pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09847 · v1 · pith:EGB4OJPBnew · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.HC

Designing Vibes in a Science Museum: from @Science to @hugging_face

Derya Akbaba , Daniela Paz Moyano D\'avila , M{\aa}ns Gezelius , Yin He , Miriah Meyer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-01 08:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords visualization vibesscience museum exhibitsfeminist data theoriescritical data studiesHCI design choicesalternative data presentations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Four design choices—visual, topical, material, and crediting—enable a hugging_face vibe that presents data as slow, handmade, and personal in a science museum exhibit.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper describes the creation of an exhibit called Data and Me at a local science museum. The exhibit draws on feminist and critical data theories to offer an alternative to the standard positivist presentation of science. It introduces visitors to data through a hugging_face vibe that emphasizes slowness, handmade qualities, and personal connection. The authors treat visualization vibes as both an analytic lens and a generative design tool. They identify four specific choices that make such a vibe possible and discuss how the result supports plurality in HCI research outcomes.

Core claim

By adapting visualization vibes as an analytic and generative tool, the authors designed and launched Data and Me, an exhibit that uses a hugging_face vibe—signaling that data can be slow, handmade, and personal—to differ visibly from the Science vibe elsewhere in the museum. The four design choices that enable this vibe are visual, topical, material, and crediting. The exhibit aligns with feminist and critical data theories by providing an alternative method for displaying scientific constructs.

What carries the argument

The visualization vibe, used as both analytic lens and generative design tool, carried by the four choices of visual, topical, material, and crediting elements.

If this is right

  • Science museums can adopt alternative presentation styles that challenge positivist views of data and science.
  • Data exhibits can incorporate handmade and personal elements to change how visitors encounter scientific constructs.
  • HCI practitioners gain a concrete set of choices for designing research outcomes that emphasize plurality.
  • Visualization design can serve as a bridge between critical theory and public-facing museum work.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same four choices could be tested in non-museum settings such as classrooms or public installations to see if the vibe effect transfers.
  • Crediting choices may influence perceived authority more strongly in contexts where visitors already expect institutional expertise.
  • Material choices that emphasize slowness might conflict with typical museum goals of quick throughput and could require separate evaluation.
  • The approach suggests a path for other institutions to move beyond single dominant narratives without abandoning data entirely.

Load-bearing premise

That adapting visualization vibes to a science museum setting will produce an exhibit that aligns with feminist and critical data theories and is noticeably different from the Science vibe.

What would settle it

Direct observation or visitor feedback showing whether most visitors experience the exhibit as slow, handmade, and personal rather than as another instance of the standard Science presentation.

read the original abstract

While feminist and critical data theories have long critiqued the use of data to uphold a positivist-informed view about science, few examples offer alternative methods to display scientific constructs. In response, we present Data and Me: an exhibit informed by feminist and critical data theories, which we designed and launched at a local science museum. Data and Me introduces museum visitors to data using a [AT]:hugging_face: vibe -- a vibe that signals that data can be [hashtag]slow, [hashtag]handmade, and [hashtag]personal. We designed this vibe to be noticeably different than the [AT]Science vibe in the rest of the museum. Throughout our design process, we adapted visualization vibes as an analytic and generative tool in the context of a science museum. We present four design choices that enable the design of a vibe: visual, topical, material, and crediting. We discuss how our exhibit aligns with ongoing discussions about alternative research outcomes and calls for plurality in HCI.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper describes the design and launch of the 'Data and Me' exhibit at a local science museum, informed by feminist and critical data theories. It introduces a 'hugging_face vibe' to portray data as slow, handmade, and personal, contrasting with the standard 'Science vibe'. The authors adapt visualization vibes as an analytic and generative tool and present four design choices—visual, topical, material, and crediting—that enable this vibe. They discuss alignment with discussions on alternative research outcomes and plurality in HCI.

Significance. If the described design choices successfully produce an exhibit that differs from conventional science presentations and aligns with the cited theories, this case study could serve as a valuable example for integrating critical perspectives into public science communication and HCI design practices. It provides a concrete instance of applying abstract theories to a museum context, which may encourage plurality in research outcomes. The strength lies in the detailed account of the design process as a qualitative contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the four design choices enable a 'hugging_face vibe' that is noticeably different from the Science vibe and aligns with feminist and critical data theories rests solely on the authors' descriptive account of the choices. No mapping of individual choices to specific theoretical elements or visitor perception data is reported to support the difference or alignment.
  2. [Design choices and discussion sections] Design choices and discussion sections: The manuscript presents the four choices (visual, topical, material, crediting) but does not include an explicit analysis or table showing how each operationalizes critiques from the referenced theories, which is load-bearing for the claim of alignment with ongoing HCI discussions on plurality.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Title and introduction] Title and introduction: The @Science and @hugging_face notation is used without an early definition or footnote, which may confuse readers unfamiliar with the shorthand.
  2. [Throughout] Throughout: The term 'vibe' is central but would benefit from a concise operational definition in the methods or early design section to improve clarity for the HCI audience.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for recognizing the value of our qualitative design case study. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the four design choices enable a 'hugging_face vibe' that is noticeably different from the Science vibe and aligns with feminist and critical data theories rests solely on the authors' descriptive account of the choices. No mapping of individual choices to specific theoretical elements or visitor perception data is reported to support the difference or alignment.

