skip to main content
10.1145/3613904.3642066acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Investigation of US Universities' Implementation of FERPA Student Directory Policies and Student Privacy Preferences

Published: 11 May 2024 Publication History

Abstract

The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is intended to protect student privacy, but has not adapted well to current technology. We consider a special class of student data: directory information. Unlike other FERPA-controlled data, directory information (e.g., student names, contact information, university affiliation) can be shared publicly online or by request without explicit permission.
To understand this policy’s impact, we investigated 100 top-ranked US universities’ directory information sharing practices, finding they publish student contact information online, and provide PII offline by request to many parties, including data brokers. Universities provide limited opt out choices, and focus on negative effects when advising students about opting out. Lastly, we evaluate student preferences regarding the identified directory practices through a survey of 991 US university students. Based on these results, we provide recommendations to align directory practices with student privacy preferences.

Supplemental Material

MP4 File - Video Presentation
Video Presentation
Transcript for: Video Presentation
TXT File - The list of universities investigated.
The file contains the list of universities we investigated.

References

[1]
Idris Adjerid, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein. 2014. Framing and the malleability of privacy choices. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on the Economics of Information Security.
[2]
American Council on Education. [n. d.]. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[3]
Janine Arantes. 2023. Educational data brokers: using the walkthrough method to identify data brokering by edtech platforms. Learning, Media and Technology (2023), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2022.2160986
[4]
ASL Marketing. [n. d.]. Privacy-First Student & Youth Data. https://aslmarketing.com. https://aslmarketing.com Accessed 12/11/2022.
[5]
Michael Bailey, David Dittrich, Erin Kenneally, and Doug Maughan. 2012. The menlo report. IEEE Security & Privacy 10, 2 (2012), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2012.52
[6]
David G Balash, Dongkun Kim, Darika Shaibekova, Rahel A Fainchtein, Micah Sherr, and Adam J Aviv. 2021. Examining the examiners: Students’ privacy and security perceptions of online proctoring services. In Seventeenth symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2021). 633–652.
[7]
Susan B Barnes. 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday (2006). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394
[8]
Kathleen Benitez and Bradley Malin. 2010. Evaluating re-identification risks with respect to the HIPAA privacy rule. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 17, 2 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2009.000026
[9]
Erik Carl Bennett. 2020. Jumping into the Cloud: Privacy, Security and Trust of Cloud-Based Computing within K-12 American Public Education. Ph. D. Dissertation. City University of New York.
[10]
College Board. [n. d.]. Understand College Campus and Student Body Size. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/plan-for-college/college-basics/types-of-colleges/understand-college-campus-student-body-size. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[11]
Stian Botnevik, Mohammad Khalil, and Barbara Wasson. 2020. Student awareness and privacy perception of learning analytics in higher education. In Addressing Global Challenges and Quality Education: 15th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2020, Heidelberg, Germany, September 14–18, 2020, Proceedings 15. Springer, 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57717-9_30
[12]
Laura Brandimarte, Alessandro Acquisti, and George Loewenstein. 2013. Misplaced Confidences: Privacy and the Control Paradox. Social Psychological and Personality Science 4, 3 (2013), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612455931
[13]
Michael Brown and Carrie Klein. 2020. Whose data? Which rights? Whose power? A policy discourse analysis of student privacy policy documents. The Journal of Higher Education 91, 7 (2020), 1149–1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1770045
[14]
Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108324514
[15]
Jarret Cummings. 2022. A Possible Move Toward Comprehensive Federal Privacy Legislation. Educause Review (2022). https://er.educause.edu/articles/2022/8/a-possible-move-toward-comprehensive-federal-privacy-legislation
[16]
Michele Lee Cunha. 2018. Privacy Rights for Families and Children in K-12 Schools: A Mixed-Methods Study on the Effects of Perceptions of Educators on Implementation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Ph. D. Dissertation. Concordia University Irvine.
