pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24981 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.SE

What If We Work Together? Fostering Reflections on Designer Inclusion in Open Source Software Through Speculative Design

Rozhan Hozhabri Nezhad , Jin L.C. Guo , Jinghui Cheng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.SE
keywords open source softwarespeculative designdesigner inclusionuser experiencecommunity reflectionsociotechnical systemsinclusivity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Speculative societies can prompt open-source practitioners to reflect critically on how to include designers and improve usability.

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

The paper investigates the shortage of design expertise and developer-centric culture in open source software, which limits adoption by non-technical users. The authors analyzed online forums to understand designers' experiences, then built two fictional societies that value and integrate designers in contrasting ways. A study with twelve practitioners showed these speculative scenarios triggered detailed reflections on underlying values, the origins of exclusion problems, and practical steps forward. This approach matters because it offers a concrete method to shift mindsets in real OSS communities toward greater balance between code and user experience.

Core claim

Analysis of designer contributions in OSS forums informed the creation of two speculative societies—Husia, a collectivist setting, and Reetar, an individualist one—in which designers hold different status and their work is incorporated differently. A user study with twelve OSS practitioners demonstrated that exposure to these societies elicited rich, critical reflections on OSS values, the root causes of designer exclusion, and concrete proposed actions for building a more equitable environment.

What carries the argument

Two contrasting speculative societies (Husia and Reetar) that embed designers into OSS-like structures to surface and question existing norms.

If this is right

  • OSS communities gain specific recommendations for valuing design work alongside code contributions.
  • Speculative design becomes a usable tool for surfacing hidden assumptions in sociotechnical settings like open source.
  • Participants become more aware of how current OSS values create barriers for non-developers.
  • The method yields actionable ideas for making OSS more sustainable and inclusive over time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same speculative-society technique could be tested in other developer-heavy groups, such as corporate engineering teams, to address similar usability gaps.
  • Pairing these artifacts with follow-on workshops or prototyping sessions might convert reflections into immediate project changes.
  • Future work could compare the depth of reflection produced by collectivist versus individualist speculative framings.

Load-bearing premise

The critical reflections produced by a brief encounter with speculative artifacts will produce lasting mindset changes or real shifts in how open source projects operate.

What would settle it

A longitudinal follow-up that checks whether any of the twelve study participants or their projects actually implemented designer-inclusive practices, such as new contribution guidelines or hiring processes, within six to twelve months.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24981 by Jinghui Cheng, Jin L.C. Guo, Rozhan Hozhabri Nezhad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Concept images of the two speculative societies: view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Husia’s Storyboard In addition to providing collaboration spaces, Xagons track versions of both design and code, helping new team members like Fiona understand the project’s history and progress. Using Xagon’s real-time features, team members working on design and code regularly provide feedback to each other. Additionally, Xagon helps team members collect and summarize user feedback and ensure the team re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Husia’s Storyboard (continued) new layout options to improve usability and also changes the color scheme and fonts based on user feedback. The Xagon helps by reminding her about user needs and the main types of users for this product. For example, it warns her to avoid using red and green to indicate button meanings, as 67 percent of reported users are colorblind and have trouble differentiating between th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reetar’s Storyboard , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reetar’s Storyboard (continued) The Reetar storyboard visuals are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Below is the script used in a recorded slideshow video to present the storyboard, with the visuals as slides. Frame 1. Alex is a recent graduate and wants to become a developer. To start his career, he has two options: freelance or work with a team. Frame 2. Freelancing involves higher risks, as there is great uncer… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Open source software (OSS) often prioritizes technical functionality over usability and UX design. This imbalance limits OSS adoption among broader, non-technical users. Key underlying factors contributing to this issue are the shortage of design expertise in OSS and a dominant developer-centric mindset. To address these persistent issues, we explore the potential of speculative design as a catalyst for transforming the OSS community's mindset towards a more designer-inclusive environment. Our design was informed by an analysis of online forums, which revealed designers' motivations and challenges when contributing to OSS. Guided by these insights, we created two speculative societies, Husia (collectivist) and Reetar (individualist), in which designers are valued for different reasons and their work incorporated in different ways. Through a user study with 12 OSS practitioners (seven designers and five developers), we found that our speculative societies provoked participants' rich and critical reflections on OSS values, the root causes of challenges, and proposed actions. Our work provides insights into how speculative design can be used in the practical, sociotechnical context of OSS to stimulate critical reflection, improve awareness, and yield recommendations for fostering an equitable, sustainable, and inclusive OSS environment.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that speculative design, informed by an analysis of online forums revealing designers' motivations and challenges in OSS, can serve as a catalyst for mindset change toward designer inclusion. The authors construct two speculative societies (Husia, collectivist, and Reetar, individualist) in which designers are valued and integrated differently, then evaluate them via a qualitative user study with 12 OSS practitioners (7 designers, 5 developers). The study finds that the artifacts provoked rich, critical reflections on OSS values, root causes of challenges, and proposed actions for more equitable practices.