    Authors: Our contribution is a design case study focused on the process of creating the exhibit, which is a standard qualitative approach in HCI. The paper does not include visitor perception data because no post-launch evaluation was conducted; the scope centers on how the exhibit was designed and launched using visualization vibes as an analytic tool. The difference from the Science vibe and alignment with the theories are supported through the detailed rationale in the design choices, which draw explicitly from the cited feminist and critical data literature. We maintain that this descriptive account is appropriate and sufficient for the paper's goals. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Design choices and discussion sections] Design choices and discussion sections: The manuscript presents the four choices (visual, topical, material, crediting) but does not include an explicit analysis or table showing how each operationalizes critiques from the referenced theories, which is load-bearing for the claim of alignment with ongoing HCI discussions on plurality.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit mapping would clarify the connections. In the revised version, we will add a table (and accompanying analysis in the discussion) that maps each of the four design choices to specific critiques and concepts from the referenced feminist and critical data theories, thereby strengthening the link to HCI discussions on plurality and alternative outcomes. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We do not have visitor perception data, as the study was limited to the design and launch process rather than empirical evaluation of visitor responses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is a qualitative HCI design case study describing the creation of a museum exhibit. It advances no equations, quantitative predictions, fitted parameters, or derivations that could reduce to self-defined inputs. The four design choices (visual, topical, material, crediting) are presented as outcomes of an application of external feminist and critical data theories; success is measured by the authors' descriptive account rather than any self-referential metric or self-citation chain. No load-bearing step relies on renaming, smuggling an ansatz, or importing uniqueness from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the applicability of the cited feminist and critical data theories to museum design and the assumption that the four design choices successfully create the intended vibe; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Feminist and critical data theories provide valid alternative frameworks for data display in science museums
    Invoked throughout the abstract to inform and justify the exhibit design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5726 in / 1219 out tokens · 40602 ms · 2026-07-01T08:03:02.981178+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Derya Akbaba, Lauren Klein, and Miriah Meyer

  2. [2]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 31, 1 (2025), 1279–1289

    Entanglements for Visualization: Changing Research Outcomes through Feminist Theory. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 31, 1 (2025), 1279–1289. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2024.3456171

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Derya Akbaba, Camilla Svensson, Claudia Torelli, Martin Callmeryd, and Miriah Meyer. 2026. Thinking Inside the Box: Considerations for Putting Data Physicalization Workshops in a Box. Computer Graphics Forum (to appear) (2026)

    2026

  4. [4]

    Sandra Bae, Rishi Vanukuru, Ruhan Yang, Peter Gyory, Ran Zhou, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, and Danielle Albers Szafir

    S. Sandra Bae, Rishi Vanukuru, Ruhan Yang, Peter Gyory, Ran Zhou, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2023. Cultivating Visualization Literacy for Children Through Curiosity and Play. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 1 (2023), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2022.3209442

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Karen Barad. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. duke university Press

    2007

  6. [6]

    Shaowen Bardzell. 2010. Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1301–1310. https://doi. org/10.1145/1753326.1753521

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753521 2010

  7. [7]

    Wenda K Bauchspies and María Puig de la Bellacasa. 2009. Feminist Science and Technology Studies: A Patchwork of Moving Subjectivities. An Interview with Geoffrey Bowker, Sandra Harding, Anne Marie Mol, Susan Leigh Star and Banu Subramaniam. Subjectivity 28, 1 (2009), 334–344. https://doi. org/10.1057/sub.2009.21

    work page doi:10.1057/sub.2009.21 2009

  8. [8]

    Lara Bergers and Didi van Trijp. 2017. Science museums: a panoramic view. Isis 108, 2 (2017), 366–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/692688

    work page doi:10.1086/692688 2017

  9. [9]

    Rahul Bhargava. 2024. Community Data: Creative Approaches to Empowering People with Information . Oxford University Press

    2024

  10. [10]

    Rahul Bhargava and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2017. Data sculptures as a playful and low-tech introduction to working with data. Presented at Designing Interactive Systems, Edinburgh, Scotland (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Horn, Brenda Caldwell Phillips, Judy Diamond, E

    Florian Block, Michael S. Horn, Brenda Caldwell Phillips, Judy Diamond, E. Margaret Evans, and Chia Shen. 2012. The DeepTree Exhibit: Visualizing the Tree of Life to Facilitate Informal Learning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12 (2012), 2789–2798. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.272

