Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Beyond the Prototype: Challenges of Long-Term Integration of Visual Analytics in Civic Spaces

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A decade of civic visual analytics deployments shows sustained adoption is blocked less by technical limits than by organizational hierarchies, stakeholder misalignment, and resistance to new technology — even when the public co-designs…

desk verdict A useful reflective synthesis from real deployments that overreaches when it turns 'our barriers' into 'the barriers'—still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24102 v1 pith:4WSLF6I2 submitted 2025-05-30 cs.HC

Mahmood Jasim , Narges Mahyar This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords civicvisualanalyticslong-termadoptionsociotechnicalbarriersparticipatorydesigncommunityengagementworkflowintegrationdigitaldivideexplainableAI
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the reason civic visual analytics systems rarely outlive their research pilot is primarily sociotechnical, not technical: organizational hierarchies, misaligned goals across stakeholders, and resistance to new technology undermine sustained adoption even when the public participates in designing the systems. Its evidence is a decade of real deployments, including town hall feedback tools in Amherst, Massachusetts, and a street-redesign consultation in San Diego, California. If the authors are right, lasting civic technology depends on embedding visual analytics as a complement to official workflows rather than a replacement, on equitable engagement that reaches underserved residents, and on implementation and funding frameworks that extend beyond grant cycles. The value of the claim is that it redirects design effort from the dashboard itself to the organizational conditions around it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the authors' collective deployment history, which functions as a longitudinal field record. CommunityClick augmented physical town hall meetings with anonymous iClicker voting aggregated into a visual analytics dashboard; CommunityClick-Virtual extended this to online and hybrid meetings with multimodal feedback; CommunityCrit gathered public input on a San Diego street redesign via microtasks; and CommunityPulse provided the visual analysis layer over that input. These deployments ground the paper's two-level taxonomy of barriers, design and adoption, and motivate its central remedy: position visual analytics as a complementary, auxiliary layer inside existing civic decision workflows so officials retain agency and can adopt the technology at their own pace.

What would settle it

Track a cohort of civic visual analytics deployments over five years, recording whether each is co-owned by the municipality, budgeted beyond the grant, and integrated into official workflows. If systems with strong official ownership and workflow integration survive at rates no higher than grant-funded research pilots, the paper's claim that these sociotechnical factors decide sustained adoption would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the transition from research prototype to long-term civic tool fails on social and organizational ground even when participatory design methods are used. The authors draw on three systems they built and deployed — CommunityClick and CommunityClick-Virtual for real-time anonymous feedback in physical and virtual town hall meetings, and CommunityCrit with CommunityPulse for collecting and analyzing public input on urban design — and identify barriers at two levels. Design challenges include building cross-sector partnerships, reconciling the conflicting priorities of policymakers, analysts, and the public, ensuring equity and digital access, and embedding explainable AI without overwhelming non-experts. Adoption challenges include low visual literacy, the absence of infrastructure and ongoing funding, disruption of established civic workflows, public concern about technology and AI, and data privacy. Because even co-designed, field-tested systems did not achieve sustained use, the authors conclude that integration strategies, equitable stakeholder engagement, and sustainable implementation frameworks, not further technical refinement, are what bridge research and practice.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rest on the assumption that a handful of volunteer deployments in two US municipalities — town hall meetings in Amherst, Massachusetts, and a street-redesign consultation in San Diego, California — represent the civic domain broadly enough for the barriers and remedies to transfer elsewhere.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Participatory design alone does not guarantee that a civic visual analytics system will be adopted; organizational buy-in and workflow fit decide its fate.
  • Civic visual analytics should be introduced as a complement or fail-safe to existing processes, letting officials keep their established methods while gradually experimenting.
  • Without funding models that outlast the research grant — via open sourcing, agency ownership, or recurring municipal budgets — systems decay as technology ages and needs change.
  • Equity requires low-technology access routes, such as offline companion support, QR-free sharing, and designs that accommodate low digital literacy, disability, and language differences.
  • Longitudinal studies are needed to see whether AI-enhanced visual analytics erode or rebuild public trust in democratic processes over time.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable implication the authors do not state: deployments where a public agency co-owns and budgets for the system should show markedly higher survival rates than grant-funded pilots launched by external research teams.
  • The same sociotechnical lens plausibly extends beyond civic spaces to other institutional settings — journalism, public health, open-data offices — where stakeholders have conflicting goals and entrenched workflows.
  • The paper's evidence implies that training policymakers in visual literacy may matter as much as any visualization feature, an intervention that could be studied as its own design material.
  • If the pattern holds, evaluation criteria for civic visual analytics should shift from prototype usability metrics to multi-year adoption metrics, such as whether the tool is still in use after the research team departs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a position/reflection piece from two authors who have designed, developed, and deployed visual analytics systems for civic engagement over roughly a decade. It summarizes four deployments: CommunityClick and CommunityClick-Virtual in Amherst, Massachusetts, and CommunityCrit and CommunityPulse in San Diego, California. The paper organizes reported challenges into design challenges (cross-sector partnerships, mismatched stakeholder needs, equity and inclusivity, explainable AI) and adoption challenges (visual literacy, infrastructure and funding, workflow integration, technology and AI concerns, data privacy). It concludes that sociotechnical barriers—organizational hierarchies, stakeholder misalignment, and resistance to new technology—hinder sustained adoption even when participatory design is used, and it calls for deeper integration strategies, equitable engagement, and sustainable implementation frameworks.