Significance. If the reported reflections hold, the work offers a concrete demonstration of how speculative design can be deployed in a sociotechnical domain like OSS to surface practitioner insights and generate recommendations for inclusivity. The grounding in forum data and balanced participant sample (designers and developers) are strengths; the approach aligns with established HCI speculative-design methods while targeting a persistent real-world imbalance between technical and design contributions.

minor comments (3)
  1. [User Study] The user-study protocol and analysis procedure (e.g., how themes were derived from the 12 sessions) are described at a high level; adding a short methods subsection or appendix with the interview guide and coding scheme would allow readers to assess the rigor of the qualitative findings.
  2. [Discussion] While the paper correctly scopes its claims to immediate reflections rather than proven long-term change, the Discussion could more explicitly flag the absence of follow-up measures or comparison conditions as a boundary condition on interpreting the depth or durability of the observed mindset shifts.
  3. [Speculative Societies] A concise table or diagram contrasting the core values, designer roles, and decision-making processes of Husia versus Reetar would help readers quickly map the two speculative artifacts to the reflections they elicited.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive and constructive review, which accurately summarizes our work and highlights its potential contributions to HCI and OSS research. We appreciate the recommendation for minor revision and the recognition of strengths such as the grounding in forum data and the balanced participant sample.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is a qualitative user study in which two speculative societies (Husia and Reetar) were designed from forum analysis and then used to elicit reflections from 12 OSS practitioners. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictive models are present. The design process and reported outcomes are presented as direct results of the described methods without any reduction to self-citation chains or definitional equivalence. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks of speculative design research in HCI.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard assumptions of design research that speculative artifacts can surface tacit values and that small-scale qualitative studies yield transferable insights.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Speculative design can effectively provoke critical reflections on sociotechnical values in professional communities.
    Invoked to justify creating Husia and Reetar societies and interpreting participant responses.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5518 in / 1073 out tokens · 41642 ms · 2026-05-08T02:07:01.139256+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

67 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kars Alfrink, Ianus Keller, Neelke Doorn, and Gerd Kortuem. 2023. Contestable Camera Cars: A Speculative Design Exploration of Public AI That Is Open and Responsive to Dispute. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580984 ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580984 2023

  2. [2]

    Morten Sieker Andreasen, Henrik Villemann Nielsen, Simon Ormholt Schrøder, and Jan Stage. 2006. Usability in Open Source Software Development: Opinions and Practice.Information Technology and Control35, 3 (Sept. 2006). doi:10.5755/j01.itc.35.3.11776

    work page doi:10.5755/j01.itc.35.3.11776 2006

  3. [3]

    Guo, and Jinghui Cheng

    Deeksha Arya, Wenting Wang, Jin L.C. Guo, and Jinghui Cheng. 2019. Analysis and Detection of Information Types of Open Source Software Issue Discussions. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 454–464. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2019.00058

    work page doi:10.1109/icse.2019.00058 2019

  4. [4]

    James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation.Digital Creativity24, 1 (2013), 11–35. doi:10.1080/ 14626268.2013.767276

    work page arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Bach, Robert DeLine, and John M

    Paula M. Bach, Robert DeLine, and John M. Carroll. 2009. Designers wanted: participation and the user experience in open source software development. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA)(CHI ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 985–994. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518852

    work page doi:10.1145/1518701.1518852 2009

  6. [6]

    Genevieve Bell, Mark Blythe, and Phoebe Sengers. 2005. Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.12, 2 (June 2005), 149–173. doi:10.1145/1067860.1067862

    work page doi:10.1145/1067860.1067862 2005

  7. [7]

    Magnus Bergquistb Bertil Rolandssona and Jan Ljungbergb. 2009. Open source programmer’s strategies to cope with ideological tensions.International Conference on Organizational Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities(2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Schieck, and Marianna Obrist

    Ceylan Beşevli, Giada Brianza, Christopher Dawes, Nonna Shabanova, Sanjoli Mathur, Matt Lechner, Emanuela Maggioni, Duncan Boak, Carl Philpott, Ava Fatah Gen. Schieck, and Marianna Obrist. 2024. Smell Above All: Envisioning Smell-Centred Future Worlds. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). AC...