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2012.272 2012

  12. [12]

    Alexander Bock, Emil Axelsson, Jonathas Costa, Gene Payne, Micah Acinapura, Vivian Trakinski, Carter Emmart, Cláudio Silva, Charles Hansen, and Anders Ynnerman. 2020. OpenSpace: A System for Astrographics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 633–642. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934259

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934259 2020

  13. [13]

    Geoffrey C Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 2000. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences . MIT press

    2000

  14. [14]

    Damla Çay, Mary Karyda, and Kitti Butter. 2024. Co-badge: An Activity for Collaborative Engagement with Data Visualization Design Concepts. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human- Computer Interaction (Uppsala, Sweden) (NordiCHI ’24 Adjunct) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 5 pages. https://doi. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3677045.3685432 2024

  15. [15]

    Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Ivana Feldfeber, Carolina Glasserman Apicella, Yasmín Belén Quiroga, Julián Ansaldo, Luciano Lapenna, Santiago Bezchinsky, Raul Barriga Rubio, and Mailén García. 2025. Doing the Feminist Work in AI: Reflections from an AI Project in Latin America. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713681 2025

  16. [16]

    Keshav Dasu, Kwan-Liu Ma, Joyce Ma, and Jennifer Frazier. 2021. Sea of Genes: A Reflection on Visualising Metagenomic Data for Museums. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 935–945. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030412

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.3030412 2021

  17. [17]

    Catherine D’Ignazio and Rahul Bhargava. 2018. Creative data literacy: A constructionist approach to teaching information visualization. Digital Humanities Quarterly 12, 4 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Catherine D’ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2021. Data feminism. MIT press

    2021

  19. [19]

    Graham Dove and Sara Jones. 2014. Using data to stimulate creative thinking in the design of new products and services. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. ACM, Vancouver BC Canada, 443–452. https://doi. org/10.1145/2598510.2598564

    work page doi:10.1145/2598510.2598564 2014

  20. [20]

    Jones, and Arvind Satyanarayan

    Amy Rae Fox, Michelle Morgenstern, Graham M. Jones, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2026. Quantifying Visualization Vibes: Measuring Socio-Indexicality at Scale. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 32, 1 (2026), 1273–1283. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2025.3634819

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3634819 2026

  21. [21]

    Christopher Frauenberger. 2019. Entanglement HCI The Next Wave? ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact . 27, 1, Article 2 (nov 2019), 27 pages. https://doi. org/10.1145/3364998

    work page doi:10.1145/3364998 2019

  22. [22]

    Lisa Gitelman. 2013. Raw data is an oxymoron . MIT press

    2013

  23. [23]

    Thomas Grace, Christie Abel, and Katie Salen Tekinbaş. 2025. Learning Curiosity through Play: Exploring the Role of Games and Interactive Design in Museums. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 655, 14 pages. https://doi. org/10.1145/37065...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713164 2025

  24. [24]

    Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14, 3 (1988), 575–599

    1988

  25. [25]

    Giorgia Aiello Helen Kennedy, Rosemary Lucy Hill and William Allen. 2016. The work that visualisation conventions do. Information, Communication & Society 19, 6 (2016), 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691 18X.2016.1153126

    work page doi:10.1080/13691 2016

  26. [26]

    Nicole Hengesbach. 2022. Undoing Seamlessness: Exploring Seams for Critical Visualization. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts . ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–7. https://doi. org/10.1145/3491101.3519703

    work page doi:10.1145/3491101.3519703 2022

  27. [27]

    Michael S Horn, Brenda C Phillips, Evelyn Margaret Evans, Florian Block, Judy Diamond, and Chia Shen. 2016. Visualizing biological data in museums: Visitor learning with an interactive tree of life exhibit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53, 6 (2016), 895–918. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21318

    work page doi:10.1002/tea.21318 2016

  28. [28]

    Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, Petra Isenberg, Jason Alexander, Abhijit Karnik, Johan Kildal, Sriram Subramanian, and Kasper Hornbæk

  29. [29]

    In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15)

    Opportunities and Challenges for Data Physicalization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3227–3236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702180

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123.2702180

  30. [30]

    Magdaléna Kejstová, Christina Stoiber, Magdalena Boucher, Martin Kandlhofer, Simone Kriglstein, and Wolfgang Aigner. 2023. Construct and Play: Engaging Students with Visualizations through Playful Methods. In Companion Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Stratford, ON, Canada) (CHI PLAY Companion ’23). Association fo...

    work page doi:10.1145/3573382.3616082 2023

  31. [31]

    Chaeeun Lee, Jinwook Kim, Hyeonbeom Yi, and Woohun Lee. 2024. Viewer2Explorer: Designing a Map Interface for Spatial Navigation in Linear 360 Museum Exhibition Video. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 400, 15 pages. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642952 2024

