and broad visions would

describe a constructive role of computer technology in the service of sustainable energy use.

5.3.2 Business and Organizational Needs: Electronic Health Records

Electronic health records may bring about health benefits, but the costs of the underlying

infrastructure are not well understood (Charette, 2006). Given the variety of populations

(health practitioners, patients, research) that must be served by such records, the designs of

data representation standards (Bossen, 2006a, 2006b) and interfaces for accessing that data

(Stroetmann et al., 2003) play an important role in determining how such systems will affect

people’s lives. Personal health records – intended primarily for use by individuals to manage

their own health information – present additional challenges distinct from those associated

with records intended for use by health professionals. Ideally, these tools will support


customized arrangement of data and sharing of information for vastly different users facing

different challenges (Marchionini et al., 2007; Pratt et al., 2006).

HCI professionals can explore interface designs that might meet these potentially-

conflicting needs, working towards general models for appropriate interfaces for information

sharing. Criteria for evaluating the success of such interfaces – and their roles in larger

systems – might help industrial and organizational partners improve their products. The

presentation of a vision for providing electronic health records while still respecting the

concerns of individuals might provide a model that would help achieve efficiency while

minimizing negative outcomes. Table 6 provides an engagement matrix.

5.3.3 Government needs: National ID Cards

In the US, the Real ID Act of 2005 allows the federal government to set standards for state-

issued ID cards or driver’s licenses, leading to what some argue is the de-facto establishment

of a national ID card (Rotenberg, 2006). These proposals have also been criticized as

creating the potential for privacy violations, without commensurate increases in security

(Neumann & Weinstein, 2001).

Principles of informed consent can be used to suggest appropriate designs (Hagman et al.,

2003). In addition to proposing best practices for the use and design of such IDs, contributions

from the HCI community might include system designs of both cards and readers of

information stored on those cards that would demonstrate the possibility of combining the use

of information for legitimate purposes with safeguards that would protect privacy and personal

autonomy. An engagement matrix is given in table 7.


5.3.4 Technological innovation: RFID Tags

Radio-frequency ID tags provide an example of a technology that was extensively analyzed

before having a critical impact. Widely criticized as having security and privacy concerns –

particularly when used in products - (Garfinkel et al., 2005a), RFIDs have also been used to

aid blind people with navigation (Willis & Helal, 2005), and to augment museum exhibits (Hsi

& Failt, 2005). RFIDs have been proposed for use in identification and authentication contexts

(Perakslis & Wolk, 2006).

Opportunities for constructive engagement efforts with RFID include the development of

personal, portable RFID readers, which would help individuals determine which items were

tagged and how. Similar approaches have been used to build portable bar code readers as

shopping aids for blind people (Narasimhan, 2006). Tools that would allow for selective

disabling of RFID chips upon user request might also be useful. These approaches might

inform construction of a set of best practices which would describe approaches for

appropriately using RFIDs while respecting privacy rights.

National IDS, health records, and RFIDS are not disjoint topics. Discussions of National ID

cards and electronic health records might converge into proposals for a single “smart” card

containing identification and health information. Proponents might even suggest that

embedded sensors could unobtrusively scan such a card upon entrance to a physician’s office

or hospital, retrieving necessary information. Proactive examination of these issues should

also include explicit consideration of the expansion of scope (“feature creep”) and

unanticipated uses that often occur in large-scale societal information systems. Table 8 gives

the engagement matrix.


5.4 Limits

HCI concerns rarely exist in a vacuum. Practitioners frequently address tradeoffs between

usability and other factors, including security, reliability, and cost (Bias & Mayhew, 1994). If

cost is the primary criterion used, many systems that address societal needs would never be

justifiable. Voting systems are both expensive and infrequently used, leading lawmakers to

resist arguments for revisions that might increase security and usability. The likelihood that

voting machines may never be as useful as is theoretically possible should not deter HCI

experts from arguing for whatever improvements are politically feasible.

Insight from HCI research and practice can also inform discussions of the appropriate

balance between technology and laws, regulations, or other forms of achieving societal or

political goals. Technological solutions have been proposed as preferred mechanisms for

addressing such questions such as freedom of speech (Hoanca, 2005) and privacy (Lessig,

1999), but usability questions may have limited the impact of these technologies (Hochheiser,

2002). The HCI community’s detailed understanding of how technologies work in context can

be a vital resource for these discussions.

In some cases, the best computer interface may be to decide not to use the computer: the

HCI community should also be willing to take a broad view that includes questions of whether

or not certain computing systems should be built at all. Although a 1970s era call for a

moratorium on community information networks (Press, 1974) may seem somewhat quaint in

2007, potential negative impacts can argue against the impact of certain technologies.

Growing concerns over the environmental issues has led to an interest on the potential impact

of pervasive technologies (Koehler & Som, 2005; Krauchi et al., 2005) and visions for

sustainable computing (Fuchs, 2006; Mocigemba, 2006). In the spirit of working HCI


professionals should be prepared to consider whether environmental concerns outweigh the

possible benefits of widespread deployment of these technologies

Tackling such questions may not be easy. Stepping outside of well-defined bounds of

professional expertise, exploring controversial topics, and perhaps building consensus may

prove challenging and frustrating. Arguments that carefully draw on the HCI community’s

unique expertise and accumulated scientific insight will likely be the most compelling.

6.0 Summary: A Call to Action

More so than many other fields of computing research and innovation, Human-Computer

Interaction includes all aspects of how people engage with computer systems, and how those

systems change our world. Health care, education, electronic government, privacy, and

voting are just some of the concerns with strong computing involvement that would benefit

from the expertise of the HCI community, but contributions need not end there. Creative

approaches to broader problems including global warming, poverty, and world peace can

arise from our community as well. By tackling the challenges of these broader issues, the HCI

community can find new problems to solve and expand our understanding of the field as a

whole, while helping technicians and policy-makers build and use computer systems that

appropriately meet human needs, goals, and aspirations.Motivated professionals in all lines of

work can contribute to these efforts. Researchers can build research programs aimed at

understanding the details of specific questions and the implications of design alternatives.

Well-designed studies can be particularly helpful in informing disputes between competing

claims about system performance and impact. Engineers, product designers, and others in

industry can argue for the consideration of impact concerns in product design, ideally leading

to improved products that will be better for business. Appropriately constructed arguments can


lead corporations and industry leaders to consider HCI concerns. Policy makers with HCI

expertise can raise concerns regarding the implications of government computer systems and

regulations, helping legislators and regulators understand complex technical issues.

Educators can include these topics in HCI courses and one potential approach is through

service learning courses (Mankoff, 2006; Rosmaita, 2007; Shneiderman et al., 2006).