[17]
Adrian Dabrowski, Georg Merzdovnik, Johanna Ullrich, Gerald Sendera, and Edgar Weippl. 2019. Measuring Cookies and Web Privacy In a Post-GDPR World. In Passive and Active Measurement: 20th International Conference, PAM 2019, Puerto Varas, Chile, March 27–29, 2019, Proceedings 20. Springer, 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15986-3_17
[18]
Lynn M Daggett. 2008. FERPA in the twenty-first century: Failure to effectively regulate privacy for all students. Cath. UL Rev. 58 (2008), 59.
[19]
Martin Degeling, Christine Utz, Christopher Lentzsch, Henry Hosseini, Florian Schaub, and Thorsten Holz. 2018. We value your privacy... now take some cookies: Measuring the GDPR’s impact on web privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.05096 (2018). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1808.05096
[20]
Martin R Dowding. 2011. Interpreting privacy on campus: the freedom of information and personal privacy and Ontario universities. Canadian Journal of Communication 36, 1 (2011), 11. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2011v36n1a2252
[21]
Rachel Fishman. 2012. Perception vs. Reality: The Typical College Student. https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/varying-degrees/perception-vs-reality-typical-college-student/. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[22]
Flytedesk. [n. d.]. Flytedesk - How It Works. https://www.flytedesk.com/how-it-works. https://www.flytedesk.com/how-it-works Accessed 12/11/2022.
[23]
Jorge Galarza. 2019. A Learning Style Group Comparison of Southern California Public School Employees: Investigating the Level of Understanding Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) When Using a Preferred Learning Style Training. Ph. D. Dissertation. California Baptist University.
[24]
Ann Gilley and Jerry W Gilley. 2006. FERPA: What do faculty know? What can universities do?College and University 82, 1 (2006), 17.
[25]
Thomas Groß. 2021. Validity and reliability of the scale internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC). Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (2021). https://doi.org/10.2478/popets-2021-0026
[26]
Melanie Hanson. 2022. College Enrollment & Student Demographic Statistics. https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[27]
Melanie Hanson. 2022. College Enrollment & Student Demographic Statistics. https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[28]
Sarah Hartman-Caverly. 2023. The Failure of FERPA. Inside Higher Ed (2023). https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/10/26/harvard-doxing-truck-shows-ferpas-obsolescence-opinion
[29]
Andrew F Hayes and Klaus Krippendorff. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication methods and measures 1, 1 (2007), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
[30]
Maximilian Hils, Daniel W Woods, and Rainer Böhme. 2020. Measuring the emergence of consent management on the web. In Proceedings of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference. 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1145/3419394.3423647
[31]
John B. Horrigan. 2016. Digital Readiness Gaps. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/09/20/digital-readiness-gaps/. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[32]
Steven Johns and Karen Lawson. 2005. University undergraduate students and library-related privacy issues. Library & Information Science Research 27, 4 (2005), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2005.08.006
[33]
Kyle ML Jones, Abigail Goben, Michael R. Perry, Mariana Regalado, Dorothea Salo, Andrew D. Asher, Maura A. Smale, and Kristin A. Briney. 2023. Transparency and Consent: Student Perspectives on Educational Data Analytics Scenarios. portal: Libraries and the Academy 23, 3 (2023), 485–515. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2023.a901565
[34]
Patrick Gage Kelley, Michael Benisch, Lorrie Faith Cranor, and Norman Sadeh. 2011. When are users comfortable sharing locations with advertisers?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2449–2452. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979299
[35]
Mohammad Khalil, Paul Prinsloo, and Sharon Slade. 2018. User consent in MOOCs–micro, meso, and macro perspectives. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 19, 5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3908
[36]
Mohammad Khalil, Paul Prinsloo, and Sharon Slade. 2022. In the nexus of integrity and surveillance: Proctoring (re) considered. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 38, 6 (2022), 1589–1602. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12713
[37]
Mohammad Khalil, Paul Prinsloo, and Sharon Slade. 2023. Fairness, Trust, Transparency, Equity, and Responsibility in Learning Analytics. Journal of Learning Analytics 10, 1 (2023), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7983
[38]
Tadayoshi Kohno, Yasemin Acar, and Wulf Loh. 2023. Ethical Frameworks and Computer Security Trolley Problems: Foundations for Conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14326 (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2302.14326
