pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15892 · v1 · pith:3454VWRWnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.HC

Designing for Robot Wranglers: A Synthesis of Literature and Practice

David Porfirio , Ian McDermott , Hsin-Mei Chen , Satoru Satake , Takayuki Kanda , Thomas D. LaToza This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 18:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.HC
keywords robot wranglerhuman-robot interactionscoping reviewdesign implicationsservice ecologyrobot oversighttroubleshootingrobot deployment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Design implications support robot wranglers both as individuals and within service ecologies.

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

The paper maps the emerging role of the robot wrangler, who handles setup, oversight, and troubleshooting for robots operating in human environments such as hospitals, museums, and warehouses. A scoping review of existing literature reveals that wrangling functions as an umbrella term covering a highly varied and complex collection of activities that resist simple characterization. The authors supplement this review with reflections on their own firsthand and imagined experiences in the role to produce a set of design implications. Sympathetic readers would care because widespread robot use in public spaces depends on making the supporting human labor visible and manageable.

Core claim

Through a scoping review that produces a typology of robot wrangling and reflections on personal experiences across domains, the paper establishes that wrangling is a heterogeneous space of activities and generates design implications for supporting wranglers directly as individuals and as members of a wider service ecology.

What carries the argument

The robot wrangler role, defined as the person responsible for setting up, overseeing, and troubleshooting robots, which anchors the review of heterogeneous activities and the derivation of support guidelines.

If this is right

  • Design efforts must address wranglers' direct needs in performing setup, oversight, and troubleshooting tasks.
  • Support structures should integrate wranglers into wider service ecologies involving coordination with other roles and stakeholders.
  • The typology of activities makes the complex labor of wrangling more visible and easier to target with specific tools.
  • Robot deployments in human spaces gain smoother operation when the human oversight component receives explicit design attention.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Organizations could apply the typology to audit and staff wrangling positions in upcoming robot installations.
  • The implications suggest opportunities to link wrangling support with training programs for related oversight roles in automated systems.
  • Empirical studies could test whether the individual-level and ecology-level supports produce measurable differences in robot uptime across domains.

Load-bearing premise

The authors' firsthand and imagined experiences as robot wranglers are representative and sufficient to clarify the heterogeneous activities found in the literature and to generate broadly applicable design implications.

What would settle it

A field deployment of the proposed design implications in a new robot setting, such as hospital deliveries, that shows no reduction in wrangler workload or error rates would indicate the implications do not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15892 by David Porfirio, Hsin-Mei Chen, Ian McDermott, Satoru Satake, Takayuki Kanda, Thomas D. LaToza.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A PRISMA flow diagram that illustrates our review [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The prevalence of papers that mention, discuss, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: How the works in our review position wrangling activities against the activities of a non-exhaustive set of com￾mon HRI stakeholders. These works indicate that researchers can be involved in all wrangling activities; bystanders when intervening; and end users when troubleshooting in educa￾tional context and maintaining. Lastly, these works position operating and wizarding as synonymous with wrangling. the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) The physical setup of the help desk robot, including the front desk and staff to the right of the robot. (Right) A teleoperated Pepper during a live fundraising cere￾mony, in which the robot’s stage placement, audience-facing orientation, and lack of visible operator cues contributed to a failure-intolerant wrangling scenario.5 4 Lived and Imagined Experiences of Wrangling Whereas our typology refle… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The shopworker robot detects the customer’s action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Robots are increasingly present in human spaces, such as for conducting deliveries in hospitals, interacting with visitors at museums, and stocking items in warehouses. To ensure the seamless integration of robots into these spaces, a new role in human-robot interaction is emerging - the robot wrangler, namely an individual who is responsible for setting up, overseeing, and troubleshooting the robot. To understand the needs of this stakeholder, we conducted a scoping review that uncovered a typology of robot wrangling across the research literature, and discovered that wrangling is an umbrella term that collapses a highly complex and heterogeneous space of activities, often rendering this labor difficult to characterize and support. To further clarify and understand robot wrangling, we then reflected on our own firsthand and imagined experiences as robot wranglers within our own respective domains. Guided by the scoping review and our reflections, we devise a series of design implications for supporting wranglers directly as individuals and as members of a wider service ecology.