Professional societies such as SIGCHI and UPA can present a public face for the profession,

actively engaging in discussions and attempting to inform policy-makers and the general

public. Examples include the SIGCHI US Public Policy Committee (Bederson et al., 2006;

Lazar et al., 2005a; Lazar et al., 2005b) and the UPA’s work on electronic voting usability

(Usability Professionals Assocation, 2007). These societies may also be particularly well-

suited for engagement with others in related professions, journalists, and consumer groups.

The societal issues discussed in this paper were primarily limited to topics that have been

of great interest in the United States. These issues are generally influenced by cultural and

societal norms in a country. However, some of these issues, especially accessibility and

privacy, have become issues that cross borders. The responses will still need to be tailored to

the specific needs, norms, and processes of a specific country. While there is currently a CHI

Public Policy group dedicated to US issues (of which both authors are members), we

encourage the formation of similar policy groups in other countries.

Active, principled engagement in these topics may not be without risk. Professionals may

not share the same views or goals regarding issues at the intersection of HCI and policy.

Unpopular stands on controversial topics may involve risks to research funding and career

advancement. Professional standards and conduct can help in these circumstances, as

analyses grounded in successful research frameworks, experience in design and

implementation, and empirical analyses can provide a solid scientific basis for participating in


policy discussions. Community support can play a strong role as well: by encouraging our

peers to contribute to these complex and challenging issues, we hope to foster new and

creative efforts that will make positive contributions both within our field and beyond.

References

Ackerman, M., & Cranor, L. (1999). Privacy critics: UI components to safeguard users' privacy. Extended Abstracts, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 258-259.

Ackoff, R. L. (1967). Management Misinformation Systems. Management Science, 14(4), B-147-156.

Adams, A., & Blandford, A. (2005). Bridging the gap between organizational and user perspectives of security in the clinical domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1-2), 175-202.

Adams, A., Blandford, A., & Lunt, P. (2005). Social empowerment and exclusion: A case study on digital libraries ACM Transactions on. Compute.-Human Interactions , 12(2), 174-200.

Anttonen, J., & Surakka, V. (2005). Emotions and heart rate while sitting on a chair Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 491-499.

Apted, T., Kay, J., & Quigley, A. (2006). Tabletop sharing of digital photographs for the elderly. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 781-790.

Backlund, S., Gyllenswärd, M., Gustafsson, A., Hjelm, s. I., Mazé, R., & Redström, J. (2006). STATIC! The Aesthetics of Energy in Everyday Things. Design Research Society WonderGround Conference. http://www.tii.se/reform/results/publications_2006/2006_wonderground.pdf (Accessed June 7, 2007).

Bangeman. (2006). Judge: ADA lawsuit against Target can proceed. ArsTechnica http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060910-7705.html (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Baskerville, R. L. (1999). Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the AIS, 2(3es).

Baskerville, R. L. (2001). Conducting Action Research: High Risk and High Reward in Theory and Practice. In E. Trauth, M. (Ed.), Qualitative research in IS: issues and trends. Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing, 192-217.

Becker, S., & Nowak, L. (2003). Automated support for older adult accessibility of e-government web sites 2003 Annual National Conference on Digital Government Research

Beckwith, L., Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Cook, C., Sorte, S., & Hastings, M. (2005). Effectiveness of end-user debugging software features: are there gender issues? Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing


Systems, 869-878. Bederson, B. B., Lazar, J., Johnson, J., Hochheiser, H., & Karat, C.-M. (2006).

Workshop on SIGCHI public policy. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1655-1657 Bederson, B. B., Lee, B., Sherman, R. M., Herrnson, P. S., & Niemi, R. G. (2003).

Electronic voting system usability issues Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 145-152

Benford, S., Bederson, B. B., Åkesson, K.-P., Bayon, V., Druin, A., Hansson, P., et al. (2000). Designing storytelling technologies to encouraging collaboration between young children. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 556-563.

Bias, R., & Mayhew, D. (Eds.). (1994). Cost-Justifying Usability. New York: Academic Press.

Bickmore, T., & Cassell, J. (2001). Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 396-403.

Bickmore, T., & Picard, R. (2005). Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction , 12(2), 293-327.

Birdi, K., & Zapf, D. (1997). Age differences in reactions to errors in computer-based work. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16(6), 309-319.

Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal & reuse. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 503-512

Blomberg, J. L., & Henderson, A. (1990). Reflections on participatory design: lessons from the trillium experience Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 353-360.

Bossen, C. (2006a). Participation, power, critique: constructing a standard for electronic patient records. Proceedings of the Ninth conference on Participatory design, 95-104.

Bossen, C. (2006b). Representations at work: a national standard for electronic health records. Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 69-78.

Boyd-Graber, J. L., Nikolova, S. S., Moffat, K. A., Kin, K. C., Lee, J. Y., Mackey, L. W., et al. (2006). Participatory design with proxies: developing a desktop-PDA system to support people with aphasia. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 151-160.

Breuer, F., & Trechsel, A. H. (2006). Report for the Council of Europe E-Voting in the 2005 local elections in Estonia http://www.coe.int/t/e/integrated_projects/democracy/02_Activities/02_e-voting/00_E-voting_news/FinalReportEvotingEstoniaCoE6_3_06.asp (Acessed June 8, 2007).

Brewer, E., Demmer, M., Du, B., Ho, M., Kam, M., Nedevschi, S., et al. (2005). The case for technology in developing regions. Computer, 38(6), 25-38.

Brodie, C., Karat, C.-M., Karat, J., & Feng, J. (2005). Usable security and privacy: a case study of developing privacy management tools. Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security.

Burns, C. (1991). Three Mile Island: The Information Meltdown. In F. Horton & D. Lewis (Eds.), Great Information DIsasters. London: ASLIB, 45-55.

Buxton, W., Foulds, R., Rosen, M., Scadden, L., & Shein, F. (1986). Human


interface design and the handicapped user Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 291-297.

Byrne, E. (2005). Using action research in information systems design to address change: a South African health information systems case study 2005 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries,131-141.

Carmien, S., Dawe, M., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., Kintsch, A., & Sullivan, J. F. (2005). Socio-technical environments supporting people with cognitive disabilities using public transportation ACM Transactions on Computer.-Human Interaction , 12(2), 233-262.

Carroll, J. M., Chin, G., Rosson, M. B., & Neale, D. C. (2000). The development of cooperation: five years of participatory design in the virtual school. Proceedings of Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS '00), 239-251.

Center for American Politics and Citizenship, & Human-Computer Interaction Lab. (2006). A Study of Vote Verification Technology Conducted for the Maryland State Board of Elections Part II: Usability Study. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/voting/verification-study-jan-2006.pdf (Accessed June 8, 2008).

