skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Hive: Collective Design Through Network Rotation

Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Collectives gather online around challenges they face, but frequently fail to envision shared outcomes to act on together. Prior work has developed systems for improving collective ideation and design by exposing people to each others' ideas and encouraging them to intermix those ideas. However, organizational behavior research has demonstrated that intermixing ideas does not result in meaningful engagement with those ideas. In this paper, we introduce a new class of collective design system that intermixes people instead of ideas: instead of receiving mere exposure to others' ideas, participants engage deeply with other members of the collective who represent those ideas, increasing engagement and influence. We thus present Hive: a system that organizes a collective into small teams, then intermixes people by rotating team membership over time. At a technical level, Hive must balance two competing forces: (1) networks are better at connecting diverse perspectives when network efficiency is high, but (2) moving people diminishes tie strength within teams. Hive balances these two needs through network rotation: an optimization algorithm that computes who should move where, and when. A controlled study compared network rotation to alternative rotation systems which maximize only tie strength or network efficiency, finding that network rotation produced higher-rated proposals. Hive has been deployed by Mozilla for a real-world open design drive to improve Firefox accessibility.

References

  1. Aris Anagnostopoulos, Luca Becchetti, Carlos Castillo, Aristides Gionis, and Stefano Leonardi. 2012. Online team formation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 839--848. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Karen A Bantel and Susan E Jackson. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic management journal , Vol. 10, S1 (1989), 107--124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Michael S Bernstein, Jaime Teevan, Susan Dumais, Daniel Liebling, and Eric Horvitz. 2012. Direct answers for search queries in the long tail. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 237--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Osvald M Bjelland and Robert Chapman Wood. 2008. An inside view of IBM's `Innovation Jam'. MIT Sloan management review , Vol. 50, 1 (2008), 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kevin J Boudreau and Karim R Lakhani. 2015. “Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology. Research Policy , Vol. 44, 1 (2015), 4--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Vincent Brown, Michael Tumeo, Timothy S Larey, and Paul B Paulus. 1998. Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small group research , Vol. 29, 4 (1998), 495--526.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Moira Burke and Robert E Kraut. 2014. Growing closer on facebook: changes in tie strength through social network site use. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 4187--4196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Joel Chan, Steven Dang, and Steven P. Dow. 2016a. Comparing Different Sensemaking Approaches for Large-Scale Ideation. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2717--2728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Joel Chan, Steven Dang, and Steven P. Dow. 2016b. IdeaGens: Enabling Expert Facilitation of Crowd Brainstorming. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion (CSCW '16 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 13--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Henry William Chesbrough. 2006. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology .Harvard Business Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoon-Seok Choi and Leigh Thompson. 2005. Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and human decision processes , Vol. 98, 2 (2005), 121--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Marie A Cini. 2001. Group newcomers: From disruption to innovation. Group Facilitation 3 (2001), 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1996. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New Yprk: Harper Collins (1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Amy C Edmondson. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams . Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 44, 2 (1999), 350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Amy C Edmondson. 2002. Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams . International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork, (2002), 1--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Amy C Edmondson. 2013. Teaming to innovate .John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. John E Ettlie. 1980. Manpower flows and the innovation process. Management Science , Vol. 26, 11 (1980), 1086--1095. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Craig L Feldbaum, Terry E Christenson, and Edgar C O'Neal. 1980. An observational study of the assimilation of the newcomer to the preschool. Child Development (1980), 497--507.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Herman Gadon. 1988. The newcomer and the ongoing work group. Team building: Blueprints for productivity and satisfaction (1988), 161--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. DR Garrison. 2006. Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , Vol. 10, 1 (2006), 25--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Eric Gilbert and Karrie Karahalios. 2009. Predicting tie strength with social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 211--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Deborah H Gruenfeld, Elizabeth A Mannix, Katherine Y Williams, and Margaret A Neale. 1996. Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational behavior and human decision processes , Vol. 67, 1 (1996), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jerold Heiss and Dennison Nash. 1967. The stranger in laboratory culture revisited. Human Organization , Vol. 26, 1--2 (1967), 47--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Joshua Introne, Robert Laubacher, Gary Olson, and Thomas Malone. 2011. The Climate CoLab: Large scale model-based collaborative planning. In Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), 2011 International Conference on. IEEE, 40--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Susan E Jackson. 1996. The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. Handbook of work group psychology (1996), 53--75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Farnaz Jahanbakhsh, Wai-Tat Fu, Karrie Karahalios, Darko Marinov, and Brian Bailey. 