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 manuscript conducts a scoping review of literature on robot wrangling in human-robot interaction contexts such as hospital deliveries, museum interactions, and warehouse stocking. It identifies a typology showing that wrangling is an umbrella term encompassing complex, heterogeneous activities that are difficult to characterize and support. The authors then reflect on their own firsthand and imagined experiences as wranglers in their respective domains and, guided by the review and reflections, propose a series of design implications for supporting wranglers as individuals and as members of a wider service ecology.

Significance. If the typology is robustly derived and the implications are well-grounded, the work could meaningfully advance HRI by surfacing the often-invisible labor of robot wranglers and offering actionable guidance for system design. The synthesis of literature with reflective practice is a strength that could inform more human-centered robot deployments, provided the bridge from heterogeneous findings to general implications is strengthened.

major comments (2)
  1. [Scoping Review / Methods] The scoping review section does not report the search strategy, databases, keywords, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. Without these details it is not possible to assess whether the uncovered typology comprehensively captures the heterogeneity across domains (e.g., hospital deliveries versus warehouse stocking) that the central claim relies upon.
  2. [Reflections and Design Implications] In the reflections and design-implications sections, the manuscript moves from literature findings to proposed implications primarily via the authors' personal and imagined experiences in their own domains. This leaves unaddressed how those reflections systematically bridge or validate against the full range of heterogeneous activities documented in the review, which is load-bearing for the claim of broadly applicable design implications.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Results] The abstract states that wrangling 'collapses a highly complex and heterogeneous space' but the manuscript could add a short table or figure summarizing the main activity categories from the typology to improve readability.
  2. [Reflections] Clarify whether the 'imagined experiences' are hypothetical scenarios or extrapolations from observed cases, as this distinction affects how readers evaluate the grounding of the implications.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. The comments identify clear opportunities to strengthen the presentation of our methods and the grounding of our design implications. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Scoping Review / Methods] The scoping review section does not report the search strategy, databases, keywords, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. Without these details it is not possible to assess whether the uncovered typology comprehensively captures the heterogeneity across domains (e.g., hospital deliveries versus warehouse stocking) that the central claim relies upon.

    Authors: We agree that the scoping review methods require additional detail. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated methods subsection that reports the search strategy, databases (including ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar), keywords and Boolean strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening process, and a PRISMA-style flow diagram. This will allow readers to evaluate how comprehensively the typology reflects heterogeneity across the documented domains. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Reflections and Design Implications] In the reflections and design-implications sections, the manuscript moves from literature findings to proposed implications primarily via the authors' personal and imagined experiences in their own domains. This leaves unaddressed how those reflections systematically bridge or validate against the full range of heterogeneous activities documented in the review, which is load-bearing for the claim of broadly applicable design implications.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the linkage between the review findings and the design implications could be articulated more explicitly. In the revision we will add a mapping table or subsection that directly connects specific typology elements (e.g., task heterogeneity in hospital deliveries versus warehouse stocking) to our reflective examples and the resulting implications. We will also clarify the role of reflective practice as a complementary method that extends rather than systematically validates the literature synthesis, while noting its limitations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs a scoping review of external literature to identify a typology of robot wrangling activities, then incorporates the authors' firsthand and imagined personal experiences within their respective domains as independent inputs to clarify heterogeneity and derive design implications for supporting wranglers individually and in service ecologies. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, uniqueness theorems, or load-bearing self-citations are present that would reduce any central claim to its own inputs by construction. The derivation chain is a standard qualitative synthesis drawing on reviewed sources and direct observations, remaining self-contained without circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard domain assumptions in qualitative design research regarding the value of scoping reviews and author reflections for generating implications, without introducing new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Robot wrangling constitutes a highly complex and heterogeneous space of activities that is difficult to characterize and support
    Stated as a discovery from the scoping review in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5718 in / 1298 out tokens · 67213 ms · 2026-05-20T18:13:31.006786+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

95 extracted references · 95 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gopika Ajaykumar, Maureen Steele, and Chien-Ming Huang. 2021. A Survey on End-User Robot Programming.ACM Comput. Surv.54, 8, Article 164 (Oct. 2021), 36 pages. doi:10.1145/3466819

    work page doi:10.1145/3466819 2021

  2. [2]