Significance. If the paper's central claim is accepted, its value is as an experience-based synthesis: it names concrete, recurring barriers in civic visual analytics and offers a set of practical directions for future research. The paper is honest that its evidence comes from the authors' own deployments, and it grounds many specific challenges in prior peer-reviewed deployment papers (e.g., JKW21, JHSM21, MJN18), which is a real strength. Its recommendations—complementary rather than replacement integration, visual literacy education, hybrid digital/analog engagement, and longitudinal study—are sensible and actionable. However, the paper's title and conclusion promise findings about long-term integration, and the evidence reported here is episodic and short-term; the causal weight placed on sociotechnical barriers over alternative explanations is not directly supported by the presented data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2 and §4 (Conclusion)] The Conclusion states that 'through our experiences, we have identified key barriers, including organizational hierarchies, stakeholder misalignment, and resistance to new technologies, that hinder sustained adoption,' but the deployment evidence in §2.2 consists of CommunityClick used four times in 2018–2019, CommunityClick-Virtual in 2021, CommunityCrit for four weeks in 2017, and CommunityPulse in 2019. No period of continued use, no termination decisions, and no process data are reported, so the causal attribution to sociotechnical barriers is under-supported. Section 3.2.2 itself acknowledges alternative causes such as grant termination, outdated technology, and lack of ongoing funding; these are not weighed against the stated sociotechnical barriers. I recommend reframing the conclusion as hypotheses or lessons learned from the authors' experience, or adding comparative or longitudinal evidence that distinguishes among these causes.
  2. [§3.2.4] The paper explicitly concedes, in the final sentence of §3.2.4, that 'it is imperative to conduct longitudinal studies to identify nuanced challenges and potential solutions that can address long-term adoption challenges.' This concession directly undercuts the paper's title and its central claim about long-term integration. The deployment record in §2.2 documents pilots, not sustained integration. The authors should either narrow the paper's scope to early-stage adoption lessons or present new longitudinal data; as written, the title overclaims what the body supports.
  3. [Abstract and §3] The abstract and discussion present the barriers and recommendations as applying to 'civic contexts' generally, but all reported deployments occurred in two US municipalities (Amherst, Massachusetts, and San Diego, California) with volunteer participants. The paper does not discuss how these cases might be unrepresentative of other civic settings, other countries, or non-volunteer participation structures. This generalization is a load-bearing premise for the paper's synthesis; I recommend adding a limitations paragraph or comparative examples to justify the transferability of the barrier list and recommendations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1 (Introduction)] The sentence 'we draw from over a decade of individual and collaborative experiences on designing, developing, and deploying building visual analytics systems' contains a redundant word, 'building,' and later the text says 'addressing these challenge' where the plural 'challenges' is needed.
  2. [§2.1] The UD Co-Spaces system is introduced as designed and developed, but §2.2 does not report any deployment of it; its role in supporting the deployment-based claims is unclear and should be clarified or omitted.