2017. You Want Me to Work with Who?: Stakeholder Perceptions of Automated Team Formation in Project-based Courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3201--3212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ralph Katz and Thomas J. Allen. 1982. Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups. R&D Management , Vol. 12, 1 (1982), 7--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Joy Kim, Justin Cheng, and Michael S Bernstein. 2014. Ensemble: exploring complementary strengths of leaders and crowds in creative collaboration. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 745--755. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Joy Kim, Sarah Sterman, Allegra Argent Beal Cohen, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. Mechanical Novel: Crowdsourcing Complex Work Through Reflection and Revision. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233--245. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mark Klein and Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia. 2015. High-speed idea filtering with the bag of lemons. Decision Support Systems , Vol. 78 (2015), 39--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Anand Kulkarni, Prayag Narula, David Rolnitzky, and Nathan Kontny. 2014. Wish: Amplifying creative ability with expert crowds. In Second AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Karim R Lakhani, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, and Michael Tushman. 2013. Open innovation and organizational boundaries: task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. Handbook of economic organization: Integrating economic and organizational theory (2013), 355--382.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Theodoros Lappas, Kun Liu, and Evimaria Terzi. 2009. Finding a team of experts in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 467--476. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Vito Latora and Massimo Marchiori. 2001. Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Physical review letters , Vol. 87, 19 (2001), 198701.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Diane Wei Liang, Richard Moreland, and Linda Argote. 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Vol. 21, 4 (1995), 384--393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Hila Lifshitz-Assaf. 2014. From problem solvers to solution seekers: dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Xiaodong Lin and Daniel L Schwartz. 2003. Reflection at the crossroads of cultures. Mind, Culture, and Activity , Vol. 10, 1 (2003), 9--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Kurt Luther, Jari-Lee Tolentino, Wei Wu, Amy Pavel, Brian P Bailey, Maneesh Agrawala, Björn Hartmann, and Steven P Dow. 2015. Structuring, aggregating, and evaluating crowdsourced design critique. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 473--485. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ioanna Lykourentzou, Angeliki Antoniou, Yannick Naudet, and Steven P Dow. 2016. Personality matters: Balancing for personality types leads to better outcomes for crowd teams. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 260--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Ioanna Lykourentzou, Robert E Kraut, and Steven P Dow. 2017. Team Dating Leads to Better Online Ad Hoc Collaborations.. In CSCW . 2330--2343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Narges Mahyar, Michael R James, Michelle M Ng, Reginald A Wu, and Steven P Dow. 2018. CommunityCrit: Inviting the Public to Improve and Evaluate Urban Design Ideas through Micro-Activities. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas W Malone, Robert Laubacher, and Chrysanthos Dellarocas. 2009. Harnessing crowds: Mapping the genome of collective intelligence. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomas W Malone, Jeffrey V Nickerson, Robert J Laubacher, Laur Hesse Fisher, Patrick De Boer, Yue Han, and Ben Towne. 2017. Putting the Pieces Back Together Again: Contest Webs for Large-Scale Problem Solving. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Peter V Marsden and Karen E Campbell. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social forces , Vol. 63, 2 (1984), 482--501.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. E Mcgrath. 1995. Methodology matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. In Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000 (2nd ed . Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Andrés Monroy-Hernández and Mitchel Resnick. 2008. Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions , Vol. 15, 2 (2008), 50--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Dennison J Nash and Alvin W Wolfe. 1957. The stranger in laboratory culture. American Sociological Review , Vol. 22, 4 (1957), 400--405.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Henry Navarro, Giovanna Miritello, Arturo Canales, and Esteban Moro. 2017. Temporal patterns behind the strength of persistent ties. EPJ Data Science , Vol. 6, 1 (2017), 31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Charlan J Nemeth. 1986. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological review , Vol. 93, 1 (1986), 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Charlan Jeanne Nemeth. 1992. Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. Group process and productivity , Vol. 95 (1992), 111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Charlan Jeanne Nemeth and Barry M Staw. 1989. The tradeoffs of social control and innovation in groups and organizations. Advances in experimental social psychology , Vol. 22 (1989), 175--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Jeffrey V Nickerson. 2015. Collective design: remixing and visibility. In Design Computing and Cognition . Springer, 263--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicole Lynn Oxley, Mary T Dzindolet, and Paul B Paulus. 1996. The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of social behavior and personality , Vol. 11, 4 (1996), 633.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Paul B Paulus and Huei-Chuan Yang. 2000. Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Vol. 82, 1 (2000), 76 -- 87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Fabrizio Perretti and Giacomo Negro. 2007. Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , Vol. 28, 5 (2007), 563--586.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Hasso Plattner. 2010. An introduction to design thinking process guide. The Institute of Design at Stanford: Stanford (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. James L Price. 1977. The study of turnover .Iowa State Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Ray Reagans, Linda Argote, and Daria Brooks. 