Hankyung Kim
Youn-Kyung Lim
ABSTRACT
Intelligent systems learn and evolve depending on what kinds of input are given and how people actually use them after deployment. While such a characteristic may be a troubling property for AI user experience designers, it also imbues an intelligent system with an open-ended quality, empowering end-users to ‘design’ their own system in use to achieve more desired experiences. In light of this, we conducted in-depth interviews with 16 users of various AI-based everyday recommender systems, investigating how people design their AI user experiences in actual use contexts. Exploring people’s current experiences of adopting and adapting those systems to achieve their own desired experiences, we discovered three styles of end-user design of their experiences: teaching, resisting, and repurposing. We end with a discussion of the implications of our findings, recognizing end-users’ motivation to challenge a prescribed experience of an intelligent system.
- Christopher Alexander. 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Vol. 5. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Oscar Alvarado, Hendrik Heuer, Vero Vanden Abeele, Andreas Breiter, and Katrien Verbert. 2020. Middle-Aged Video Consumers’ Beliefs About Algorithmic Recommendations on YouTube. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2, Article 121 (oct 2020), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415192Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mathilde Bekker and John Long. 2000. User involvement in the design of human—computer interactions: some similarities and differences between design approaches. In People and Computers XIV—Usability or Else! Proceedings of HCI 2000. Springer, 135–147.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jesse Josua Benjamin, Arne Berger, Nick Merrill, and James Pierce. 2021. Machine Learning Uncertainty as a Design Material: A Post-Phenomenological Inquiry. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Susanne Bødker. 1999. Computer applications as mediators of design and use. DAIMI Report Series542 (1999).Google Scholar
- Susanne Bødker. 2006. When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles. 1–8.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrea Botero, Kari-Hans Kommonen, and Sanna Marttila. 2010. Expanding design space: Design-in-use activities and strategies. (2010).Google Scholar
- Lucas Bourtoule, Varun Chandrasekaran, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Hengrui Jia, Adelin Travers, Baiwu Zhang, David Lie, and Nicolas Papernot. 2021. Machine unlearning. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 141–159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard E Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. sage.Google Scholar
- U Brandes, S Stich, and M Wender. 2008. Design by use: The everyday metamorphosis of things (Board of International Research in Design). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhuser Architecture (2008).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Finn Brunton and Helen Nissenbaum. 2015. Obfuscation: A user’s guide for privacy and protest. Mit Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Ann DeVito. 2021. Adaptive Folk Theorization as a Path to Algorithmic Literacy on Changing Platforms.Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–38.Google Scholar
- Anind K Dey, Stephanie Rosenthal, and Manuela Veloso. 2009. Using interaction to improve intelligence: how intelligent systems should ask users for input. In Workshop on Intelligence and Interaction: IJCAI.Google Scholar
- Yvonne Dittricll, Sara Erikseji, and Christina Hanssonl. 2002. PD in the Wild; Evolving practices of Design in Use. In Proceedings of the participatory design conference. Citeseer, 23–25.Google Scholar
- Alan Dix. 2007. Designing for appropriation. In Proceedings of HCI 2007 The 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference University of Lancaster, UK 21. 1–4.Google Scholar
- Paul Dourish. 2003. The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12, 4 (2003), 465–490.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Dourish. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and ubiquitous computing 8, 1 (2004), 19–30.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mengnan Du, Ninghao Liu, and Xia Hu. 2019. Techniques for interpretable machine learning. Commun. ACM 63, 1 (2019), 68–77.Google ScholarDigital Library
- John J Dudley and Per Ola Kristensson. 2018. A review of user interface design for interactive machine learning. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 8, 2 (2018), 1–37.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malin Eiband, Charlotte Anlauff, Tim Ordenewitz, Martin Zürn, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2019. Understanding Algorithms through Exploration. (2019).Google Scholar