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3660699 2024

  9. [9]

    Andrea J. Bingham. 2023. From Data Management to Actionable Findings: A Five-Phase Process of Qualitative Data Analysis.International Journal of Qualitative Methods22 (2023), 1–11. doi:10.1177/16094069231183620

    work page doi:10.1177/16094069231183620 2023

  10. [10]

    Chris Bogart, Christian Kästner, James Herbsleb, and Ferdian Thung. 2021. When and How to Make Breaking Changes: Policies and Practices in 18 Open Source Software Ecosystems.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.30, 4, Article 42 (July 2021), 56 pages. doi:10.1145/3447245

    work page doi:10.1145/3447245 2021

  11. [11]

    2021.Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021.Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications, London, England

    2021

  12. [12]

    Stuart Candy. 2018. Gaming futures literacy: The thing from the future. InTransforming the future. Routledge, 233–246

    2018

  13. [13]

    Jinghui Cheng and Jin L.C. Guo. 2018. How Do the Open Source Communities Address Usability and UX Issues? An Exploratory Study. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Montreal QC, Canada)(CHI EA ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. doi:10.1145/3170427.3188467

    work page doi:10.1145/3170427.3188467 2018

  14. [14]

    Jinghui Cheng and Jin L. C. Guo. 2019. Activity-based analysis of open source software contributors: roles and dynamics. InProceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (Montreal, Quebec, Canada)(CHASE ’19). IEEE Press, 11–18. doi:10.1109/CHASE.2019.00011

    work page doi:10.1109/chase.2019.00011 2019

  15. [15]

    Tadeusz Chełkowski, Dariusz Jemielniak, and Kacper Macikowski. 2021. Free and Open Source Software organizations: A large-scale analysis of code, comments, and commits frequency.PLOS ONE16, 9 (09 2021), 1–19. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0257192

    work page doi:10.1371/journal 2021

  16. [16]

    Simran Chopra, Rachel E Clarke, Adrian K Clear, Sara Heitlinger, Ozge Dilaver, and Christina Vasiliou. 2022. Negotiating sustainable futures in communities through participatory speculative design and experiments in living. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). ACM, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501929 2022

  17. [17]

    Kareem Abbas Dawood, Khaironi Yatim Sharif, A. A. Zaidan, Abdul Azim Abd Ghani, Hazura Binti Zulzalil, and B. B. Zaidan. 2019. Mapping and Analysis of Open Source Software (OSS) Usability for Sustainable OSS Product.IEEE Access7 (2019), 65913–65933. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2914368

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2019.2914368 2019

  18. [18]

    2013.Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming

    Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013.Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press, Massachusetts, USA

    2013

  19. [19]

    van Eekelen

    Pedro Gil Farias, Roy Bendor, and Bregje F. van Eekelen. 2022. Social dreaming together: A critical exploration of participatory speculative design. InProceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022 - Volume 2(Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom)(PDC ’22). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 147–154. doi:10.1145/3537797.3537826

    work page doi:10.1145/3537797.3537826 2022

  20. [20]

    About and around computing over the reals,

    Joseph Feller. 2005.Perspectives on free and open source software. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. doi:10.7551/mitpress/ 5326.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/ 2005

  21. [21]

    Shut the f**k up

    Isabella Ferreira, Jinghui Cheng, and Bram Adams. 2021. The "Shut the f**k up" Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review Discussions.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2, Article 353 (Oct. 2021), 35 pages. doi:10.1145/3479497

    work page doi:10.1145/3479497 2021

  22. [22]

    Brian Fitzgerald. 2006. The transformation of open source software.MIS Q.30, 3 (Sept. 2006), 587–598

    2006

  23. [23]