Charette, R. (2006). EHRs: Electronic Health Records or Exceptional Hidden Risks? Communications of the ACM, 49(6), 120.

Chellapilla, K., Larson, K., Simard, P., & Czerwinski, M. (2005). Designing human friendly human interaction proofs (HIPs). Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 711-720.

Chin, G., Jr., Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J., M. (1997). Participatory analysis: shared development of requirements from scenarios. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 162-169.

Cole, E., & Dehdashti, P. (1992). Interface design for individuals with mild learning disabilities from traumatic brain injury. Posters and short talks of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 16.

Computer Sciences and Telecommunications Board. (2004). Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technologies: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www7.national-academies.org/cstb/pub_rfid.html (Accessed June 8, 2008).

Consolvo, S., Everitt, K., Smith, I., & Landay, J., A. (2006). Design requirements for technologies that encourage physical activity. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 457-466.

Consolvo, S., Smith, I., E. , Matthews, T., LaMarca, A., Tabert, J., & Powledge, P. (2005). Location disclosure to social relations: why, when, & what people want to share. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 81-90.

Coroama, V. (2006). Experiences from the design of a ubiquitous computing system for the blind. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 664-669.

Cranor, L., Guduru, P., & Arjula, M. (2006). User interfaces for privacy agents. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (Vol. 13, pp. 135-178): ACM Press.

Cranor, L., Langheinrich, M., Marchiori, M., Presler-Marshall, M., & Reagle, J. (2002). The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0 (P3P1.0) Specification. http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/ (Accessed June 8, 2008).


Davis, J., Lin, P., Borning, A., Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. J., & Waddell, P. (2006). Simulations for Urban Planning: Designing for Human Values. Computer, 39(9), 66-72.

Dawe, M. (2006). Desperately seeking simplicity: how young adults with cognitive disabilities and their families adopt assistive technologies. Proceedings of the ACM conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1143-1152.

Delcambre, L., & Giuiliano, G. (2005). Digital Government Research in Academia. Computer, 38(12), 33-39.

Dhamija, R., Tygar, J. D., & Hearst, M. (2006). Why phishing works. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 581-590.

Dickson, J. (2006). Congressional Committee on House Administration: Testimony By Mr. Jim Dickson Vice President of Government Affairs American Association of People with Disabilities.

Druin, A. (1999). Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for children with children. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 592-599.

Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1-25.

Edwards, A. D. N. (1988). The design of auditory interfaces for visually disabled users. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 83-99.

Ellis, R. D., & Kurniawan, S. (2000). Increasing the usability of online information for older users: a case study in participatory design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(2), 263-276.

Federal Trade Commission. (1998). Privacy Online: A Report to Congress. http://www.ftc.gov/reports/privacy3/priv-23a.pdf (Accessed June 8, 2008).

Feldman, A. J., Halderman, J. A., & Felten, E. W. (2006). Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine: Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University. http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ (Accessed June 8, 2008).

Fernandes, T. (1994). Global interface design. Conference companion of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 373-374

Flanagan, M., Howe, D., C., & Nissenbaum, H. (2005). Values at play: design tradeoffs in socially-oriented game design. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 751-760.

Fogg, B. J. (1997). Captology: the study of computers as persuasive technologies. CHI '97 Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference Human Factors in Computing systems, 129.

Fogg, B. J. (1998). Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 225-232.

Fogg, B. J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., et al. (2001). What makes Web sites credible?: a report on a large quantitative study. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 61-68.

Fogg, B. J., & Nass, C. (1997). How users reciprocate to computers: an experiment that demonstrates behavior change. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 331-332.

Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer credibility. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 80-87.

Foth, M. (2006). Facilitating Social Networking in Inner-City Neighborhoods. Computer, 39(9), 44-50.


Fox, S. (2004). Older Americans and the Internet: Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Seniors_Online_2004.pdf (Accessed June 8, 2008).

Friedman, B. (1990). A course in professional responsibility for computer scientists Proceedings of the Conference on Computers and the quality of life, 174-179.

Friedman, B., Howe, D. D., & Felten, E. (2002a). Informed consent in the Mozilla browser: implementing value-sensitive design. 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2002, 247-256,

Friedman, B., Hurley, D., Howe, D., C, Felten, E., & Nissenbuam, H. (2002b). Users' conceptions of web security: a comparative study. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems, 746-747.

Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H. J., & Howe, D., C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM 43(12), 34-40.

Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1993). Discerning bias in computer systems. INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 conference companion of the Human Factors in Computing systems, 141-142

Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1995). Minimizing bias in computer systems. Conference companion of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 444.

Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in Computer Systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems., 14(4), 330-347.

Friedman, B., Smith, I., Kahn, P., H., Consolvo, S., & Selawski, J. (2006). Development of a Privacy Addendum for Open Source Licenses: Value Sensitive Design in Industry. Lecture Notes in Computer Science : UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing, 194-211.

Friedman, B., Thomas, J., C., Lucente, M., Ackerman, M., Willard, N., & Lechner, U. (2001). Is ignorance bliss?: informed consent online. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 215-216.

Fuchs, C. (2006). Towards a Global Sustainable Information Society (GSIS)? tripleC, 4(1), 40-99.

Garfinkel, S., L., Juels, A., & Pappu, R. (2005a). RFID Privacy: An Overview of Problems and Proposed Solutions. IEEE Security & Privacy, 3(3), 34-43.

Garfinkel, S., L., Margrave, D., Schiller, J., I., Nordlander, E., & Miller, R., C. (2005b). How to make secure email easier to use. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 701-710.

Garfinkel, S., L., & Miller, R., C. (2005). Johnny 2: a user test of key continuity management with S/MIME and Outlook Express Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, 13-24.

Gary, K., Ibáñez, L., Aylward, S., Gobbi, D., Blake, M. B., & Cleary, K. (2006). GSTK: An Open Source Software Toolkit for Image-Guided Surgery. Computer, 39(4), 46-53.

Gaw, S., Felten, E., W., & Fernandez-Kelly, P. (2006). Secrecy, flagging, and paranoia: adoption criteria in encrypted email. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 591-600.

Gibson, B. (2006, April 2006). AJAX Accessibility Overview. IBM Accessibility Center, Resources http://www-03.ibm.com/able/resources/ajaxaccessibility.html (Accessed June 8, 2008).

Goldschmidt, P. G. (2005). HIT and MIS: implications of health information technology and medical information systems. Communications of the ACM 48(10), 68-


74. Good, N., Dhamija, R., Grossklags, J., Thaw, D., Aronowitz, S., Mulligan, D., et al.

(2005). Stopping spyware at the gate: a user study of privacy, notice and spyware. Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, 43-52.

Good, N., & Krekelberg, A. (2003). Usability and privacy: a study of Kazaa P2P file-sharing. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 137-44.

