skip to main content
10.1145/3638067.3638116acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How HCI concepts are used in articles featuring interactive digital arts: a literature review.

Published:24 January 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Technological advancement has enabled the creation of new forms of digital art. Consequently, interactive digital art is becoming increasingly common. Additionally, some artists are concerned with the human aspects of the audience and their experiences, such as the feelings and emotions evoked by their artworks. As a result, there is a strong relationship between this type of art and human-computer interaction (HCI), which aims to understand the use of interactive systems in a specific context.This work presents a systematic literature review with the objective of identifying the HCI concepts present in the selected articles from the review. It aims to assist future research that seeks to comprehend how articles on interactive digital art utilize HCI concepts, and also to identify the most recurrent types of interactive digital art. Furthermore, it provides insights for the emergence of future research in relatively unexplored areas.

References

  1. Susan Ali, Ben Bedwell, and Boriana Koleva. 2018. Exploring Relationships between Museum Artefacts through Spatial Interaction. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Oslo, Norway) (NordiCHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240217Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Ashby, J. Hanna, and R. Rodrigues. 2017. Using BLE beacons to simulate proxemic surveillance for an interactive art installation. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings Part F127655 (2017), 1486–1493. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053096 cited By 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Simone Barbosa and Bruno Silva. 2010. Interação humano-computador. Elsevier Brasil.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa, Bruno Santana da Silva, Milene Selbach Silveira, Isabela Gasparini, Ticianne Darin, and Gabriel Diniz Junqueira Barbosa. 2021. Interação Humano-Computador e Experiência do Usuário. Autopublicação.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Y.-S. Chang and K.-J. Hu. 2020. Usability evaluation for the integration of library data analysis and an interactive artwork by sensing technology. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 10, 21 (2020), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217499 cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Z. Chen, J. Liao, J. Chen, C. Zhou, F. Chai, Y. Wu, and P. Hansen. 2021. Paint with Your Mind: Designing EEG-based Interactive Installation for Traditional Chinese Artworks. TEI 2021 - Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3430524.3442455 cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. O.-H. Cho and S.-D. Hong. 2017. Real-time 3D fluid simulation digital art using BCI. Journal of Real-Time Image Processing 13, 3 (2017), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11554-015-0546-y cited By 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. João Cordeiro, Filipa Martins de Abreu, and Gerald Estadieu. 2017. Audience Participation in Interactive Art Systems: Is Instructional Signage a Necessary Evil?. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Digital Arts (Macau, China) (ARTECH2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106548.3106595Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Adèle De Jager, Andrea Fogarty, Anna Tewson, Caroline Lenette, and Katherine M Boydell. 2017. Digital storytelling in research: A systematic review. The Qualitative Report 22, 10 (2017), 2548–2582.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Emanuel Felipe Duarte and M. Cecília C. Baranauskas. 2018. Revisiting Interactive Art from an Interaction Design Perspective: Opening a Research Agenda. In Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Belém, Brazil) (IHC 2018). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 35, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274192.3274227Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ernest Edmonds. 2017. The art of interaction: What HCI can learn from interactive art. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 11, 1 (2017), i–73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gérald Estadieu, Filipa Martins de Abreu, and Alvaro Barbosa. 2017. 3D Printing Objects as Installation Art: Standing Humanity: 3D Yan Character. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Digital Arts (Macau, China) (ARTECH2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106548.3106588Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yuning Fan. 2021. An Open-Source Programming Language-Based Interactive Device: Popular Science of the Five Cereals for Children. In 2021 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things Engineering (ICBAIE). 758–761. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBAIE52039.2021.9389899Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sarah Fdili Alaoui. 2019. Making an Interactive Dance Piece: Tensions in Integrating Technology in Art. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (San Diego, CA, USA) (DIS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1195–1208. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322289Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. N. Fellion, A.K. Eady, and A. Girouard. 2016. FlexStylus: A deformable stylus for digital art. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 07-12-May-2016 (2016), 2482–2489. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892444 cited By 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jules Françoise, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, and Yves Candau. 2022. CO/DA: Live-Coding Movement-Sound Interactions for Dance Improvisation. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 482, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501916Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kaori Fujinami, Mami Kosaka, and Bipin Indurkhya. 2018. Painting an Apple with an Apple: A Tangible Tabletop Interface for Painting with Physical Objects. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 4, Article 162 (Dec. 2018), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287040Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Manuela Garretón, Andrea Rihm, and Denis Parra. 2019. #Default #Interactiveart #Audiencexperience. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, USA) (WWW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 791–798. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3316453Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Giomi. 2020. Somatic Sonification in Dance Performances. from the Artistic to the Perceptual and Back. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3401956.3404226 cited By 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Pablo Gobira. 