  32. [32]

    Yanni Alexander Loukissas. 2019. All data are local: Thinking critically in a data-driven society. MIT press

    2019

  33. [33]

    Claes Lundstrom, Thomas Rydell, Camilla Forsell, Anders Persson, and Anders Ynnerman. 2011. Multi-Touch Table System for Medical Visualization: Application to Orthopedic Surgery Planning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (2011), 1775–1784. https://doi.org/10.1109/ tvcg.2011.224

    2011

  34. [34]

    Giorgia Lupi. 2017. Data humanism: the revolutionary future of data visualization. Print Magazine 30, 3 (2017)

    2017

  35. [35]

    Giorgia Lupi and Stefanie Posavec. 2016. Dear data. Chronicle books

    2016

  36. [36]

    Joyce Ma, Isaac Liao, Kwan-Liu Ma, and Jennifer Frazier. 2012. Living Liquid: Design and Evaluation of an Exploratory Visualization Tool for Museum Visitors. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12 (2012), 2799–2808. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2012.244

    2012

  37. [37]

    Joyce Ma, Kwan-Liu Ma, and Jennifer Frazier

  38. [38]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 472–481

    Decoding a Complex Visualization in a Science Museum – An Empirical Study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934401

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934401 2020

  39. [39]

    Jones, and Arvind Satyanarayan

    Michelle Morgenstern, Amy Rae Fox, Graham M. Jones, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2026. Visualization Vibes: The Socio-Indexical Function of Visualization Design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 32, 1 (2026), 1284–1294. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2025.3634814

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.3634814 2026

  40. [40]

    Dietmar Offenhuber. 2020. Data by Proxy — Material Traces as Autographic Visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2019.2934788

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Peck, Sofia E

    Evan M. Peck, Sofia E. Ayuso, and Omar El-Etr

  42. [42]

    In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19)

    Data is Personal: Attitudes and Perceptions of Data Visualization in Rural Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300474

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300474 2019

  43. [43]

    Erminia Pedretti. 2002. T. Kuhn meets T. Rex: Critical conversations and new directions in science centres and science museums. Taylor & Francis 31 (2002), 1–41. https://doi. org/10.1080/03057260208560176

    work page doi:10.1080/03057260208560176 2002

  44. [44]

    Perovich, Sara Ann Wylie, and Roseann Bongiovanni

    Laura J. Perovich, Sara Ann Wylie, and Roseann Bongiovanni. 2021. Chemicals in the Creek: designing a situated data physicalization of open government data with the community. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 913–923. https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2020.3030472

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Guy Schofield, Gareth Beale, Nicole Beale, Martin Fell, Dawn Hadley, Jonathan Hook, Damian Murphy, Julian Richards, and Lewis Thresh. 2018. Viking VR: Designing a Virtual Reality Experience for a Museum. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Hong Kong, China) (DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3196709.3196714 2018

  46. [46]

    Mara Solen, Nigar Sultana, Laura Lukes, and Tamara Munzner. 2025. DeLVE into Earth’s Past: A Visualization-Based Exhibit Deployed Across Multiple Museum Contexts. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 31, 1 (2025), 952–961. https:// doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456174

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456174 2025

  47. [47]

    Paola Verhaert, Georgia Panagiotidou, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2021. ’DataBlokken’: Stimulating Critical Data Literacy of Children Through the Use of a Life- size Data Physicalisation Game. http://visactivities. github.io (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    Annika Waern and Anders Sundnes Løvlie

  49. [49]

    Amsterdam University Press

    Hybrid museum experiences: Theory and design . Amsterdam University Press

  50. [50]

    Anders Ynnerman, Jonas Löwgren, and Lena Tibell

  51. [51]

    IEEE computer graphics and applications 38, 3 (2018), 13–20

    Exploranation: A new science communication paradigm. IEEE computer graphics and applications 38, 3 (2018), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCG.2018.032421649

    work page arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Anders Ynnerman, Thomas Rydell, Daniel Antoine, David Hughes, Anders Persson, and Patric Ljung. 2016. Interactive visualization of 3D scanned mummies at public venues. Commun. ACM 59, 12 (2016), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/2950040

    work page doi:10.1145/2950040 2016

  53. [53]

    Ringland

    MinYoung Yoo, Sophia Ppali, William Odom, Yumeng Zhuang, Kritika Kritika, Wyatt Olson, Catherine Wieczorek, Heidi Biggs, Arne Berger, Audrey Desjardins, Ron Wakkary, and Kathryn E. Ringland

  54. [54]

    In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’2 5)

    Translating HCI Research to Broader Audiences: Motivation, Inspiration, and Critical Factors on Alternative Research Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’2 5). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 455, 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713884

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713884 2025