Goudarzi, V., & Tomic, S. (2006). PEDdo: steps to a healthy lifestyle Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1825-1830

Greene, K. K., Byrne, M. D., & Everett, S. P. (2006). A comparison of usability between voting methods. Proceedings of the USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop.

Grisedale, S., Graves, M., & Grünsteidl, A. n. (1997). Designing a graphical user interface for healthcare workers in rural India. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 471-478.

Grudin, J. (2005). Three faces of human-computer interaction. Annals of the History of Computing, IEEE, 27(4), 46-62.

Gunderson, J. R. (1994). American with Disabilities Act (ADA): human computer interaction for persons with disablities. Conference companion of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 381-382.

Gustafsson, A., & Gyllenswärd, M. (2005). The power-aware cord: energy awareness through ambient information display. ExtendedAbstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1423-1426.

Hagman, J., Hendrickson, A., & Whitty, A. (2003). What's in a barcode? informed consent and machine scannable driver licenses. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 912-913.

Hancock, J., T., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and design: the impact of communication technology on lying behavior. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 129-134.

Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K. (1997). Guidelines for Usability Testing with Children. Interactions, 4(5), 9-14.

Harrison, T. M., Zappen, J. P., & Adali, S. (2005). Building Community Information Systems: The Connected Kids Case. Computer 38(12), 62-69.

Harter, T., Vroegindeweij, S., Geelhoed, E., Manahan, M., & Ranganathan, P. (2004). Energy-aware user interfaces: an evaluation of user acceptance. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 199-206.

Hayes, G. R., & Abowd, G. D. (2006). Tensions in designing capture technologies for an evidence-based care community. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 937-946.

Hayes, G. R., Kientz, J. A., Truong, K. N., White, D. R., Abowd, G. D., & Pering, T. (2004). Designing Capture Applications to Support the Education of Children with Autism. Ubicomp 2004: The 6th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, 161-178.

Hazlett, R. (2003). Measurement of user frustration: a biologic approach. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,734-735.

Hernson, P. S., Niemi, R. G., Hammer, M. J., Bederson, B. B., Conrad, F. G., & Traugott, M. (2006). The importance of usability testing of voting systems. Proceedings of the USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop.


Hindus, D., Mainwaring, S., D. , Leduc, N., Hagström, A. E., & Bayler, O. (2001). Casablanca: designing social communication devices for the home. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 325-332.

Hirsch, T., Forlizzi, J., Hyder, E., Goetz, J., Stroback, J., & Kurtz, C. (2000). The ELDer project: Social, emotional, and environmental factors in the design of eldercare technologies. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability, 72-79.

Hoanca, B. (2005). Freedom of silence vs. freedom of speech: technology, law and information security.IEEE Technology and Society 25(3), 8-15.

Hochheiser, H. (1997). Workplace Database Systems. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Stanford California: CSLI Publications, 239-258.

Hochheiser, H. (2002). The platform for privacy preference as a social protocol: An examination within the U.S. policy context. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology , 2(4), 276-306.

*Hochheiser, H., & Shneiderman, B. (2001). Universal usability statements: Marking the trail for all users. Interactions 8(2), 16-18.

Horn, Feinberg, & Salvendy. (2005). Determinant elements of customer relationship management in e-business. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(2), 101-109.

Hourcade, J. P., Bederson, B. B., Druin, A., & Guimbreitière, F. (2004). Differences in pointing task performance between preschool children and adults using mice ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 11(4), 357-386.

Hsi, S., & Failt, H. (2005). RFID enhances visitors' museum experience at the Exploratorium. Communications of the ACM 48(9), 60-65.

Hugo, J., Marsden, G., & Walton, M. (2002). CHI 2002 development consortium: a South African perspective SIGCHI Bulletin, September-October 2002.

Iachello, G., & Abowd, G., D. (2005). Privacy and proportionality: adapting legal evaluation techniques to inform design in ubiquitous computing. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 91-100.

Inkpen, K. (2001). Drag-and-drop versus point-and-click mouse interaction styles for children. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 8(1), 1-33.

Jennings, T. (1994). Issues in end user software internationalization. Conference companion of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 345.

Jensen, C., & Potts, C. (2004). Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 471-478.

Jensen, C., Potts, C., & Jensen, C. (2005). Privacy practices of Internet users: Self-reports versus observed behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1-2), 203-227.

Johnson, D., & Nissenbuam, H. (Eds.). (1995). Computers, Ethics, and Social Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, J. (1998). CPSR's approach to advising policymakers Proceedings of the ACM Policy '98 Conference, 9-13.

Johnson, J., & Marshall, C. (2005). Convergent usability evaluation: a case study from the EIRS project. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1501-1504.

*Johnson, J., Shneiderman, B., Soloway, E., Henderson, A., & Simons, B. (1999a). SIGCHI's role in influencing technology policy. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 349.

Johnson, M. P., Wilson, A., Bruce, B., Kline, C., & Bobick, A. (1999b). Sympathetic


interfaces: using a plush toy to direct synthetic characters. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 152-158.

Juels, A., Molnar, D., & Wagner, D. (2005). Security and Privacy Issues in E-passports. IEEE SecureComm 2005.

Jung, Y., Persson, P., & Blom, J. (2005). DeDe: design and evaluation of a context-enhanced mobile messaging system. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 351-360.

Kane, R. M., & Yuschik, M. (1987). A case example of human factors in product definition: needs finding for a voice output workstation for the blind Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems and Graphics Interface,69-73.

Karat, C.-M., Brodie, C., & Karat, J. (2006a). Usable privacy and security for personal information management. Communications of the ACM 49(1), 56-57.

Karat, C.-M., John, K., & Brodie, C. (2005a). Why HCI research in privacy and security is critical now. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1-2), 1-4.

Karat, C.-M., Karat, J., Brodie, C., & Feng, J. (2006b). Evaluating interfaces for privacy policy rule authoring. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 83-92.

Karat, J., Karat, C.-M., Brodie, C., & Feng, J. (2005b). Privacy in information technology: Designing to enable privacy policy management in organizations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1-2), 153-174.

Karger, P., A. (2006). Privacy and security threat analysis of the federal employee personal identity verification (PIV) program. Proceedings of the 2006 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security.

Kavanaugh, A., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Reese, D. D., & Zin, T. T. (2005). Participating in civil society: the case of networked communities. Interacting with Computers, 17(1), 9-33.

Kent, S. T., & Millet, L. I. (Eds.). (2002). IDs -- Not That Easy: Questions About Nationwide Identity Systems. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Keyson, D. V., de Hoogh, M. P. A. J., Freudenthal, A., & Vermeeren, A. P. O. S. (2000). The intelligent thermostat: a mixed-initiative user interface. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 59-60.