2018. Percursos contemporâneos. Realidades da arte, ciência e tecnologia. Belo Horizonte: EdUEMG (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. V. Goudarzi and A.-M. Gioti. 2019. Engagement and interaction in participatory sound art. SMC 2016 - 13th Sound and Music Computing Conference, Proceedings (2019), 179–184. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85074953122&partnerID=40&md5=7c10371814ce4594d9560954bab5c07e cited By 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Neelu Gurung, Damith Herath, and Janie Busby Grant. 2021. Feeling Safe: A Study on Trust with an Interactive Robotic Art Installation. In Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Boulder, CO, USA) (HRI ’21 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 447–451. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434074.3447211Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Byeongwon Ha. 2019. Ordinary People: Participatory Interactive Art. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts (Braga, Portugal) (ARTECH 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 81, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359852.3359954Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. I. Hacmun, D. Regev, and R. Salomon. 2021. Artistic creation in virtual reality for art therapy: A qualitative study with expert art therapists. Arts in Psychotherapy 72 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2020.101745 cited By 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Y.C. Han and P. Surve. 2019. Eyes: Iris sonification and interactive biometric art. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3313288 cited By 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. P. Ihamäki and K. Heljakka. 2019. The internet of art as a site for learning and fun – Playful experiences through augmented geocaching. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2359 (2019), 205–216. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85065721452&partnerID=40&md5=43f55a00a0bedebcb2b89913f0e6d559 cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jennifer Jacobs, Sumit Gogia, Radomír Mundefinedch, and Joel R. Brandt. 2017. Supporting Expressive Procedural Art Creation through Direct Manipulation. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6330–6341. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025927Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. G. Jamin, T. Luyten, R. Delsing, and S. Braun. 2018. The process of co-creating the interface for VENSTER, an interactive artwork for nursing home residents with dementia. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 13, 8 (2018), 809–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1385102 cited By 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. J.-F. Jégo and M.B. Meneghini. 2020. Let’s Resonate: How to Elicit Improvisation and Letting Go in Interactive Digital Art. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3401956.3404194 cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Laewoo (Leo) Kang, Steven J. Jackson, and Phoebe Sengers. 2018. Intermodulation: Improvisation and Collaborative Art Practice for HCI. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173734Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Daniel F. Keefe, Seth Johnson, Ross Altheimer, Deuk-Geun Hong, Robert Hunter, Andrea J. Johnson, Maura Rockcastle, Mark Swackhamer, and Aaron Wittkamper. 2018. Weather Report: A Site-Specific Artwork Interweaving Human Experiences and Scientific Data Physicalization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 38, 4 (2018), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2018.042731653Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Staffs Keele 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33, 2004 (2004), 1–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Janin Koch, Jennifer Pearson, Andrés Lucero, Miriam Sturdee, Wendy E. Mackay, Makayla Lewis, and Simon Robinson. 2020. Where Art Meets Technology: Integrating Tangible and Intelligent Tools in Creative Processes. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3375172Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Zsolt Koren, Emma Lógó, and Bálint Szabó. 2019. Visitor experiences in The Museum of Applied Arts of Budapest : Interactions with ColourMirror. In 2019 10th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom). 521–524. https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom47531.2019.9089894Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Hannu Kukka, Johanna Ylipulli, Jorge Goncalves, Timo Ojala, Matias Kukka, and Mirja Syrjälä. 2017. Creator-centric study of digital art exhibitions on interactive public displays. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 37–48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Duri Long, Mikhail Jacob, Nicholas Davis, and Brian Magerko. 2017. Designing for Socially Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Singapore, Singapore) (C&C ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059479Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Tom Luyten, Susy Braun, Susan Van Hooren, and Luc De Witte. 2017. Participant responses to physical, open-ended interactive digital artworks: a systematic review. International Journal of Arts and Technology 10, 2 (2017), 94–134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Kristina Mah, Lian Loke, and Luke Hespanhol. 2020. Designing With Ritual Interaction: A Novel Approach to Compassion Cultivation Through a Buddhist-Inspired Interactive Artwork. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Sydney NSW, Australia) (TEI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1145/3374920.3374947Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Gennie Mansi, Sue Reon Kim, and Jessica Roberts. 2022. Ready, Set, Art: Technology Needs and Tools for Remote K-2 Art Education. In Interaction Design and Children (Braga, Portugal) (IDC ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 150–184. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501712.3529731Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Aderito Marcos. 2012. Instanciando mecanismos de a/r/tografia no processo de criação em arte digital/computacional. inVISIBILIDADES-Revista Iberoamericana de Pesquisa em Educação, Cultura e Artes 3 (2012), 138–145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Ana Marques and Pedro Alves da Veiga. 2019. Digital Artivism and Collaborative Artistic Practice: Usage in a School Environment as a Citizenship Development Tool. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts (Braga, Portugal) (ARTECH 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 24, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359852.3359863Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Ana Marques and Rui Gaspar. 2017. ARBOR: (Re)Discovering Writing Interaction with 1st Grade Students. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Digital Arts (Macau, China) (ARTECH2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106548.3106592Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. R. Masu, N.N. Correia, S. Jurgens, I. Druzetic, and W. Primett. 2019. How do Dancers Want to Use Interactive Technology?: Appropriation and Layers of Meaning beyond Traditional Movement Mapping. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3359852.3359869 cited By 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Sara Mlakar, Thomas Preindl, Andreas Pointner, Mira Alida Haberfellner, Rainer Danner, Roland Aigner, and Michael Haller. 2022. The Sound of Textile: An Interactive Tactile-Sonic Installation. In 10th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts (Aveiro, Portugal, Portugal) (ARTECH 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 95, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3483529.3483742Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. S.A. Mokhov, M. Song, S.P. Mudur, and P. Grogono. 2019. Hands-on: Rapid interactive application prototyping for media arts and performing arts in illimitable space. ACM SIGGRAPH 2019 Studio, SIGGRAPH 2019 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3306306.3328008 cited By 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Serguei A. Mokhov, Miao Song, Sudhir P. Mudur, and Peter Grogono. 2018. Hands-on: Rapid Interactive Application Prototyping for Media Arts and Stage Performance and Beyond. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2018 Courses (Tokyo, Japan) (SA ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277644.3277760Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Timothy Neate, Abi Roper, and Stephanie Wilson. 2020. Painting a Picture of Accessible Digital Art. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 76, 3 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3418019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. V. Nisi, M. Dionísio, P. Bala, T. Gross, and N.J. Nunes. 2017. DreamScope: Evaluating interactive 360° virtual reality in a physical narrative art installation. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series Part F130947 (2017), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106548.3106601 cited By 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Jonas Oppenlaender. 2022. The Creativity of Text-to-Image Generation. In Proceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere, Finland) (Academic Mindtrek ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1145/3569219.3569352Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Mark Petticrew and Helen Roberts. 2008. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Ivna Motta Ravanello, Fabiane Wolff, and Vinicius Gadis Ribeiro. 2016. Uma revisão sistemática da produção bibliográfica sobre experiência do usuário no campo do design. Ergodesign & HCI, Rio de Janeiro4 (2016), 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Marta Resende, Diana Carvalho, Anabela Branco, and Tânia Rocha. 2022. Art & Accessibility: A Case Study on Collage for People with Visual Disabilities. In 10th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts (Aveiro, Portugal, Portugal) (ARTECH 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 32, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3483529.3483676Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Betty Sargeant, Justin Dwyer, and Florian ’Floyd’ Mueller. 2020. Designing for Virtual Touch: A Real-Time Co-Created Online Art Experience. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Virtual Event, Canada) (CHI PLAY ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383668.3419936Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Leah M. Scolere, Eric P.S. Baumer, Lindsay Reynolds, and Geri Gay. 2016. Building Mood, Building Community: Usage Patterns of an Interactive Art Installation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) (GROUP ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1145/2957276.2957291Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Ahmed Seffah, Jan Gulliksen, and Michel C Desmarais. 2005. Human-centered software engineering-integrating usability in the software development lifecycle. Vol. 8. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Maria Shugrina, Chin-Ying Li, and Sanja Fidler. 2022. Neural Brushstroke Engine: Learning a Latent Style Space of Interactive Drawing Tools. ACM Trans. Graph. 41, 6, Article 269 (nov 2022), 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3550454.3555472Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. C. Steer. 2017. Designing mobile deformable controls for creation of digital art. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI 2017 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3119923 cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Annie Sungkajun and Jinsil Hwaryoung Seo. 2019. Though Miles Apart: An Interactive Art Installation That Evokes Nostalgia. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts (Braga, Portugal) (ARTECH 2019). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359852.3359890Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Zoe Tong and Dana Kulic. 2021. Learning to Engage in Interactive Digital Art. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (College Station, TX, USA) (IUI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 275–279. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450691Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Mark Tribe and Reena Jana. 2007. New Media Art-Introduction. In Brown University Wiki: Art, Technology and Culture Colloquium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Brygg Ullmer, Blake Tregre, and Malcolm McClay. 2017. Framing Fraught Topics through Tangible Multi-Display Engagement with Live News. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (Lugano, Switzerland) (PerDis ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078810.3078832Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Thomas van den Berge. 2021. Vermillion: Oil Painting Simulation In Virtual Reality: A New Tool for Digital Artists Offering the Analog Control of Traditional Painting with the Benefits of a Virtual Environment.. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2021 Immersive Pavilion (Virtual Event, USA) (SIGGRAPH ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450615.3464542Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How HCI concepts are used in articles featuring interactive digital arts: a literature review.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      IHC '23: Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      October 2023
      791 pages
      ISBN:9798400717154
      DOI:10.1145/3638067

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 24 January 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate331of973submissions,34%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format