    Nancy Frishberg, Anna Marie Dirks, Calum Benson, Seth Nickell, and Suzanna Smith. 2002. Getting to know you: open source development meets usability(CHI EA ’02). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 932–933. doi:10.1145/506443.506666

    work page doi:10.1145/506443.506666 2002

  24. [24]

    Hana Frluckaj, Nikki Stevens, James Howison, and Laura Dabbish. 2024. Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2, Article 508 (Nov. 2024), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/ , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026. 22 Rozhan Hozhabri Nezhad, Jin L.C. Guo, and Jinghui Cheng 3687047

    2024

  25. [25]

    William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design?. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Austin, Texas, USA)(CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 937–946. doi:10. 1145/2207676.2208538

    work page arXiv 2012

  26. [26]

    Stuart Geiger, Dorothy Howard, and Lilly Irani

    R. Stuart Geiger, Dorothy Howard, and Lilly Irani. 2021. The Labor of Maintaining and Scaling Free and Open-Source Software Projects.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 175 (April 2021), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3449249

    work page doi:10.1145/3449249 2021

  27. [27]

    Marco Gerosa, Igor Wiese, Bianca Trinkenreich, Georg Link, Gregorio Robles, Christoph Treude, Igor Steinmacher, and Anita Sarma. 2021. The Shifting Sands of Motivation: Revisiting What Drives Contributors in Open Source. In2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 1046–1058. doi:10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00098

    work page doi:10.1109/icse43902.2021.00098 2021

  28. [28]

    Saskia Gilmer, Avinash Bhat, Shuvam Shah, Kevin Cherry, Jinghui Cheng, and Jin L.C. Guo. 2023. SUMMIT: Scaffolding Open Source Software Issue Discussion Through Summarization.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW2, Article 297 (Oct. 2023), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3610088

    work page doi:10.1145/3610088 2023

  29. [29]

    Hars and Shaosong Ou

    A. Hars and Shaosong Ou. 2001. Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source projects. InProceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 9 pp.–. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2001.927045

    work page doi:10.1109/hicss.2001.927045 2001

  30. [30]

    Lisa Haskel and Paula Graham. 2016. Whats GNU got to do with it? participatory design, infrastructuring and free/open source software. InProceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Interactive Exhibitions, Workshops - Volume 2(Aarhus, Denmark)(PDC ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17–20. doi:10.1145/2948076.2948090

    work page doi:10.1145/2948076.2948090 2016

  31. [31]

    Jazlyn Hellman, Jinghui Cheng, and Jin L. C. Guo. 2021. Facilitating Asynchronous Participatory Design of Open Source Software: Bringing End Users into the Loop. InCHI ’21: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Virtual Event / Yokohama Japan, May 8-13, 2021, Extended Abstracts (CHI EA ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 438:1–438:7. doi:10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411763.3451643 2021

  32. [32]

    2008.Virtual Ethnography: Modes, Varieties, Affordances

    Christine Hine. 2008.Virtual Ethnography: Modes, Varieties, Affordances. SAGE Publications, Ltd, 257–270. doi:10. 4135/9780857020055.n14

    2008

  33. [33]

    2010.Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, third edition(3 ed.)

    Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010.Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, third edition(3 ed.). McGraw-Hill Education

    2010

  34. [34]

    Leonie Jahn, Philip Engelbutzeder, Lea Katharina Michel, Sebastian Prost, Michael Bernard Twidale, Dave Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2025. Blending Code and Cause: Understanding the Dynamic Motivations of Volunteer Developers in Community-Driven FOSS Projects. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan)(CH...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713416 2025

  35. [35]

    Leonie Jahn, Philip Engelbutzeder, Dave Randall, Yannick Bollmann, Vasilis Ntouros, Lea Katharina Michel, and Volker Wulf. 2024. In Between Users and Developers: Serendipitous Connections and Intermediaries in Volunteer-Driven Open-Source Software Development. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, US...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642541 2024

  36. [36]

    Obie, and John Grundy

    Hourieh Khalajzadeh, Mojtaba Shahin, Humphrey O. Obie, and John Grundy. 2022. How are diverse end-user human- centric issues discussed on GitHub?. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)(ICSE-SEIS ’22). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 79–89. doi:10.1145/351...

    work page doi:10.1145/3510458.3513014 2022

  37. [37]