Khaslavsky, J. (1998). Integrating culture into interface design Conference Summary of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 365-366.

Kobsa, A. (2002). Personalized hypermedia and international privacy Communications of the ACM 45(5), 64-67.

Koehler, A., & Som, C. (2005). Effects of pervasive computing on sustainable development. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24(1), 15-23.

Kohno, T., Stubblefield, A., Rubin, A. D., & Wallach, D. S. (2004). Analysis of an electronic voting system. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 27-40.

Krauchi, P., Wager, P. A., Eugster, M., Grossmann, G., & Hilty, L. (2005). End-of-life impacts of pervasive computing. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24(1), 45-53.

Kristensen, M., Kyng, M., & Palen, L. (2006). Participatory design in emergency medical service: designing for future practice. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Ladner, R., Day, R., Gentry, D., Meyer, K., & Rose, S. (1987, April 05-09). A user interface for deaf-blind people (preliminary report) Proceedings of the ACM Conference


on Human Factors in Computing systems and Graphics Interface, 81-92. Ladner, R., McDonough, F. A., Roth, W., Scadden, L. A., & Vanderheiden, G. C.

(1988). Public Law 99-506, “Section 508” Electronic Equipment Accessibility for disabled workers. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 219-222.

Landsberg, B. (2001). Landmark Accidents: High-Terrain Tangle.The lessons from Cali. AOPA Pilot, April.

Law, E. L.-C., & Hvannberg, E. T. (2004). Analysis of combinatorial user effect in international usability tests. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 9-16.

Lazar, J., Allen, A., Kleinman, J., & Malarkey, C. (2007). What frustrates screen reader users on the web: A study of 100 blind users. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction.22(3), 247-269.

Lazar, J., Bederson, B. B., Hochheiser, H., Johnson, J., & Karat, C.-M. (2005a). Making an impact in your community: HCI and US public policy Extended abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2041-2042.

Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K. (2004). Improving Web Accessibility: A Study of Webmaster Perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(2), 269-288.

Lazar, J., Johnson, J., & Hochheiser, H. (2005b). Policy at the interface: HCI and public policy. Interactions 12(6), 13-14.

Lazar, J., & Norcio, A. (2002). Service-Research: Community Service Partnerships for Experimental Research. In J. Lazar (Ed.), Managing IT/Community Partnerships in the 21st Century,Hershey: Idea Group Publishing, 271-283.

Lazar, J., Tsao, R., & Preece, J. (1999). One Foot in Cyberspace and the Other on the Ground: A Case Study of Analysis and Design Issues in a Hybrid Virtual and Physical Community. WebNet Journal (currently called the International Journal on E-Learning) 1(3), 49-57.

Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books. Lin, J., J,, Mamykina, L., Lindtner, S., Delajoux, G., & Strub, H., B. (2006).

Fish’n’Steps: Encouraging Physical Activity with an Interactive Computer Game. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: UbiComp 2006: Ubiquitous Computing, 261-278.

Lipari, B., & Berry, W. W. (2006). Accessible Voting and Paper Ballot/Ballot Marker/Optical Scan Voting Systems. http://www.navv.org/reports/AccessibilityPB.pdf (Accessed June 7, 2007).

Little, L., Briggs, P., & Coventry, L. (2005). Public space systems: Designing for privacy? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1-2), 254-268.

Livnat, Y., Agutter, J., Shaun, M., & Foresti, S. (2005). Visual correlation for situational awareness. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, INFOVIS 2005, 95-102.

Lumbreras, M., & Rossi, G. (1995). A metaphor for the visually impaired: browsing information in a 3D auditory environment. Conference companion of the Human Factors in Computing systems, 216-217.

Mackay, W., E. (1995). Ethics, lies and videotape. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 138-145.

Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2005). A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions , 12(2), 201-232.

Mamykina, L., Mynatt, E., D., & Kaufman, D., R. (2006). Investigating health


management practices of individuals with diabetes. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 927-936.

Mankoff, J. (2006). Practical service learning issues in HCI Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 201-206.

Mankoff, J., Blevis, E., Borning, A., Friedman, B., Fussell, S., Hasbrouck, J., et al. (2007a). Environmental sustainability and interaction Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2121-2124.

Mankoff, J., Matthews, D., Fussell, S., & Johnson, M. (2007b). Leveraging Social Networks To Motivate Individuals to Reduce their Ecological Footprints. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 87.

March, W., & Fleuriot, C. (2006). Girls, technology and privacy: "is my mother listening?" Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 107-110.

Marchionini, G., Haas, S., Zhang, J., & Elsas, J. (2005). Accessing Government Statistical Information. Computer, 38(12), 52-61.

Marchionini, G., Rimer, B., & Wildemuth, B. (2007). Evidence Base for Personal Health Record Usability: Final Report to the National Cancer Institute. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.ils.unc.edu/phr/files/final%20report%20010307.pdf (Accessed June 7, 2007).

Martin, D., Rouncefield, M., & Sommerville, I. (2002). Applying patterns of cooperative interaction to work (re)design: e-government and planning. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, 235-242.

Maryland State Board of Elections. (2003). Rebuttal to University of Maryland. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/voting/rebuttal-response.html (Accessed June 8, 2007).

Matkovic, K., Hauser, H., Sainitzer, R., & Groller, M. E. (2002). Process Visualization with Levels of Detail. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis'02), 67-70.

May, M. (2005). Inaccessibility of CAPTCHA: Alternatives to Visual Turing Tests on the Web: World Wide Web Consortium. http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ (Accessed June 7, 2007).

McAtamney, G., & Parker, C. (2006). An examination of the effects of a wearable display on informal face-to-face communication. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 45-54.

Mead, S., Spaulding, V., Sit, R., Meyer, B., & Walker, N. (1997). Effects of age and training on world wide web navigation strategies. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 152-156.

Mereu, S., W,, & Kazman, R. (1996). Audio enhanced 3D interfaces for visually impaired users. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 10-15.

Microsoft. (2006, October 18, 2006). History of Microsoft's Commitment to Accessibility. http://www.microsoft.com/enable/microsoft/history.aspx (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Millett, L., I. , Friedman, B., & Felten, E. (2001). Cookies and Web browser design: toward realizing informed consent online. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 46-52.


Mocigemba, D. (2006). Sustainable Computing. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 4(3), 163-184.

Moffatt, K., McGrenere, J., Purves, B., & Klawe, M. (2004). The participatory design of a sound and image enhanced daily planner for people with aphasia. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 407-414.

Mosteller, W., Boies, S., Grantham, C. E., Drby, T., Rubinstein, R., & Wixon, D. (1987). The politics of human factors (panels). Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems and Graphics Interface, 331-332.