  3. [References] Reference [JSM] is missing a publication year and venue, and the reference list entry is incomplete; several other references, such as [pol19], also do not follow the consistent formatting used elsewhere.
  4. [§3.2.5] The statement that differential privacy is 'widely considered a gold standard' is presented without an explicit citation; a supporting reference would strengthen this claim.
  5. [§3.2.3] The claim that introducing novel systems 'can be detrimental' to established workflows is general; grounding this in the specific Amherst or San Diego experiences would make the argument more concrete and persuasive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Reflection paper grounded in the authors' own published deployment studies; no derivation reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a reflection/perspective paper, not a derivation: there are no equations, fitted parameters, or formal predictions whose output is equivalent to an input by construction. The load-bearing assertion in the Conclusion ('Through our experiences, we have identified key barriers...') is an interpretive synthesis of the authors' deployments, not a result forced by a definition. The specific claims about CommunityClick, CommunityClick-Virtual, CommunityCrit, and CommunityPulse are documented in prior peer-reviewed publications (JKW21, JHSM21, MJN18, JSM) and in external literature (CLD18, RDM21, CG01), so the self-citations function as evidence of the experiences being reflected on rather than as a self-referential proof chain. The paper explicitly concedes in Sec. 3.2.4 that longitudinal studies are needed, indicating it does not present its own short, episodic deployments as proof of long-term causal barriers. The main weakness, generalizing from volunteer-based deployments in two U.S. municipalities, is a validity and scope limitation, not circularity. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the paper receives a low score reflecting only its self-referential, experience-based argumentation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities exist in this qualitative paper. The load-bearing content is experiential and bibliographic, so the ledger consists of domain assumptions about representativeness, trust in cited evidence, and the benefits of participatory design. If any of these assumptions fail, the synthesis loses generality.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The deployments in Amherst, MA and San Diego, CA are representative of civic visual analytics contexts generally.
    The paper generalizes its barriers and recommendations to the civic domain (Abstract, Sec. 4) from a small set of deployments in two US municipalities (Sec. 2.2).
  • domain assumption Claims transferred from citations are accurate as characterized (stakeholder mismatch, funding fragility, privacy risks, adoption failures).
    Sections 1 and 3 attribute findings to prior works, including the authors' own, without re-evaluating the underlying evidence.
  • domain assumption Participatory and co-design engagement is a beneficial baseline for civic technology.
    Section 3.1.1 frames co-design as imperative for effective systems; the recommendation assumes participation improves outcomes without counterfactual evidence.
  • domain assumption The authors' systems were deployed and used as reported.
    Deployment counts (four deployments in 2018 to 2019, four weeks of CommunityCrit, hybrid meetings in 2021) are asserted in Sec. 2.2 and rest on prior publications rather than data in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond the Prototype: Challenges of Long-Term Integration of Visual Analytics in Civic Spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4WSLF6I2