    Samantha Kolovson, Samuel So, and Sean Munson. 2024. Using Speculative Design to Understand Preferred Futures for the Design and Use of Tracking Data in U.S. College Sport Teams.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8 (04 2024), 1–35. doi:10.1145/3641028

    work page doi:10.1145/3641028 2024

  38. [38]

    Sandjar Kozubaev, Chris Elsden, Noura Howell, Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Nick Merrill, Britta Schulte, and Richmond Y. Wong. 2020. Expanding Modes of Reflection in Design Futuring. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/ 3313831.3376526

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Lucrecia Llerena, John Castro, Rosa Llerena, and Nancy Rodríguez. 2025. How to Improve Usability in Open-Source Software Projects? An Analysis of Evaluation Techniques Through a Multiple Case Study.Informatics12 (01 2025), 12. doi:10.3390/informatics12010012

    work page doi:10.3390/informatics12010012 2025

  40. [40]

    Hanna Mäenpää, Simo Mäkinen, Terhi Kilamo, Tommi Mikkonen, Tomi Männistö, and Paavo Ritala. 2018. Organizing for openness: six models for developer involvement in hybrid OSS projects.Journal of Internet Services and Applications 9, 1 (16 Aug 2018), 17. doi:10.1186/s13174-018-0088-1

    work page doi:10.1186/s13174-018-0088-1 2018

  41. [41]

    Nichols and Michael B

    David M. Nichols and Michael B. Twidale. 2003. The usability of open source software.First Monday(2003)

    2003

  42. [42]

    Nichols and Michael B

    David M. Nichols and Michael B. Twidale. 2006. Usability processes in open source projects.Software Process Improvement and Practice11, 2 (March 2006), 149–162. doi:10.1002/spip.256

    work page doi:10.1002/spip.256 2006

  43. [43]

    Tim O’Reilly. 1999. Lessons from open-source software development.Commun. ACM42, 4 (April 1999), 32–37. doi:10.1145/299157.299164

    work page doi:10.1145/299157.299164 1999

  44. [44]

    Mikko Rajanen and Netta Iivari. 2013. Open Source and Human Computer Interaction Philosophies in Open Source Projects: Incompatible or Co-Existent?. InProceedings of International Conference on Making Sense of Converging Media , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026. Fostering Reflections on Designer Inclusion in OSS Through Speculative De...

    work page doi:10.1145/2523429.2523463 2013

  45. [45]

    Mikko Rajanen and Netta Iivari. 2015. Examining Usability Work and Culture in OSS. InOpen Source Systems: Adoption and Impact, Ernesto Damiani, Fulvio Frati, Dirk Riehle, and Anthony I. Wasserman (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 58–67

    2015

  46. [46]

    Mikko Rajanen and Netta Iivari. 2015. Power, Empowerment and Open Source Usability. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Seoul, Republic of Korea)(CHI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3413–3422. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702441

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123.2702441 2015

  47. [47]

    Mikko Rajanen, Netta Iivari, and Arto Lanamäki. 2015. Non-response, Social Exclusion, and False Acceptance: Gatekeeping Tactics and Usability Work in Free-Libre Open Source Software Development. InHuman-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 9–26. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22698-9_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22698-9_2 2015

  48. [48]

    Eric S. Raymond. 2001.The cathedral and the bazaar: musings on Linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. O’Reilly Media

    2001

  49. [49]

    Arif Raza, Luiz Fernando Capretz, and Faheem Ahmed. 2011. An Empirical Study of Open Source Software Usability: The Industrial Perspective.Int. J. Open Source Softw. Process.3, 1 (Jan. 2011), 1–16. doi:10.4018/jossp.2011010101

    work page doi:10.4018/jossp.2011010101 2011

  50. [50]

    Arif Raza, Luiz Fernando Capretz, and Faheem Ahmed. 2012. Users’ perception of open source usability: an empirical study.Engineering with Computers28, 2 (2012), 109–121. doi:10.1007/s00366-011-0222-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00366-011-0222-1 2012

  51. [51]

    Shadan Sadeghian, Migle Bareikyte, Marcus Burkhardt, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2025. WorkAI: A Toolkit for the Design of AI-driven Future of Work.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 7, Article CSCW344 (Oct. 2025), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3757525

    work page doi:10.1145/3757525 2025

  52. [52]