Mueller, F., Vetere, F., Gibbs, M., Kjeldskov, J., Pedell, S., & Howard, S. (2005). Hug over a distance. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1673-1676.

Muller, M., J., & McClard, A. (1995). Validating an extension to participatory heuristic evaluation: quality of work and quality of work life. Conference Companion of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 115-116.

Muller, M., J., Wharton, C., McIver, W. J., Jr., & Laux, L. (1997). Toward an HCI research and practice agenda based on human needs and social responsibility. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 155-161.

Muller, M., J., Wildman, D., M., & White, E., A. . (1992). Taxonomy of participatory design practices: a participatory poster. Posters and short talks of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 34.

Muller, M. J. (1991). PICTIVE—an exploration in participatory design Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 225-231.

Muller, M. J. (1992). Retrospective on a year of participatory design using the PICTIVE technique. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 455-462.

Muller, M. J., Blomberg, J. L., Carter, K. A., Dykstra, E. A., Madsen, K. H., & Greenbaum, J. (1991). Participatory design in Britain and North America: responses to the “Scandinavian Challenge". Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 389-392.

Mynatt, E., D., Rowan, J., Craighill, S., & Jacobs, A. (2001). Digital family portraits: supporting peace of mind for extended family members. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 333-340.

Narasimhan, P. (2006). Assistive embedded technologies. Computer, 39(7), 85-87. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., & Dryer, C. (1995). Can computer

personalities be human personalities? Conference companion of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 228-229.

Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E., R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 72-78,

National Institute on Aging. (2001). Making Your Web Site Senior Friendly. Bethesda, MD. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/checklist.pdf (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Neumann, P. G., & Weinstein, L. (2001). Risks of National ID Cards. Communications of the ACM, 44(12), 176.

Neustaedter, C., & Brush, A. J. B. (2006). "LINC-ing" the family: the participatory design of an inkable family calendar. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 141-150.

Nielsen, J. (1990a). Designing for international use (panel). Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 291-294.

Nielsen, J. (Ed.). (1990b). Designing user interfaces for international use. Essex,


UK: Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd. Essex, UK. Noirhomme-Fraiture, M., Charriere, C., Vanderdonckt, J. M., & Bernard, C. (1993).

ERGOLAB: a screen usability evaluation tool for children with cerebral palsy. Conference Companion of the ACM/INTERACT Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems, 23-24.

Norden, L., Creelan, J. M., Muñoz, A., & Quesenbery, W. (2006). The Machinery of Democracy: Accessibility of Voting Systems: Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. http://www.brennancenter.org/dynamic/subpages/download_file_38153.pdf (Accessed June 7, 2007)

Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Ogozalek, V. (1994). A comparison of the use of text and multimedia interfaces to provide information to the elderly. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: celebrating interdependence, 65-71.

Oosterholt, R., Kusano, M., & de Vries, G. (1996). Interaction design and human factors support in the development of a personal communicator for children. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 450-457.

Oostveen, A.-M., & van den Besselaar, P. (2004). Internet Voting Technologies and Civic Participation: The Users' Perspective. Javnost - The Public, 11(1).

Palen, L., & Dourish, P. (2003). Unpacking "privacy" for a networked world. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 129-136.

Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms : children, computers, and powerful ideas (2 ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Parikh, T. S., Javid, P., K., S., Ghosh, K., & Toyama, K. (2006). Mobile phones and paper documents: evaluating a new approach for capturing microfinance data in rural India. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 551-560.

Patil, S., & Lai, J. (2005). Who gets to know what when: configuring privacy permissions in an awareness application. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 101-110.

Perakslis, C., & Wolk, R. (2006). Social acceptance of RFID as a biometric security method. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 25(3), 34-42.

Petrie, H., Hamilton, F., King, N., & Pavan, P. (2006). Remote usability evaluations With disabled people. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1133-1141.

Phillips, T., Karygiannis, T., & Kuhn, R. (2005). Security Standards for the RFID Market. IEEE Security & Privacy, 3(6), 85-89.

Pinkett, R. (2002). The Camfield Estates-MIT Creating Community Connections Projects: High Technology in a Low-To-Moderate Income Community. In J. Lazar (Ed.), Managing IT/Community Partnerships in the 21st Century. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 221-248.

Plaisant, C., Clamage, A., Hutchinson, H. B., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (2006). Shared family calendars: Promoting symmetry and accessibility ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interactions, 13(3), 313-346.

Pratt, W., Unruh, K., Civan, A., & Skeels, M. M. (2006). Personal health information management Communications of the ACM 49(1), 51-55.


Preece, J. (1998). Empathic Communities: Reaching out across the web. Interactions, 5(2), 32-43.

Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester, UK: John WIley and Sons.

Press, L., I. (1974). Arguments for a moratorium on the construction of a community information utility. Communications of the ACM 17(12), 674-678).

Price, B. A., Adam, K., & Nuseibeh, B. (2005). Keeping ubiquitous computing to yourself: A practical model for user control of privacy. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(1-2), 228-253.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. (2003). RFID Position Statement of Consumer Privacy and Civil Liberties Organizations. http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/RFIDposition.htm (Accessed June 7, 2007).

Rader, C., Brand, C., & Lewis, C. (1997). Degrees of comprehension: children's understanding of a visual programming environment. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 351-358.

Raman, T. V. (1996). Emacspeak: a speech interface. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: common ground.

Reidenberg, J. R. (2000). Resolving Conflicting International Data Privacy Rules in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1315-1371.

Rezende, P. A. d. (2004). Electronic Voting Systems : Is Brazil ahead of its time? DIMACS voting workshop. from http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/trabs/election.htm (Accessed June 7, 2007).

Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., & McCarthy, J., D. (2003). Shiny happy people building trust?: photos on e-commerce websites and consumer trust. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 121-128.

Robertson, S. P. (2005). Voter-centered design: Toward a voter decision support system ACM Transactions on Compuer.-Human Interaction , 12(2), 263-292

Rosmaita, B. J. (2007). Making service learning accessible to computer scientists SIGCSE Bulletin. , 39(1), 541-545.

Rotenberg, M. (2006). Read id, real trouble? Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 128.

Roth, S. K. (1998). Disenfranchised by design: voting systems and the election process. Information Design Journal, 9(1).

Rowan, J., & Mynatt, E., D. (2005). Digital Family Portrait Field Trial: Support for Aging in Place. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 521-530.

Roy, D. M., Panayi, M., Erenshteyn, R., Foulds, R., & Fawcus, R. (1994). Gestural human-machine interaction for people with severe speech and motor impairment due to cerebral palsy. Conference companion of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing systems, 313-314.

Rueb, T., Wardzala, J., & Milstone, J. (1997). Billow: networked hospital playspace for children. Extended Abstracts of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 357-358.