@misc{pith2026250524102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond the Prototype: Challenges of Long-Term Integration of Visual Analytics in Civic Spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4WSLF6I2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24102}
}
read the original abstract

Despite the recognized benefits of visual analytics systems in supporting data-driven decision-making, their deployment in real-world civic contexts often faces significant barriers. Beyond technical challenges such as resource constraints and development complexity, sociotechnical factors, including organizational hierarchies, misalignment between designers and stakeholders, and concerns around technology adoption hinder their sustained use. In this work, we reflect on our collective experiences of designing, developing, and deploying visual analytics systems in the civic domain and discuss challenges across design and adoption aspects. We emphasize the need for deeper integration strategies, equitable stakeholder engagement, and sustainable implementation frameworks to bridge the gap between research and practice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three example visual analytics systems we designed, developed, and deployed in the civic domain with collaboration across diverse stakeholders: (A) CommunityClick [JKW∗ 21], (B) CommunityPulse [JHSM21], and (C) CommunityClick-Virtual [JSM]. vious interactions. MyPosition allows users to vote on public poli￾cies and visualizes the results on public displays [VWVMM14]. Despite the initial success, except for a few, ma… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry.original add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 i...

  3. [3]

    D., et al

    Andrienko G., Andrienko N., Drucker S., Fekete J.-D., Fisher D., Idreos S., Kraska T., Li G., Ma K.-L., Mackinlay J. D., et al. : Big data visualization and analytics: Future research challenges and emerging applications

    work page

  4. [4]

    A., Nielsen B., Diedrick K

    Asad M., Le Dantec C. A., Nielsen B., Diedrick K. : Creating a sociotechnical api: Designing city-scale community engagement. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017), ACM, pp. 2295--2306

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    P., Jasim M., Sarvghad A., Mahyar N

    Baumer E. P., Jasim M., Sarvghad A., Mahyar N. : Of course it's political! a critical inquiry into underemphasized dimensions in civic text visualization. In Computer Graphics Forum (2022), vol. 41, Wiley Online Library, pp. 1--14

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    : Who do we mean when we talk about visualization novices? In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp

    Burns A., Lee C., Chawla R., Peck E., Mahyar N. : Who do we mean when we talk about visualization novices? In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp. 1--16

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    : How to evaluate data visualizations across different levels of understanding

    Burns A., Xiong C., Franconeri S., Cairo A., Mahyar N. : How to evaluate data visualizations across different levels of understanding. In 2020 IEEE Workshop on Evaluation and Beyond-Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV) (2020), IEEE, pp. 19--28

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    : Wicked problems of smart cities

    Colding J., Barthel S., S \"o rqvist P. : Wicked problems of smart cities. Smart Cities 2, 4 (2019), 512--521

    work page 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    : Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation

    Coleman S., G tze J. : Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. Hansard Society London, 2001

    2001

  2. [10]

    K., Unwin A

    Chen C.-h., H \"a rdle W. K., Unwin A. : Handbook of data visualization. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Corbett E., Le Dantec C. A. : Exploring trust in digital civics. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (2018), pp. 9--20

    2018

  4. [12]

    Corbett E., Le Dantec C. A. : The problem of community engagement: Disentangling the practices of municipal government. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2018), ACM, p. 574

    2018

  5. [13]

    : Visual analytics: A comprehensive overview

    Cui W. : Visual analytics: A comprehensive overview. IEEE access 7 (2019), 81555--81573

    2019

  6. [14]

    : Addressing the digital divide

    Cullen R. : Addressing the digital divide. Online information review 25, 5 (2001), 311--320

    2001

  7. [15]

    : Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda

    Danneels E. : Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of product innovation management 21, 4 (2004), 246--258

    2004

  8. [16]

    : Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions

    Dwivedi R., Dave D., Naik H., Singhal S., Omer R., Patel P., Qian B., Wen Z., Shah T., Morgan G., et al. : Explainable ai (xai): Core ideas, techniques, and solutions. ACM Computing Surveys 55, 9 (2023), 1--33

    2023

  9. [17]

    A., Mehler A

    D'Ambrosio L. A., Mehler A. C. : Three things policymakers should know about technology and older adults. Public Policy & Aging Report 24, 1 (2014), 10--13

    2014

  10. [18]

    : Differential privacy

    Dwork C. : Differential privacy. In International colloquium on automata, languages, and programming (2006), Springer, pp. 1--12

    2006

  11. [19]

    : Opinion space: A scalable tool for browsing online comments

    Faridani S., Bitton E., Ryokai K., Goldberg K. : Opinion space: A scalable tool for browsing online comments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2010), CHI '10, ACM, pp. 1175--1184

    2010

  12. [20]

    E., Joshi A., Laramee R

    Firat E. E., Joshi A., Laramee R. S. : Interactive visualization literacy: The state-of-the-art. Information Visualization 21, 3 (2022), 285--310

    2022

  13. [21]

    : Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance

    Gorwa R., Binns R., Katzenbach C. : Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951719897945

    2020

  14. [22]

    L., Dijk J

    Hacker K. L., Dijk J. V. : Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice. Sage Publications, Inc., USA, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    Hartson R., Pyla P. S. : The UX Book: Process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    : Grounded evaluation of information visualizations

    Isenberg P., Zuk T., Collins C., Carpendale S. : Grounded evaluation of information visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2008 Workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaLuation methods for Information Visualization (2008), pp. 1--8

    2008

  17. [25]

    : Supporting serendipitous discovery and balanced analysis of online product reviews with interaction-driven metrics and bias-mitigating suggestions

    Jasim M., Collins C., Sarvghad A., Mahyar N. : Supporting serendipitous discovery and balanced analysis of online product reviews with interaction-driven metrics and bias-mitigating suggestions. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2...