    Arghavan Sanei and Jinghui Cheng. 2024. Characterizing Usability Issue Discussions in Open Source Software Projects. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 30 (April 2024), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3637307

    work page doi:10.1145/3637307 2024

  53. [53]

    1991.The reflective practitioner

    Donald A Schon. 1991.The reflective practitioner. Ashgate Publishing, London, England

    1991

  54. [54]

    Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph ’Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. InProceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility(Aarhus, Denmark)(CC ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 49–58. doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569

    work page doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569 2005

  55. [55]

    Guo, and Shurui Zhou

    Jiayi Sun, Aarya Patil, Youhai Li, Jin L.C. Guo, and Shurui Zhou. 2025. Advancing Sustainable Communities in Scientific OSS: A Replication Study with Astropy. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering(Ottawa, Canada)(CHASE ’25). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 12 pages

    2025

  56. [56]

    Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Nadia Campo Woytuk, Noura Howell, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Karey Helms, Tom Jenkins, and Pedro Sanches. 2023. Fabulation as an Approach for Design Futuring. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1693–1709. doi:10.1145/ 3563657.3596097

    work page arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Michael Terry, Matthew Kay, and Ben Lafreniere. 2010. Perceptions and practices of usability in the free/open source software (FoSS) community. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Atlanta, Georgia, USA)(CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 999–1008. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753476

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753476 2010

  58. [58]

    Bianca Trinkenreich, Mariam Guizani, Igor Wiese, Anita Sarma, and Igor Steinmacher. 2020. Hidden Figures: Roles and Pathways of Successful OSS Contributors.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.4, CSCW2, Article 180 (Oct. 2020), 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3415251

    work page doi:10.1145/3415251 2020

  59. [59]

    Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Pedro Sanches, Tom Jenkins, Noura Howell, Laurens Boer, and Afroditi Bitzouni. 2022. Fabulating Biodata Futures for Living and Knowing Together. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, Australia)(DIS ’22). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1878–1892. doi:10.1145/3532106.3533477

    work page doi:10.1145/3532106.3533477 2022

  60. [60]

    Georg Vonkrogh and Eric Hippel. 2009. Open Source Software and the ’Private-Collective’ Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science.University of St.Gallen14 (04 2009). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1410789

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.1410789 2009

  61. [61]

    Wenting Wang, Deeksha Arya, Nicole Novielli, Jinghui Cheng, and Jin L.C. Guo. 2020. ArguLens: Anatomy of Community Opinions On Usability Issues Using Argumentation Models. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/ 3313831.3376218

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Wenting Wang, Jinghui Cheng, and Jin L.C. Guo. 2022. How Do Open Source Software Contributors Perceive and Address Usability?: Valued Factors, Practices, and Challenges.IEEE Software39, 1 (2022), 76–83. doi:10.1109/MS.2020. 3009514

    work page doi:10.1109/ms.2020 2022

  63. [63]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3387111

    Zhendong Wang, Yang Feng, Yi Wang, James A. Jones, and David Redmiles. 2020. Unveiling Elite Developers’ Activities in Open Source Projects.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.29, 3, Article 16 (June 2020), 35 pages. doi:10.1145/3387111

    work page doi:10.1145/3387111 2020

  64. [64]

    Duoduo Zhang and Yingfei Ye. 2024. Co-creating pluralistic futures: A systematic literature review on participatory speculative design. doi:10.21606/drs.2024.1316

    work page doi:10.21606/drs.2024.1316 2024

  65. [65]

    Shutong Zhang, Tianyu Zhang, Jinghui Cheng, and Shurui Zhou. 2025. Who is to Blame: A Comprehensive Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Designer-Developer Collaboration.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW207 (May 2025), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/3711105 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026. 24 Rozhan Hozhabri Nezhad, Ji...

    work page doi:10.1145/3711105 2025

  66. [66]

    John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA)(CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493–502. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240704

    work page doi:10.1145/1240624.1240704 2007

  67. [67]

    Licorish, and Nigel Stanger

    Elijah Zolduoarrati, Sherlock A. Licorish, and Nigel Stanger. 2022. Impact of individualism and collectivism cultural profiles on the behaviour of software developers: A study of stack overflow.J. Syst. Softw.192, C (2022), 24 pages. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111427 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2026. Fostering Reflections on Designer In...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2022.111427 2022