[39]
Maina Korir, Sharon Slade, Wayne Holmes, Yingfei Héliot, and Bart Rienties. 2023. Investigating the dimensions of students’ privacy concern in the collection, use and sharing of data for learning analytics. Computers in human behavior reports 9 (2023), 100262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100262
[40]
Michael Kretschmer, Jan Pennekamp, and Klaus Wehrle. 2021. Cookie banners and privacy policies: Measuring the impact of the GDPR on the web. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 15, 4 (2021), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3466722
[41]
Daniel G Krutka, Ryan M Smits, and Troy A Willhelm. 2021. Don’t be evil: Should we use Google in schools?TechTrends 65, 4 (2021), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00599-4
[42]
LexisNexis. [n. d.]. LexisNexis Risk Solutions. https://risk.lexisnexis.com. https://risk.lexisnexis.com Accessed 12/11/2022.
[43]
David M Liu. 2017. Mining FERPA Notices for Textual Analysis of Education Privacy Policy. https://dliu18.github.io/files/papers/legal_nlp.pdf.
[44]
Qinyi Liu and Mohammad Khalil. 2023. Understanding privacy and data protection issues in learning analytics using a systematic review. British Journal of Educational Technology 54, 6 (2023), 1715–1747. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13388
[45]
Chaoyi Lu, Baojun Liu, Yiming Zhang, Zhou Li, Fenglu Zhang, Haixin Duan, Ying Liu, Joann Qiongna Chen, Jinjin Liang, Zaifeng Zhang, 2021. From WHOIS to WHOWAS: A Large-Scale Measurement Study of Domain Registration Privacy under the GDPR. In NDSS. https://doi.org/10.14722/ndss.2021.23134
[46]
Roxana Marachi and Lawrence Quill. 2020. The case of Canvas: Longitudinal datafication through learning management systems. Teaching in Higher Education 25, 4 (2020), 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1739641
[47]
Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174
[48]
Karen McVeigh. 2011. Cyberstalking ’now more common’ than face-to-face stalking. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/08/cyberstalking-study-victims-men. The Guardian 13 (2011), 31. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[49]
Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger. 2020. The commercial transformation of America’s schools. Phi Delta Kappan 102, 2 (2020), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720963223
[50]
National Center For Education Statistics. 2021. Fast Facts - Enrollment. https://nces.ed.gov/fastFacts/display.asp?id=98. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[51]
Department of Education. 2011. Model Notice for Directory Information. https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/model-notice-directory-information.
[52]
Abelardo Pardo and George Siemens. 2014. Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British journal of educational technology 45, 3 (2014), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12152
[53]
Cecelia Parks. 2017. Beyond compliance: Students and FERPA in the age of big data. Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy 2, 2 (2017), 23. https://doi.org/10.5860/jifp.v2i2.6253
[54]
Anthony Patt and Richard Zeckhauser. 200. Action Bias and Environmental Decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21, 1 (200), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026517309871
[55]
Eyal Peer, Laura Brandimarte, Sonam Samat, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2017. Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 70 (2017), 153 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
[56]
Paul Prinsloo and Sharon Slade. 2015. Student privacy self-management: Implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723585
[57]
Paul Prinsloo, Sharon Slade, and Mohammad Khalil. 2022. The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology 53, 4 (2022), 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13216
[58]
Adrian E Raftery. 1995. Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological methodology (1995), 111–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063
[59]
Tamjid Al Rahat, Minjun Long, and Yuan Tian. 2022. Is Your Policy Compliant? A Deep Learning-based Empirical Study of Privacy Policies’ Compliance with GDPR. In Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society. 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1145/3559613.3563195
[60]
Amy Rhoades. 2020. Big tech makes big data out of your child: The FERPA loophole edtech exploits to monetize student data. Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 9 (2020), 445.
[61]
Katelyn Ringrose. 2018. Data Collection in Schools: Privacy Implications for K-12 Students under a Weakened FERPA. Dartmouth LJ 16 (2018), 130.
[62]
Alan Rubel and Kyle ML Jones. 2016. Student privacy in learning analytics: An information ethics perspective. The information society 32, 2 (2016), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2016.1130502