    2022

  18. [26]

    R., Mahyar N

    Jasim M., Fatima M., Sonni S. R., Mahyar N. : Bridging the divide: Promoting serendipitous discovery of opposing viewpoints with visual analytics in social media. In 2023 IEEE Workshop on Visualization for Social Good (VIS4Good) (2023), IEEE, pp. 26--30

    2023

  19. [27]

    : Communitypulse: Facilitating community input analysis by surfacing hidden insights, reflections, and priorities

    Jasim M., Hoque E., Sarvghad A., Mahyar N. : Communitypulse: Facilitating community input analysis by surfacing hidden insights, reflections, and priorities. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (2021), pp. 846--863

    2021

  20. [28]

    X., Sarvghad A., Mahyar N

    Jasim M., Khaloo P., Wadhwa S., Zhang A. X., Sarvghad A., Mahyar N. : Communityclick: Capturing and reporting community feedback from town halls to improve inclusivity. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1--32

    2021

  21. [29]

    : Communityclick-virtual: Multi-modal interactions for enhancing participation in virtual meetings

    Jasim M., Sarvghad A., Mahyar N. : Communityclick-virtual: Multi-modal interactions for enhancing participation in virtual meetings. URL: https://communityx-59d5e.web.app/

  22. [30]

    : Participatory design activities and agile software development

    Kautz K. : Participatory design activities and agile software development. In Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research: IFIP WG 8.2/8.6 International Working Conference, Perth, Australia, March 30--April 1, 2010. Proceedings (2010), Sp...

    2010

  23. [31]

    : Supporting reflective public thought with considerit

    Kriplean T., Morgan J., Freelon D., Borning A., Bennett L. : Supporting reflective public thought with considerit. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (2012), pp. 265--274

    2012

  24. [32]

    : An interdisciplinary perspective on evaluation and experimental design for visual text analytics: Position paper

    Kucher K., Sultanum N., Daza A., Simaki V., Skeppstedt M., Plank B., Fekete J.-D., Mahyar N. : An interdisciplinary perspective on evaluation and experimental design for visual text analytics: Position paper. In 2022 IEEE Evaluation and Beyond-Methodological Approaches for Vis...

    2022

  25. [33]

    : Human-centered approaches in geovisualization design: Investigating multiple methods through a long-term case study

    Lloyd D., Dykes J. : Human-centered approaches in geovisualization design: Investigating multiple methods through a long-term case study. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2498--2507

    2011

  26. [34]

    Liotta L. A. : Digitalization and social inclusion: bridging the digital divide in underprivileged communities. Global International Journal of Innovative Research 1, 1 (2023), 7--14

    2023

  27. [35]

    : Reimagining data visualization to address sustainability goals

    Mahyar N. : Reimagining data visualization to address sustainability goals. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03611 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J., Xiang J., Meng S., Booth K

    Mahyar N., Burke K. J., Xiang J., Meng S., Booth K. S., Girling C. L., Kellett R. W. : Ud co-spaces: A table-centred multi-display environment for public engagement in urban design charrettes. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international conference on interactive surfaces and ...

    2016

  29. [37]

    R., Ng M

    Mahyar N., James M. R., Ng M. M., Wu R. A., Dow S. P. : Communitycrit: inviting the public to improve and evaluate urban design ideas through micro-activities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2018), pp. 1--14

    2018

  30. [38]

    V., Chan M., Zheng J., Dow S

    Mahyar N., Nguyen D. V., Chan M., Zheng J., Dow S. P. : The civic data deluge: Understanding the challenges of analyzing large-scale community input. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (2019), pp. 1171--1181

    2019

  31. [39]

    : A nested model for visualization design and validation

    Munzner T. : A nested model for visualization design and validation. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 15, 6 (2009), 921--928

    2009

  32. [40]

    : Visualization analysis and design

    Munzner T. : Visualization analysis and design. CRC press, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    S., Hart E

    Medetalibeyoglu A., Velichko Y. S., Hart E. M., Bagci U. : Foundational artificial intelligence models and modern medical practice. BJR| Artificial Intelligence 2, 1 (2025), ubae018