- Malin Eiband, Sarah Theres Völkel, Daniel Buschek, Sophia Cook, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2019. When people and algorithms meet: User-reported problems in intelligent everyday applications. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 96–106.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael D. Ekstrand, Daniel Kluver, F. Maxwell Harper, and Joseph A. Konstan. 2015. Letting Users Choose Recommender Algorithms: An Experimental Study. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Vienna, Austria) (RecSys ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792838.2800195Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael D. Ekstrand and Martijn C. Willemsen. 2016. Behaviorism is Not Enough: Better Recommendations through Listening to Users. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (RecSys ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1145/2959100.2959179Google ScholarDigital Library
- Motahhare Eslami, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, Kristen Vaccaro, Aimee Rickman, Kevin Hamilton, and Alex Kirlik. 2016. First I" like" it, then I hide it: Folk Theories of Social Feeds. In Proceedings of the 2016 cHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2371–2382.Google ScholarDigital Library
- William W Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. Ambiguity as a resource for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 233–240.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Google. 2019. People + AI Guidebook. https://pair.withgoogle.com/Google Scholar
- Leslie Haddon, Enid Mante, Bartolomeo Sapio, Kari-Hans Kommonen, Leopoldina Fortunati, and Annevi Kant. 2005. Everyday Innovators: Researching the role of users in shaping ICT’s. Springer.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jaron Harambam, Dimitrios Bountouridis, Mykola Makhortykh, and Joris van Hoboken. 2019. Designing for the Better by Taking Users into Account: A Qualitative Evaluation of User Control Mechanisms in (News) Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Copenhagen, Denmark) (RecSys ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3298689.3347014Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Maxwell Harper, Funing Xu, Harmanpreet Kaur, Kyle Condiff, Shuo Chang, and Loren Terveen. 2015. Putting Users in Control of Their Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Vienna, Austria) (RecSys ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792838.2800179Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chen He, Denis Parra, and Katrien Verbert. 2016. Interactive recommender systems: A survey of the state of the art and future research challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications 56 (2016), 9–27.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Austin Henderson and Morten Kyng. 1995. There’s no place like home: Continuing design in use. In Readings in Human–Computer Interaction. Elsevier, 793–803.Google Scholar
- Kristina Höök. 2000. Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting with computers 12, 4 (2000), 409–426.Google Scholar
- Lara Houston, Steven J Jackson, Daniela K Rosner, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Meg Young, and Laewoo Kang. 2016. Values in repair. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1403–1414.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juhani Iivari and Netta Iivari. 2006. Varieties of user-centeredness. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06), Vol. 8. IEEE, 176a–176a.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Jugovac and Dietmar Jannach. 2017. Interacting with recommenders—overview and research directions. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 7, 3 (2017), 1–46.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hyunjin Kang and Chen Lou. 2022. AI agency vs. human agency: understanding human–AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 27, 5 (2022), zmac014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jie Kang, Kyle Condiff, Shuo Chang, Joseph A Konstan, Loren Terveen, and F Maxwell Harper. 2017. Understanding how people use natural language to ask for recommendations. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 229–237.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Algorithmic folk theories and identity: How TikTok users co-produce Knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–44.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Da-jung Kim and Youn-kyung Lim. 2019. Co-performing agent: Design for building user-agent partnership in learning and adaptive services. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google Scholar
- Keunwoo Kim, Minjung Park, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2021. Guiding Preferred Driving Style Using Voice in Autonomous Vehicles: An On-Road Wizard-of-Oz Study. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021. 352–364.Google Scholar