    Björling, and Maya Cakmak

    Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Matthew Bavier, Samrudha Malandkar, Ryan Eldridge, Julie Sayigh, Elin A. Björling, and Maya Cakmak. 2022. FLEXI: A Robust and Flexible Social Robot Embodiment Kit. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, Australia)(DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1177–...

    work page doi:10.1145/3532106 2022

  3. [3]

    Erin Anderson and Claire Donehower Paul. 2024. Integrated Computing (Cod- ing+ Social Skills) For Elementary Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference V

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1145/3649165.3690120

    12–18. doi:10.1145/3649165.3690120

    work page doi:10.1145/3649165.3690120

  5. [5]

    Jennifer Benedict and Hugh C Briggs. 2019. Application of robots in middle school math classes. InAIAA Scitech 2019 Forum. 0070. doi:10.2514/6.2019-0070

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2019-0070 2019

  6. [6]

    Steve Benford, Pepita Barnard, Sarah Sharples, Helena Webb, Clara Mancini, Ayse Kucukyilmaz, Simon Castle Green, Eike Schneiders, Victor Ngo, Alan Chamber- lain, et al. 2025. Charting the Ecosystem of Trust in Cat Royale Or What It Takes to Trust a Robot to Play with Cats. InInternational Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 623–636. doi:10.1007/978-9...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-95-2398-6_42 2025

  7. [7]

    Steve Benford, Rachael Garrett, Christine Li, Paul Tennent, Claudia Núñez- Pacheco, Ayse Kucukyilmaz, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Kristina Höök, Praminda Caleb- Solly, Joe Marshall, et al. 2025. Tangles: Unpacking Extended Collision Experi- ences with Soma Trajectories. doi:10.1145/3723875

    work page doi:10.1145/3723875 2025

  8. [8]

    Steve Benford, Rachael Garrett, Eike Schneiders, Paul Tennent, Alan Chamberlain, Juan Avila, Pat Brundell, and Simon Castle-Green. 2024. How Artists Improvise and Provoke Robotics. InInternational Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 66–77. doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3525-2_6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3525-2_6 2024

  9. [10]

    Steven David Benford, Clara Mancini, Alan Chamberlain, Eike Schneiders, Si- mon D Castle-Green, Joel E Fischer, Ayse Kucukyilmaz, Guido Salimbeni, Vic- tor Zhi Heung Ngo, Pepita Barnard, et al . 2024. Charting ethical tensions in multispecies technology research through beneficiary-epistemology space. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Fac...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3641994 2024

  10. [11]

    Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee, Ethan K Gordon, Rosario Scalise, Maria E Cabrera, Anat Caspi, Maya Cakmak, and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2020. Is more autonomy always better? exploring preferences of users with mobility impairments in robot- assisted feeding. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 181–190. doi:10.1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3319502.3374818 2020

  11. [12]

    Elin Björling and Laurel Riek. 2022. Designing for exit: How to let robots go. Proceedings of we robot(2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [13]

    Thiago Boaventura, Claudio Semini, Jonas Buchli, Marco Frigerio, Michele Focchi, and Darwin G Caldwell. 2012. Dynamic torque control of a hydraulic quadruped robot. In2012 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 1889–1894. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2012.6224628

    work page doi:10.1109/icra.2012.6224628 2012

  13. [14]

    Maria E Cabrera, Tapomayukh Bhattacharjee, Kavi Dey, and Maya Cakmak

    work page

  14. [15]

    In2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication (RO-MAN)

    An exploration of accessible remote tele-operation for assistive mobile manipulators in the home. In2021 30th IEEE international conference on robot & human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1202–1209. doi:10.1109/RO- MAN50785.2021.9515511

    work page doi:10.1109/ro- 2021

  15. [16]

    Irvin Steve Cardenas, HyunJae Jeong, Jong-Hoon Kim, and Yongseok Chi. 2019. Unique cipher-acoustic languages for human-robot interactions. In2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 600–

    work page 2019

  16. [17]

    doi:10.1109/HRI.2019.8673114

    work page doi:10.1109/hri.2019.8673114 2019

  17. [18]

    Erin K Chiou, Mustafa Demir, Verica Buchanan, Christopher C Corral, Mica R Endsley, Glenn J Lematta, Nancy J Cooke, and Nathan J McNeese. 2022. Towards human–robot teaming: Tradeoffs of explanation-based communication strategies in a virtual search and rescue task.International Journal of Social Robotics14, 5 (2022), 1117–1136. doi:10.1007/s12369-021-00834-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-021-00834-1 2022