    2025

  34. [42]

    : Working with experts with experience: Charting co-production and co-design in the development of hci-based design

    Niedderer K., Harrison D., Gosling J., Craven M., Blackler A., Losada R., Cid T. : Working with experts with experience: Charting co-production and co-design in the development of hci-based design. HCI and Design in the Context of Dementia (2020), 303--320

    2020

  35. [43]

    A., Stappers P

    Norman D. A., Stappers P. J. : Designx: complex sociotechnical systems. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 1, 2 (2015), 83--106

    2015

  36. [44]

    : Digital democracy in the age of artificial intelligence

    Novelli C., Sandri G. : Digital democracy in the age of artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07791 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    : Digital civics: Taking a local turn

    Olivier P., Wright P. : Digital civics: Taking a local turn. interactions 22, 4 (June 2015), 61--63

    2015

  38. [46]

    https://pol.is, 2019

    Pol.is . https://pol.is, 2019. Accessed: May 2025

    2019

  39. [47]

    : Illuminating the landscape of differential privacy: An interview study on the use of visualization in real-world deployments

    Panavas L., Sarker A., Di Bartolomeo S., Sarvghad A., Dunne C., Mahyar N. : Illuminating the landscape of differential privacy: An interview study on the use of visualization in real-world deployments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    P., Mahyar N

    Reynante B., Dow S. P., Mahyar N. : A framework for open civic design: Integrating public participation, crowdsourcing, and design thinking. Digital Government: Research and Practice 2, 4 (2021), 1--22

    2021

  41. [49]

    L., Koenig T

    Rustad M. L., Koenig T. H. : Towards a global data privacy standard. Fla. L. Rev. 71 (2019), 365

    2019

  42. [50]

    : Understanding individual and age-related differences in technology adoption

    Rogers W., Mitzner T., Boot W., Charness N., Czaja S., Sharit J. : Understanding individual and age-related differences in technology adoption. Innovation in Aging 1, Suppl 1 (2017), 1026

    2017

  43. [51]

    W., Webber M

    Rittel H. W., Webber M. M. : Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences 4, 2 (1973), 155--169

    1973

  44. [52]

    : What is civic participation in artificial intelligence? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science (2024), 23998083241296200

    Sieber R., Brandusescu A., Sangiambut S., Adu-Daako A. : What is civic participation in artificial intelligence? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science (2024), 23998083241296200

    2024

  45. [53]

    : Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination

    Steen M. : Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design issues 29, 2 (2013), 16--28

    2013

  46. [54]

    : Digital civics and algorithmic citizenship in a global scenario

    Tomasello F. : Digital civics and algorithmic citizenship in a global scenario. Philosophy & Technology 36, 2 (2023), 39

    2023

  47. [55]

    A., Gordon E., Wright P., Olivier P

    Vlachokyriakos V., Crivellaro C., Le Dantec C. A., Gordon E., Wright P., Olivier P. : Digital civics: Citizen empowerment with and through technology. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (2016), pp. 1096--1099

    2016

  48. [56]

    Vaportzis E., Giatsi Clausen M., Gow A. J. : Older adults perceptions of technology and barriers to interacting with tablet computers: a focus group study. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 1687

    2017

  49. [57]

    : Myposition: sparking civic discourse by a public interactive poll visualization

    Valkanova N., Walter R., Vande Moere A., M \"u ller J. : Myposition: sparking civic discourse by a public interactive poll visualization. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing (2014), pp. 1323--1332

    2014

  50. [58]

    J., Sarvghad A

    While Z., Crouser R. J., Sarvghad A. : Gerontovis: Data visualization at the confluence of aging. In Computer Graphics Forum (2024), vol. 43, Wiley Online Library, p. e15101

    2024

  51. [59]

    : Grand challenges in visual analytics applications

    Wu A., Deng D., Chen M., Liu S., Keim D., Maciejewski R., Miksch S., Strobelt H., Vi \'e gas F., Wattenberg M. : Grand challenges in visual analytics applications. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 43, 5 (2023), 83--90

    2023

  52. [60]

    Zilouchian Moghaddam R., Nicholson Z., Bailey B. P. : Procid: Bridging consensus building theory with the practice of distributed design discussions. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (2015), pp. 686--699

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.