- Abby Koenig. 2020. The algorithms know me and i know them: using student journals to uncover algorithmic literacy awareness. Computers and Composition 58 (2020), 102611.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cindy Kohtala, Sampsa Hyysalo, and Jack Whalen. 2020. A taxonomy of users’ active design engagement in the 21st century. Design Studies 67 (2020), 27–54.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lenneke Kuijer and Elisa Giaccardi. 2018. Co-performance: Conceptualizing the role of artificial agency in the design of everyday life. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos. 2010. Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries. 295–304.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Angela Y Lee, Hannah Mieczkowski, Nicole B Ellison, and Jeffrey T Hancock. 2022. The Algorithmic Crystal: Conceptualizing the Self through Algorithmic Personalization on TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–22.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Min Kyung Lee, Junsung Kim, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sara Kiesler. 2015. Personalization revisited: a reflective approach helps people better personalize health services and motivates them to increase physical activity. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 743–754.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henry Lieberman, Fabio Paternò, and Volker Wulf. 2006. End user development. Vol. 9. Springer.Google Scholar
- Youn-kyung Lim, Daesung Kim, Jaesung Jo, and Jong-bum Woo. 2012. Discovery-driven prototyping for user-driven creativity. IEEE Pervasive Computing 12, 3 (2012), 74–80.Google Scholar
- Martin Lindvall, Jesper Molin, and Jonas Löwgren. 2018. From machine learning to machine teaching: the importance of UX. Interactions 25, 6 (2018), 52–57.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leah Maestri and Ron Wakkary. 2011. Understanding repair as a creative process of everyday design. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 81–90.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sampada Marathe and S Shyam Sundar. 2011. What drives customization? Control or identity?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 781–790.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nolwenn Maudet. 2019. Dead Angles of Personalization: Integrating Curation Algorithms in the Fabric of Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (San Diego, CA, USA) (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1439–1448. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322322Google ScholarDigital Library
- Katherine L Milkman, Dolly Chugh, and Max H Bazerman. 2009. How can decision making be improved?Perspectives on psychological science 4, 4 (2009), 379–383.Google Scholar
- Thomas P Moran. 2002. Everyday adaptive design. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 13–14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cecily Morrison, Edward Cutrell, Martin Grayson, Anja Thieme, Alex Taylor, Geert Roumen, Camilla Longden, Sebastian Tschiatschek, Rita Faia Marques, and Abigail Sellen. 2021. Social Sensemaking with AI: Designing an Open-ended AI experience with a Blind Child. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J Nelson, S Buisine, and A Aoussat. 2009. Design in use: some methodological considerations. In CIRP MS’09, 42nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems. 3–5.Google Scholar
- Felicia Ng, Jina Suh, and Gonzalo Ramos. 2020. Understanding and supporting knowledge decomposition for machine teaching. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1183–1194.Google ScholarDigital Library
- James Pierce. 2012. Undesigning technology: considering the negation of design by design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 957–966.Google ScholarDigital Library
- James Pierce and Eric Paulos. 2011. Second-hand interactions: investigating reacquisition and dispossession practices around domestic objects. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2385–2394.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Verus Pronk, Wim Verhaegh, Adolf Proidl, and Marco Tiemann. 2007. Incorporating User Control into Recommender Systems Based on Naive Bayesian Classification. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (RecSys ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/1297231.1297244Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gonzalo Ramos, Christopher Meek, Patrice Simard, Jina Suh, and Soroush Ghorashi. 2020. Interactive machine teaching: a human-centered approach to building machine-learned models. Human–Computer Interaction 35, 5-6 (2020), 413–451.Google Scholar
- Microsoft Research. 2021. Research talk: Bucket of me: Using few-shot learning to realize teachable AI systems. https://youtu.be/WpvOkIJjg-AGoogle Scholar
- Daniela Rosner and Jonathan Bean. 2009. Learning from IKEA hacking: i’m not one to decoupage a tabletop and call it a day.. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 419–422.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Téo Sanchez, Baptiste Caramiaux, Jules Françoise, Frédéric Bevilacqua, and Wendy E Mackay. 2021. How do people train a machine? Strategies and (Mis) Understandings. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–26.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design 4, 1 (2008), 5–18.Google Scholar