Russo, P., & Boor, S. (1993). How fluent is your interface?: designing for international users. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 342-347.

Schrenker, R. (2006). Guest Editor's Introduction: Software Engineering for Future Healthcare and Clinical Systems. IEEE Computer Computer(39), 26-32.

Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.). (1993). Participatory Design: Principles and


Practices Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schultz, E. E., Jr., & Johnson, G. L. (1988). User interface design in safety

parameter display systems: direction for enhancement. Proceedings of the 1988 IEEE Fourth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, 165-170.

Selker, T., Goler, J. A., & Wilde, L. F. (2005a). Who does better with a big interface? Improving voting performance of reading for disabled voters. http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/wps/vtp_wp24.pdf (Accessed June 7, 2007).

Selker, T., Hockenberry, M., Goler, J., & Sullivan, S. (2005b). Orienting Graphical User Interfaces Reduces Errors: The Low Error Voting Interface. Cambridge, MA: Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. http:// www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/wps/Covers/23.doc (Accessed June 8, 2008

Selker, T., Rozenzweig, E., & Pandolfo, A. (2006). A Methodology for Testing Voting Systems. Journal of Usability Studies, 2(1), 7-21.

Sherman, A. T., Gangopadhyay, A., Holden, S. H., Karabatis, G., Koru, A. G., LAw, C. M., et al. (2006). An Examination of Vote Verification Technologies: Findings and Experiences from the Maryland Study. Proceedings of the USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop.

Shklovski, I., A., & Mainwaring, S., D. (2005). Exploring technology adoption and use through the lens of residential mobility. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 621-630.

*Shneiderman, B. (1990). Human values and the future of technology: a declaration of responsibility SIGCHI Buletin. , 23(1), 11-16.

*Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 84-91.

*Shneiderman, B. (2001). Testimony to House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations: National Identification Cards.

*Shneiderman, B. (2002). Leonardo's Laptop: Human Needs and the New Computing Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

*Shneiderman, B. (2006). Foreword. In P. Zhang & D. Gallette (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems - Foundations. Armonk, NY: 2006.

*Shneiderman, B. (2007). Universal Usability: A grand challenge for HCI. In J. Lazar (Ed.), Universal Usability: Designing Computer Interfaces for User Diversity. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, ix-xv.

*Shneiderman, B., Bishop, A., Friedman, B., Lazar, J., Marsden, G., & Nass, C. (2006). Making a difference: integrating socially relevant projects into HCI teaching. ACM CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 41-44.

*Shneiderman, B., & Hochheiser, H. (2001). Universal usability as a stimulus to advanced interface design. Behaviour and Information Technology, 20, 367-376.

*Shneiderman, B., & Maes, P. (1997). Direct manipulation vs. interface agents interactions 4(6), 42-61.

*Shneiderman, B., & Preece, J. (2007). PUBLIC HEALTH: 911.gov. Science, 315(5814), 944.

*Shneiderman, B., & Rose, A. (1996). Social impact statements: engaging public participation in information technology design Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Computers and the Quality of Life, 90-96.

Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Fishwick, L., & Harris, P. (2004). Trust and mistrust of online


health sites. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 663-670.

Steriadis, C. E., & Constantinou, P. (2003). Designing human-computer interfaces for quadriplegic people ACM Transactions on Computer.-Human Interaction , 10(2), 87-118.

Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single Display Groupware: A Model for Co-Present Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 286-293.

Stroetmann, K., A. , Pieper, M., & Stroetmann, V., N. (2003). Understanding patients: participatory approaches for the user evaluation of vital data presentation. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Universal Usability, 93-97.

Sullivan, T., Norris, C., Peet, M., & Soloway, E. (2000). When kids use the web: A naturalistic comparison of children's navigation behavior and subjective preferences on two WWW sites. 2000 Conference on Human Factors and the Web. http://www.pantos.org/ts/papers/wkutw/ (Accessed June 8, 2008)

Taylor, A., S. , & Swan, L. (2005). Artful systems in the home. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 641-650.

Thomas, J. J., & Cook, K. A. (Eds.). (2005). Illuminating the Path: Research and Development Agenda for Visual Analytics: National Visualization and Analytics Center.

Toscos, T., Faber, A., An, S., & Ghandi, M. P. (2006). Chick clique: persuasive technology to motivate teenage girls to exercise CHI '06 extended abstracts on Human Factors in Computing systems 1873-1878.

Tuedor, M. (2006). Universal access through accessible computer educational programs to develop the reading skills of children with autistic spectrum disorders. Universal Access in the Information Society, V5(3), 292-298.

Usability Professionals Assocation. (2007). Design for Democracy/Voting and Usability Project. http://www.upassoc.org/upa_projects/voting_and_usability/ (Accessed June 7, 2007).

Vanderheiden, G. C., Lamers, D. F., Volk, A. M., & Geisler, C. D. (1973). A communications device for the severely handicapped Proceedings of the ACM/CSC-ER Annual Conference, 396-397.

von Ahn, L., Blum, M., & Langford, J. (2004). Telling humans and computers apart automatically Communications of the ACM 47(2), 56-60.

Walker, S., & Dearden, A. (2005). Designing for civil society. Interacting with Computers, 17(1), 1-8.

Wall, S., & Brewster, S. (2006). Feeling what you hear: tactile feedback for navigation of audio graphs. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1123-1132.

Whitten, A., & Tygar, J. D. (1999). Why Johnny Can't Encrypt: A Usability Case Study of PGP 5.0. Proceedings of the 8th USENIX Security Symposium

Wilcox, B., & Nilsson, E. (1998). Computerized Vote Counting: How Safe? The CPSR Newsletter, 6, 19-22.

Williams, M., Jones, O., Fleuriot, C., & Wood, L. (2005). Children and emerging wireless technologies: investigating the potential for spatial practice. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 819-828.

Willis, S., & Helal, S. (2005). RFID information grid for blind navigation and wayfinding. Proceedings of the Ninth IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, 34-37.

Worden, A., Walker, N., Bharat, K., & Hudson, S. (1997). Making computers easier


for older adults to use: area cursors and sticky icons. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 266-271.

Wu, M., Baecker, R., & Richards, B. (2005). Participatory design of an orientation aid for amnesics. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 511-520.

Wu, M., Miller, R., C., & Garfinkel, S., L. (2006). Do security toolbars actually prevent phishing attacks? Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 601-610.

Yee, K.-P., Wagner, D., Hearst, M., & Bellovin, S. (2006). Prerendered User Interfaces for Higher-Assurance Electronic Voting. Proceedings of the USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop.


Influences Responses

Personal and Community Needs

Business and Organizational Needs

Government needs

Technological Innovation

Design & Development

Evaluation

Models and Theories

Reports, Testimony, and Related Public

Policy Activities

Calls to Action

Table 1: Factors influencing HCI involvement with societal concerns, and possible responses.