  18. [19]

    Joseph S Colett and Jonathan W Hurst. 2012. Artificial restraint systems for walking and running robots: an overview.International Journal of Humanoid Robotics9, 01 (2012), 1250001. doi:10.1142/S0219843612500016

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219843612500016 2012

  19. [20]

    Anderson Cooper. 2021. Boston Dynamics: Inside the workshop where robots of the future are being built.CBS News(2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [21]

    Dagoberto Cruz-Sandoval, Michele Murakami, Alyssa Kubota, and Laurel D Riek. 2025. PODER: A Robot Programming Framework to Further Inclusion of People with Mild Cognitive Impairment in HRI Research. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 599–609. doi:10. 1109/HRI61500.2025.10974039

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [22]

    Lorenzo Davoli and Johan Redström. 2014. Materializing infrastructures for par- ticipatory hacking. InProceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. 121–130. doi:10.1145/2598510.2602961

    work page doi:10.1145/2598510.2602961 2014

  22. [23]

    Anna Dobrosovestnova, Franziska Babel, and Hannah Pelikan. 2025. Beyond the user: Mapping subject positions for robots in public spaces. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 163–

    work page 2025

  23. [24]

    doi:10.1109/HRI61500.2025.10974177

    work page doi:10.1109/hri61500.2025.10974177 2025

  24. [25]

    Marek Doniec, Anqi Xu, and Daniela Rus. 2013. Robust real-time underwater digital video streaming using optical communication. In2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 5117–5124. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2013. 6631308

    work page doi:10.1109/icra.2013 2013

  25. [26]

    Julian Dubbell. 2015. Invisible labor, invisible play: Online gold farming and the boundary between jobs and games.Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L.18 (2015), 419

    work page 2015

  26. [27]

    Chelsey Edge, Sadman Sakib Enan, Michael Fulton, Jungseok Hong, Jiawei Mo, Kimberly Barthelemy, Hunter Bashaw, Berik Kallevig, Corey Knutson, Kevin Orpen, et al. 2020. Design and experiments with loco auv: A low cost open-source autonomous underwater vehicle. In2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 1761–176...

    work page doi:10.1109/iros45743 2020

  27. [28]

    Saad Elbeleidy, Alexandra Bejarano, and Tom Williams. 2024. A preliminary multilevel service blueprint of end-user development in teleoperated socially assistive robots. InHRI Workshop on End-User Development for Human-Robot Interaction (EUD4HRI)

    work page 2024

  28. [29]

    Would You Please Buy Me a Coffee?

    Abrar Fallatah, Bohkyung Chun, Sogol Balali, and Heather Knight. 2020. "Would You Please Buy Me a Coffee?": How MicroculturesImpact People’s Helpful Ac- tions Toward Robots. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Eindhoven, Netherlands)(DIS ’20). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 939–950. doi:10.1145...

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236.3395446 2020

  29. [30]

    Sarah E Fox, Samantha Shorey, Esther Y Kang, Dominique Montiel Valle, and Estefania Rodriguez. 2023. Patchwork: the hidden, human labor of AI integration within essential work.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–20. doi:10.1145/3579514

    work page doi:10.1145/3579514 2023

  30. [31]

    Anthony Francis, Claudia Pérez-d’Arpino, Chengshu Li, Fei Xia, Alexandre Alahi, Rachid Alami, Aniket Bera, Abhijat Biswas, Joydeep Biswas, Rohan Chandra, et al. 2025. Principles and guidelines for evaluating social robot navigation algorithms.ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction14, 2 (2025), 1–65. doi:10.1145/3700599

    work page doi:10.1145/3700599 2025

  31. [32]

    Marty Friedrich, Dorothea Langer, André Dettmann, and Angelika C Bullinger

    work page

  32. [33]

    Evaluation of human-robot encounters in public spaces-a question of method (s)? (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [34]

    Marty Friedrich, Dorothea Langer, André Dettmann, Angelika C Bullinger- Hoffmann, Astrid Oehme, Sophie Pourpart, Philipp Kotsch, and Paul Schweidler

    work page

  34. [35]

    InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction

    Evaluating public reactions to robots: A novel approach for structured, real- time observations in field studies. InInternational Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 233–252. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92980-9_15

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92980-9_15

  35. [36]

    Mafalda Gamboa, Mehmet Aydın Baytaş, Sjoerd Hendriks, and Sara Ljungblad

    work page

  36. [37]

    InProceedings of the seventeenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction

    Wisp: Drones as Companions for Breathing. InProceedings of the seventeenth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. 1–16. doi:10.1145/3569009.3572740

    work page doi:10.1145/3569009.3572740

  37. [38]

    Mafalda Gamboa, Sofia Thunberg, Patricia Alves-Oliveira, and Meagan B Loer- akker. 2025. We Are the Robots: Tapping Into the Lived Experiences of Wizards of Oz. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8. doi:10.1145/3706599.3720149

    work page doi:10.1145/3706599.3720149 2025

  38. [39]

    Pratyusha Ghosh, Arthi Haripriyan, Alex Chow, Signe Redfield, and Laurel D. Riek. 2025. Envisioning Telepresence Robots for Long Covid: A Critical Disability Lens.ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction15, 1 (2025), 1–30. doi:10.1145/3758101

    work page doi:10.1145/3758101 2025

  39. [40]

    David Gouaillier, Vincent Hugel, Pierre Blazevic, Chris Kilner, Jérôme Monceaux, Pascal Lafourcade, Brice Marnier, Julien Serre, and Bruno Maisonnier. 2009. Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid. In2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 769–774. doi:10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152516 DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Porfi...

    work page doi:10.1109/robot.2009.5152516 2009

  40. [41]

    Iliad Flow

    Colin M Gray, Thomas Mildner, and Ritika Gairola. 2025. Getting Trapped in Amazon’s" Iliad Flow": A Foundation for the Temporal Analysis of Dark Patterns. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–10. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713828

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713828 2025

  41. [43]

    Casey Lee Hunt, Kaiwen Sun, Zahra Dhuliawala, Fumi Tsukiyama, Allison Druin, Amanda Huynh, Daniel Leithinger, and Jason Yip. 2025. Children using Tabletop Telepresence Robots for Collaboration: A Longitudinal Case Study of Hybrid and Online Intergenerational Participatory Design. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syste...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598 2025

  42. [44]

    Han-Jong Kim, Chang Min Kim, and Tek-Jin Nam. 2018. Sketchstudio: Experience prototyping with 2.5-dimensional animated design scenarios. InProceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 831–843. doi:10.1145/3196709. 3196736

    work page doi:10.1145/3196709 2018

  43. [45]

    Alyssa Kubota, Emma IC Peterson, Vaishali Rajendren, Hadas Kress-Gazit, and Laurel D Riek. 2020. Jessie: Synthesizing social robot behaviors for personalized neurorehabilitation and beyond. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. 121–130. doi:10.1145/3319502.3374836

    work page doi:10.1145/3319502.3374836 2020

  44. [46]

    Christine P Lee, Pragathi Praveena, and Bilge Mutlu. 2024. Rex: Designing user- centered repair and explanations to address robot failures. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM designing interactive systems conference. 2911–2925. doi:10.1145/ 3643834.3661559

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [47]

    Temporary,

    Hee Rin Lee, Sarah Fox, EunJeong Cheon, and Samantha Shorey. 2025. Minding the Stop-Gap: Attending to the “Temporary, ” Unplanned, and Added Labor of Human-Robot Collaboration in Context. In2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 34–44. doi:10.1109/HRI61500. 2025.10973955

    work page doi:10.1109/hri61500 2025

  46. [48]

    Jung-Joo Lee, Christine Ee Ling Yap, and Virpi Roto. 2022. How HCI Adopts Ser- vice Design: Unpacking current perceptions and scopes of service design in HCI and identifying future opportunities. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14. doi:10.1145/3491102.3502128

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3502128 2022

  47. [49]

    Min Kyung Lee and Jodi Forlizzi. 2009. Designing adaptive robotic services.Proc. of IASDR’09(2009), 1–10

    work page 2009

  48. [50]

    Mei Yii Lim, David A Robb, Bruce W Wilson, and Helen Hastie. 2023. Feeding the coffee habit: a longitudinal study of a robo-barista. In2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1983–1990. doi:10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309621

    work page doi:10.1109/ro-man57019.2023.10309621 2023

  49. [51]