- Tobias Schnabel, Saleema Amershi, Paul N Bennett, Peter Bailey, and Thorsten Joachims. 2020. The Impact of More Transparent Interfaces on Behavior in Personalized Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 991–1000.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tobias Schnabel, Gonzalo Ramos, and Saleema Amershi. 2020. “Who doesn’t like dinosaurs?” Finding and Eliciting Richer Preferences for Recommendation. In Fourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 398–407.Google Scholar
- Phoebe Sengers and Bill Gaver. 2006. Staying open to interpretation: engaging multiple meanings in design and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems. 99–108.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jin-min Seok, Jong-bum Woo, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2014. Non-finito products: a new design space of user creativity for personal user experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 693–702.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Shove. 2007. The design of everyday life. Berg.Google Scholar
- Ignacio Siles, Johan Espinoza-Rojas, Adrián Naranjo, and María Fernanda Tristán. 2019. The mutual domestication of users and algorithmic recommendations on Netflix. Communication, Culture & Critique 12, 4 (2019), 499–518.Google Scholar
- Patrice Y Simard, Saleema Amershi, David M Chickering, Alicia Edelman Pelton, Soroush Ghorashi, Christopher Meek, Gonzalo Ramos, Jina Suh, Johan Verwey, Mo Wang, 2017. Machine teaching: A new paradigm for building machine learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06742 (2017).Google Scholar
- Ellen Simpson, Andrew Hamann, and Bryan Semaan. 2022. How to Tame" Your" Algorithm: LGBTQ+ Users’ Domestication of TikTok. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, GROUP (2022), 1–27.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sehee Son, Hyeji Kim, Hoyeon Nam, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2021. User Expectations of Serendipitous Recommender Systems. In IASDR Conference 2021. International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR).Google Scholar
- Hariharan Subramonyam, Colleen Seifert, and Eytan Adar. 2021. Towards a process model for co-creating AI experiences. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021. 1529–1543.Google Scholar
- Kristen Vaccaro, Dylan Huang, Motahhare Eslami, Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, and Karrie Karahalios. 2018. The illusion of control: Placebo effects of control settings. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jhim Kiel M Verame, Enrico Costanza, Joel Fischer, Andy Crabtree, Sarvapali D Ramchurn, Tom Rodden, and Nicholas R Jennings. 2018. Learning from the veg box: designing unpredictability in agency delegation. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarah Theres Völkel, Renate Haeuslschmid, Anna Werner, Heinrich Hussmann, and Andreas Butz. 2020. How to Trick AI: Users’ Strategies for Protecting Themselves from Automatic Personality Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–15.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eric Von Hippel. 2006. Democratizing innovation. the MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Ron Wakkary and Leah Maestri. 2007. The resourcefulness of everyday design. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition. 163–172.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ron Wakkary and Leah Maestri. 2008. Aspects of everyday design: Resourcefulness, adaptation, and emergence. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 24, 5 (2008), 478–491.Google Scholar
- Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhibin Zhou, Lingyun Sun, Yuyang Zhang, Xuanhui Liu, and Qing Gong. 2020. ML lifecycle canvas: designing machine learning-empowered UX with material lifecycle thinking. Human–Computer Interaction 35, 5-6 (2020), 362–386.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Investigating How Users Design Everyday Intelligent Systems in Use
Recommendations
Teaching-Learning Interaction: A New Concept for Interaction Design to Support Reflective User Agency in Intelligent Systems
DIS '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems ConferenceIntelligent systems in everyday lives learn about their users to tailor services over time. However, these systems are often designed with little consideration of user agency on their learning processes, hindering users from taking full advantage of ...
Social Sensemaking with AI: Designing an Open-ended AI Experience with a Blind Child
CHI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsAI technologies are often used to aid people in performing discrete tasks with well-defined goals (e.g., recognising faces in images). Emerging technologies that provide continuous, real-time information enable more open-ended AI experiences. In ...
Towards Design Principles for User-Centric Explainable AI in Fraud Detection
Artificial Intelligence in HCIAbstractExperts rely on fraud detection and decision support systems to analyze fraud cases, a growing problem in digital retailing and banking. With the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for decision support, those experts face the black-box problem ...
Comments