[63]
N Cameron Russell, Joel R Reidenberg, Elizabeth Martin, and Thomas B Norton. 2018. Transparency and the marketplace for student data. Va. JL & Tech. 22 (2018), 107.
[64]
Nikita Samarin, Shayna Kothari, Zaina Siyed, Primal Wijesekera, Jordan Fischer, Chris Hoofnagle, and Serge Egelman. 2021. Investigating the Compliance of Android App Developers with the CCPA. In 5th Workshop on Technology and Consumer Protection (ConPro’21).
[65]
Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder, and Peter M Todd. 2010. Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of consumer research 37, 3 (2010), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1086/651235
[66]
Alexander R Schrameyer, Tracy M Graves, David M Hua, and Nile C Brandt. 2016. Online Student Collaboration and FERPA Considerations. TechTrends 60, 6 (2016), 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0117-5
[67]
Justin Sherman. 2023. People Search Data Brokers, Stalking, and ‘Publicly Available Information’ Carve-Outs. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/people-search-data-brokers-stalking-and-publicly-available-information-carve-outs. Lawfare (2023).
[68]
Sharon Slade and Paul Prinsloo. 2013. Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 10 (2013), 1510–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479366
[69]
Sharon Slade and Paul Prinsloo. 2014. Student perspectives on the use of their data: Between intrusion, surveillance and care. In EDEN Conference Proceedings. 291–300.
[70]
Sharon Slade, Paul Prinsloo, and Mohammad Khalil. 2019. Learning analytics at the intersections of student trust, disclosure and benefit. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on learning analytics & knowledge. 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1145/3303772.3303796
[71]
Sharon Slade, Paul Prinsloo, and Mohammad Khalil. 2023. Trust us, they said. Mapping the contours of trustworthiness in learning analytics. Information and Learning Sciences 124, 910 (2023), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2023-0042
[72]
Aaron Smith, Lee Rainie, and Kathryn Zickuhr. 2011. College students and technology. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/07/19/college-students-and-technology/. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[73]
Elliott Sober. 2002. Instrumentalism, Parsimony, and the Akaike Framework. Philosophy of Science 69, S3 (2002), S112–S123. https://doi.org/10.1086/341839
[74]
Mindy B Steinberg. 2003. A comparative study of the policies, procedures, training and enforcement of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) at public and private colleges and universities in four Carnegie classifications of institutions of higher education in the United States. University of Louisville.
[75]
Francesca Stevens, Jason RC Nurse, and Budi Arief. 2021. Cyber stalking, cyber harassment, and adult mental health: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 24, 6 (2021), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0253
[76]
Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Vol. 15. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.5072/genderopen-develop-7
[77]
Student Press Law Center. [n. d.]. FERPA: What it means and how it works. https://splc.org/ferpa-what-it-means-and-how-it-works/. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[78]
Jenny Tang, Eleanor Birrell, and Ada Lerner. 2022. Replication: How Well Do My Results Generalize Now? The External Validity of Online Privacy and Security Surveys. In Eighteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2022). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 367–385. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.14036
[79]
Kurt Thomas, Devdatta Akhawe, Michael Bailey, Dan Boneh, Elie Bursztein, Sunny Consolvo, Nicola Dell, Zakir Durumeric, Patrick Gage Kelley, Deepak Kumar, 2021. Sok: Hate, harassment, and the changing landscape of online abuse. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40001.2021.00028
[80]
Melody M Tsang, Shu-Chun Ho, and Ting-Peng Liang. 2004. Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: An empirical study. International journal of electronic commerce 8, 3 (2004), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2004.11044301
[81]
Markus Tschersich. 2015. Comparing the Configuration of Privacy Settings on Social Network Sites Based on Different Default Options. In 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 3453–3462. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.416
[82]
Julie Underwood. 2017. Under The Law: You say ‘records,’and I say ‘data’. Phi Delta Kappan 98, 8 (2017), 74–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717708303
[83]
UniRank. [n. d.]. A-Z Universities in the United States. https://www.4icu.org/us/a-z/. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[84]
US Code. 1974. Title 34 Subtitle A Part 99 Subpart D §99.37. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-99/subpart-D/section-99.37.