    Daniel M Lofaro, Martyna Bula, Patrick Early, Eric Eide, and Mannan Javid. 2015. ARCHR—Apparatus for Remote Control of Humanoid Robots. In2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). IEEE, 229–236. doi:10.1109/HUMANOIDS.2015.7363540

    work page doi:10.1109/humanoids.2015.7363540 2015

  50. [52]

    Matti Luhtala, Santeri Saarinen, Laura Virkki, Johanna Lappi-Ramula, Hans Hokka, Helen Tran, Matti Savolainen, Ilkka Heinonen, Sami Kanerva, Juha Rajala, et al. 2018. Proactive Rescuework by Enhancing Situational Awareness: Modeling Resources, Services and People. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3170427.3174349 2018

  51. [53]

    Patrick Martin, Kate Sicchio, Charles Dietzel, and Alicia Olivo. 2022. Towards a framework for dancing beyond demonstration. InProceedings of the 8th Interna- tional Conference on Movement and Computing. 1–7. doi:10.1145/3537972.3537981

    work page doi:10.1145/3537972.3537981 2022

  52. [54]

    Wrangling

    Merriam-Webster. 2026. “Wrangling”. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. https: //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrangling Accessed April 5, 2026

    work page 2026

  53. [55]

    Johanna Meurer, Christina Pakusch, Gunnar Stevens, Dave Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2020. A wizard of oz study on passengers’ experiences of a robo-taxi service in real-life settings. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM designing interactive systems conference. 1365–1377. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395465

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236.3395465 2020

  54. [56]

    Victor Zhi Heung Ngo, Roma Patel, Rachel Ramchurn, Alan Chamberlain, and Ayse Kucukyilmaz. 2024. Dancing with a Robot: An Experimental Study of Child-Robot Interaction in a Performative Art Setting. InInternational Conference on Social Robotics. Springer, 340–353. doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3525-2_29

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-96-3525-2_29 2024

  55. [57]

    Linda Onnasch and Eileen Roesler. 2021. A taxonomy to structure and analyze human–robot interaction.International Journal of Social Robotics13, 4 (2021), 833–849. doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00666-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-020-00666-5 2021

  56. [58]

    John-Paul Ore, Sebastian Elbaum, Amy Burgin, and Carrick Detweiler. 2015. Autonomous aerial water sampling.Journal of Field Robotics32, 8 (2015), 1095–

    work page 2015

  57. [59]

    doi:10.1002/rob.21591

    work page doi:10.1002/rob.21591

  58. [60]

    Matthew J Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, et al. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.bmj372 (2021). doi:10.1136/bmj.n71

    work page doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 2021

  59. [61]

    Michael Paton, Richard Rieber, Sarah Cruz, Matt Gildner, Chantelle Abma, Kevin Abma, Sina Aghli, Eric Ambrose, Avak Archanian, Elizabeth A Bagshaw, et al

    work page

  60. [62]

    In2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference

    2023 EELS field tests at Athabasca Glacier as an icy moon analogue envi- ronment. In2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, 1–18. doi:10.1109/AERO58975. 2024.10521174

    work page doi:10.1109/aero58975 2023

  61. [63]

    Hannah Pelikan, David Porfirio, and Katie Winkle. 2023. Designing better human- robot interactions through enactment, engagement, and reflection. InProceedings of the CUI@ HRI Workshop at the

    work page 2023

  62. [64]

    Hannah RM Pelikan, Fanjun Bu, and Wendy Ju. 2025. The People Behind the Robots: How Wizards Wrangle Robots in Public Deployments. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21. doi:10. 1145/3706598.3713237

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [65]

    Hannah RM Pelikan, Stuart Reeves, and Marina N Cantarutti. 2024. Encountering autonomous robots on public streets. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE Inter- national Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 561–571. doi:10.1145/3610977. 3634936

    work page doi:10.1145/3610977 2024

  64. [66]

    Weisswange, and Marc Hassenzahl

    Tuan Vu Pham, Thomas H. Weisswange, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2025. Impact of Affirmative and Negating Robot Gestures on Perceived Personality, Role, and Contribution of a Human Group Member. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 271–286. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735765

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735765 2025

  65. [67]

    David Porfirio, Evan Fisher, Allison Sauppé, Aws Albarghouthi, and Bilge Mutlu

    work page

  66. [68]

    Inproceedings of the 32nd annual ACM symposium on user Interface software and technology

    Bodystorming human-robot interactions. Inproceedings of the 32nd annual ACM symposium on user Interface software and technology. 479–491. doi:10.1145/ 3332165.3347957

    work page arXiv

  67. [69]

    David Porfirio, Allison Sauppé, Aws Albarghouthi, and Bilge Mutlu. 2020. Trans- forming robot programs based on social context. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI con- ference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376355

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376355 2020

  68. [70]

    Emmanuel Pot, Jérôme Monceaux, Rodolphe Gelin, and Bruno Maisonnier. 2009. Choregraphe: a graphical tool for humanoid robot programming. InRo-man 2009-the 18th ieee international symposium on robot and human interactive com- munication. IEEE, 46–51. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326209

    work page doi:10.1109/roman.2009.5326209 2009

  69. [71]

    Marc Raibert, Michael Chepponis, and HBJR Brown. 1986. Running on four legs as though they were one.IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation2, 2 (1986), 70–82. doi:10.1109/JRA.1986.1087044

    work page doi:10.1109/jra.1986.1087044 1986

  70. [72]

    Daniel Rakita, Bilge Mutlu, Michael Gleicher, and Laura M Hiatt. 2019. Shared control–based bimanual robot manipulation.Science Robotics4, 30 (2019), eaaw0955. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aaw0955

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aaw0955 2019

  71. [73]

    Sarah Reeder, Lorelei Kelly, Bobak Kechavarzi, and Selma Sabanovic. 2010. Break- bot: a social motivator for the workplace. InProceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(Aarhus, Denmark)(DIS ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61–64. doi:10.1145/1858171.1858184

    work page doi:10.1145/1858171.1858184 2010

  72. [74]

    Laurel D Riek and Lilly Irani. 2025. The Future Is Rosie?: Disempower- ing Arguments About Automation and What to Do About It. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714151

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714151 2025

  73. [75]

    Virpi Roto, Jung-Joo Lee, Effie Lai-Chong Law, and John Zimmerman. 2021. The Overlaps and Boundaries Between Service Design and User Experience Design. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, USA)(DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1915–1926. doi:10.1145/3461778.3462058

    work page doi:10.1145/3461778.3462058 2021

  74. [76]

    Eike Schneiders, Steve Benford, Alan Chamberlain, Clara Mancini, Simon Castle- Green, Victor Ngo, Ju Row Farr, Matt Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, and Joel Fischer

    work page

  75. [77]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Designing multispecies worlds for robots, cats, and humans. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16. doi:10. 1145/3613904.3642115

    work page arXiv 2024

  76. [78]

    Eike Schneiders, Alan Chamberlain, Joel E Fischer, Steve Benford, Simon Castle- Green, Victor Ngo, Ayse Kucukyilmaz, Pepita Barnard, Ju Row Farr, Matt Adams, et al. 2023. TAS for cats: An artist-led exploration of trustworthy autonomous sys- tems for companion animals. InProceedings of the First International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems. 1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3597512.3597517 2023

  77. [79]

    Natalie Sherman. 2018. Wanted: Robot wrangler, no experience required.BBC (2018)

    work page 2018

  78. [80]

    Deborah Silvis, Victor R Lee, Jody Clarke-Midura, and Jessica F Shumway. 2022. The technical matters: young children debugging (with) tangible coding toys. Information and Learning Sciences123, 9/10 (2022), 577–600. doi:10.1108/ILS-12- 2021-0109

    work page doi:10.1108/ils-12- 2022

  79. [81]

    SoftBank Robotics America, Inc. 2026. Meet Pepper: The Robot Built for People. https://us.softbankrobotics.com/pepper. https://us.softbankrobotics.com/pepper Official product page. Copyright notice shows 2026; accessed 2026-04-05

    work page 2026

  80. [82]

    Andrew Speers and Michael Jenkin. 2013. Diver-based control of a tethered unmanned underwater vehicle. InInternational Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics, Vol. 2. SCITEPRESS, 200–206. doi:10.5220/ 0004457102000206

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.