Category Relevant Efforts

Communication Girls, technology and privacy (March & Fleuriot, 2006), children

and wireless technology (Williams et al., 2005), context-enhanced

mobile messaging (Jung et al., 2005), deception (Hancock et al.,

2004)

Civil society Informatics Design (Walker & Dearden, 2005) ,Participation

(Kavanaugh et al., 2005),

Underserved populations IT & Community (Harrison et al., 2005; Pinkett, 2002),

Social Networks (Foth, 2006)

Home & Family Social communication (Hindus et al., 2001), Shared calendars

(Neustaedter & Brush, 2006; Plaisant et al., 2006) Device design

(Taylor & Swan, 2005), Mobility and technology use (Shklovski &

Mainwaring, 2005)

Health Care/Medical

Devices

Personal health information management (Pratt et al., 2006),

Emergency medicine (Kristensen et al., 2006), Encouraging

exercise (Consolvo et al., 2006), Diabetes (Mamykina et al.,

2006), Evidence-based care (Hayes & Abowd, 2006), Software

engineering for clinical systems (Schrenker, 2006), Advanced

surgical interfaces (Gary et al., 2006)

Gender Issues Gender & end-user debugging (Beckwith et al., 2005), Values and

game design (Flanagan et al., 2005)

Energy Conservation Devices and interfaces for energy use awareness (Backlund et al.,

2006; Gustafsson & Gyllenswärd, 2005; Harter et al., 2004;


Keyson et al., 2000)

Table 2: Factors motivating HCI involvement in addressing family and community needs



Privacy implications of

new technologies

Displays in public spaces (Little et al., 2005), Information

disclosure (Price et al., 2005), Awareness applications (Patil & Lai,

2005), Design methods for ubiquitous computing (Iachello &

Abowd, 2005), Privacy policies (Brodie et al., 2005; Jensen &

Potts, 2004; Karat et al., 2005a; Karat et al., 2006b; Karat et al.,

2005b) , Medical applications (Adams & Blandford, 2005), Impact

on e-business (Horn et al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2005)

Trust and credibility Credibility of online health information (Sillence et al., 2004),

Defining computer credibility (Fogg & Tseng, 1999), Human-

computer relationships (Bickmore & Pickard, 2005), Relational

agents (Bickmore & Cassell, 2001), E-commerce and trust

(Riegelsberger et al., 2003)

Computer Security Phishing (Dhamija et al., 2006; Wu, et al., 2006), Secure email

(Garfinkel et al., 2005b; Gaw et al., 2006), Human interaction

proofs (Chellapilla et al., 2005), Mental models of security

(Friedman et al., 2002b)

Informed Consent Cookie-management interfaces (Friedman et al., 2002a; Friedman

et al., 2001; Millett et al., 2001), ID-Card bar codes (Hagman et al.,

2003)

Table 3: Examples of HCI work motivated by technological innovation



Voting and ballots “Pre-rendered” ballot interfaces (Yee et al., 2006), Voting and

decision-support systems (Robertson, 2005)

Accessibility Early visions (Buxton et al., 1986), Deaf-blind people (Ladner et

al., 1987), Integrating speech output with applications (Raman,

1996), Gestural interaction for people with motor impairments

(Roy et al., 1994), Interfaces for quadriplegic people (Steriadis &

Constantinou, 2003), Cognitive disabilities and public transport

(Carmien et al., 2005), Tactile feedback (Wall & Brewster, 2006)

Privacy Privacy critics (Ackerman & Cranor, 1999), Audits of natural

language privacy policies (Karat, et al., 2006a)

Universal usability Education and autism for universal access (Tuedor, 2006)

Underserved

Populations

Mobile phones for rural microfinance data capture (Parikh et al.,

2006)

Elderly Tabletop photo sharing (Apted et al., 2006),

Family Shared calendars (Neustaedter & Brush, 2006; Plaisant et al.,

2006) Support for aging in place (Mynatt et al., 2001)

Table 4: Design responses to societal issues.


Response Example

Design & Development Flower Lamp (Backlund et al., 2006),

Power-Aware cord (Gustafsson &

Gyllenswärd, 2005)

Home energy use visualizations

Community energy-efficiency discussions

Evaluation & Analysis Efficacy of differing approaches,

Costs/benefit analysis in overall energy

use, Risks and unintended consequence

Models & Theories Sustainable Interaction Design (Blevis,

2007) , Motivational User interfaces

Reports, Testimony and related

activities

Best practice design reports for industry,

regulators, citizens, and communities

Calls to Action Computer Information Technologies as

Drivers of Sustainable Energy Use

Table 5: An engagement matrix for energy efficiency. Proposed and future work is italicized


Response Example

Design & Development Usable standards and interfaces for health

records (Bossen, 2006a, 2006b)

Evaluation & Analysis Cost-benefits analysis (Goldschmidt,

2005)

Personal Health Information Management

(Pratt et al., 2006), Investigations of

practices (Mamykina et al., 2006)

Usable and inclusive standards for

electronic health records (Stroetmann et

al., 2003)

Personal Health Record Usability

(Marchionini et al., 2007)

Models & Theories Appropriate Access: reconciling

organizational needs for information with

individual autonomy


activities

Criteria for evaluating designs

Calls to Action Visions of Electronic Health Records as

Providing improved Health Care and

Protecting Privacy

Table 6: An engagement matrix for electronic health records.


Response Example

Design & Development Informed Consent (Hagman et al., 2003)

Selective Access Controls?

Evaluation & Analysis Privacy and Security threat analysis

(Karger, 2006)

Models & Theories Principles for secure biometric IDs (Juels

et al., 2005)


activities

Best Practices

National Academy Report: Questions

about National IDs (Kent & Millet, 2002)

Calls to Action Public discussion of ID cards and their

implications

Table 7: An engagement matrix for electronic National ID cards.


Response Example

Design & Development Wayfinding for blind

Navigation (Willis & Helal, 2005),

Museum Activities (Hsi & Failt, 2005),

Personal RFID Readers,User-controlled

access

Evaluation & Analysis Overview of Problems and Solutions

(Garfinkel et al., 2005a)

Evaluation of use in context

Models & Theories Security Standards (Phillips et al., 2005)

Best Practices


activities

National Academy Report on RFID

Workshop (Computer Sciences and

Telecommunications Board, 2004)

Calls to Action Recommendation of privacy practices

(Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2003)

Table 8: An engagement matrix for RFID.

Documents

HCI and social issues: a framework for engagement · 2007. 11. 8. · HCI and societal issues 11/8/2007 working in areas such as interaction design, experience design, and usability