[85]
US Congress. 1974. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. 1974.
[86]
US Congress. 1996. Solomon Act - 10 U.S. Code § 983. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/983.
[87]
US Department of Education. [n. d.]. Directory Information. https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/content/directory-information. Accessed 12/11/2022.
[88]
U.S. Department of Education. 2020. PPRA Model General Notice of Rights. https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/ppra-model-general-notice-rights. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[89]
US Department of Education. 2021. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) Home Page. "https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html".
[90]
Emily Vogels. 2021. The State of Online Harassment. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/. Accessed 12/11/2023.
[91]
Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright, Dragan Gašević, Ricardo Tejeiro, Yi-Shan Tsai, and Kate Bennett. 2019. The student expectations of learning analytics questionnaire. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 35, 5 (2019), 633–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12366
[92]
Alexander Whitelock-Wainwright, Yi-Shan Tsai, Hendrik Drachsler, Maren Scheffel, and Dragan Gašević. 2021. An exploratory latent class analysis of student expectations towards learning analytics services. The Internet and Higher Education 51 (2021), 100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100818
[93]
Emma Whitford and Caroline Howard. [n. d.]. Forbes America’s Top Colleges 2021. https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/. https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/ Accessed 12/11/2022.
[94]
Richmond Y Wong, Andrew Chong, and R Cooper Aspegren. 2023. Privacy Legislation as Business Risks: How GDPR and CCPA are Represented in Technology Companies’ Investment Risk Disclosures. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3579515
[95]
Eric James York. 2021. Digital surveillance in online writing instruction: Panopticism and simulation in learning management systems. Computers and Composition 62 (2021), 102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102680
[96]
Razieh Nokhbeh Zaeem and K Suzanne Barber. 2020. The effect of the GDPR on privacy policies: Recent progress and future promise. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 12, 1 (2020), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3389685
[97]
Elana Zeide. 2015. Student privacy principles for the age of big data: Moving beyond FERPA and FIPPS. Drexel L. Rev. 8 (2015), 339.
[98]
Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile books.

Index Terms

  1. An Investigation of US Universities' Implementation of FERPA Student Directory Policies and Student Privacy Preferences
              Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Information & Contributors

              Information

              Published In

              cover image ACM Conferences
              CHI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
              May 2024
              18961 pages
              ISBN:9798400703300
              DOI:10.1145/3613904
              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

              Sponsors

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              Published: 11 May 2024

              Permissions

              Request permissions for this article.

              Check for updates

              Badges

              Qualifiers

              • Research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed limited

              Conference

              CHI '24

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

              Upcoming Conference

              CHI 2025
              ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
              April 26 - May 1, 2025
              Yokohama , Japan

              Contributors

              Other Metrics

              Bibliometrics & Citations

              Bibliometrics

              Article Metrics

              • 0
                Total Citations
              • 446
                Total Downloads
              • Downloads (Last 12 months)446
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44
              Reflects downloads up to 17 Jan 2025

              Other Metrics

              Citations

              View Options

              Login options

              View options

              PDF

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader

              Full Text

              View this article in Full Text.

              Full Text

              HTML Format

              View this article in HTML Format.

              HTML Format

              Media

              Figures

              Other

              Tables

              Share

              Share

              Share this Publication link

              Share on social media