2005. Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management science , Vol. 51, 6 (2005), 869--881. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Christoph Riedl, Ivo Blohm, Jan Marco Leimeister, and Helmut Krcmar. 2010. Rating scales for collective intelligence in innovation communities: Why quick and easy decision making does not get it right. (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Christoph Riedl and Anita Williams Woolley. 2017. Teams vs. Crowds: A Field Test of the Relative Contribution of Incentives, Member Ability, and Emergent Collaboration to Crowd-Based Problem Solving Performance. Academy of Management Discoveries , Vol. 3, 4 (2017), 382--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Floor Rink, Aimée A Kane, Naomi Ellemers, and Gerben Van der Vegt. 2013. Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 7, 1 (2013), 247--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Floor A Rink and Naomi Ellemers. 2009. Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , Vol. 35, 6 (2009), 764--775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Everett M Rogers. 2010. Diffusion of innovations .Simon and Schuster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Niloufar Salehi, Lilly C Irani, Michael S Bernstein, Ali Alkhatib, Eva Ogbe, Kristy Milland, et almbox. 2015. We are dynamo: Overcoming stalling and friction in collective action for crowd workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1621--1630. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Niloufar Salehi, Andrew McCabe, Melissa Valentine, and Michael Bernstein. 2017. Huddler: Convening Stable and Familiar Crowd Teams Despite Unpredictable Availability. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1700--1713. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Pao Siangliulue, Kenneth C Arnold, Krzysztof Z Gajos, and Steven P Dow. 2015a. Toward collaborative ideation at scale: Leveraging ideas from others to generate more creative and diverse ideas. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 937--945. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Pao Siangliulue, Joel Chan, Steven P Dow, and Krzysztof Z Gajos. 2016. IdeaHound: Improving Large-scale Collaborative Ideation with Crowd-powered Real-time Semantic Modeling. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 609--624. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Pao Siangliulue, Joel Chan, Krzysztof Z Gajos, and Steven P Dow. 2015b. Providing timely examples improves the quantity and quality of generated ideas. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, 83--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Enno Siemsen, Aleda V Roth, Sridhar Balasubramanian, and Gopesh Anand. 2009. The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management , Vol. 11, 3 (2009), 429--447. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Joachim Stempfle and Petra Badke-Schaub. 2002. Thinking in design teams-an analysis of team communication. Design studies , Vol. 23, 5 (2002), 473--496.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Robert I. Sutton and Andrew Hargadon. 1996. Brainstorming Groups in Context: Effectiveness in a Product Design Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 41, 4 (1996), 685--718. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393872Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Jerry O Talton, Daniel Gibson, Lingfeng Yang, Pat Hanrahan, and Vladlen Koltun. 2009. Exploratory modeling with collaborative design spaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics-TOG , Vol. 28, 5 (2009), 167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Maryam Tohidi, William Buxton, Ronald Baecker, and Abigail Sellen. 2006. Getting the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM, 1243--1252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Helen Wauck, Yu-Chun Yen, Wai-Tat Fu, Elizabeth Gerber, Steven P Dow, and Brian P Bailey. 2017. From in the Class or in the Wild? Peers Provide Better Design Feedback Than External Crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Anbang Xu, Shih-Wen Huang, and Brian Bailey. 2014. Voyant: generating structured feedback on visual designs using a crowd of non-experts. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, 1433--1444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Anbang Xu, Huaming Rao, Steven P Dow, and Brian P Bailey. 2015. A classroom study of using crowd feedback in the iterative design process. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 1637--1648. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Robert M Yerkes and John D Dodson. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of comparative neurology and psychology , Vol. 18, 5 (1908), 459--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Lixiu Yu, Aniket Kittur, and Robert E Kraut. 2014a. Distributed analogical idea generation: inventing with crowds. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1245--1254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Lixiu Yu, Aniket Kittur, and Robert E. Kraut. 2014b. Searching for Analogical Ideas with Crowds. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1225--1234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Lixiu Yu, Aniket Kittur, and Robert E. Kraut. 2016a. Encouraging “Outside- The- Box” Thinking in Crowd Innovation Through Identifying Domains of Expertise. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1214--1222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Lixiu Yu, Robert E. Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2016b. Distributed Analogical Idea Generation with Multiple Constraints. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1236--1245. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Lixiu Yu and Jeffrey V Nickerson. 2011. Cooks or cobblers?: crowd creativity through combination. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1393--1402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Kathryn Zyskowski, Meredith Ringel Morris, Jeffrey P Bigham, Mary L Gray, and Shaun K Kane. 2015. Accessible crowdwork?: Understanding the value in and challenge of microtask employment for people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 1682--1693. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Hive: Collective Design Through Network Rotation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
      Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 2, Issue CSCW
      November 2018
      4104 pages
      EISSN:2573-0142
      DOI:10.1145/3290265
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 November 2018
      Published in pacmhci Volume 2, Issue CSCW

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader