https://www.dagstuhl.de/21232

06. – 11. Juni 2021, Dagstuhl-Seminar 21232

Human-Computer Interaction to Support Work and Wellbeing in Mobile Environments

Organisatoren

Stephen Brewster (University of Glasgow, GB)
Andrew Kun (University of New Hampshire – Durham, US)
Andreas Riener (TH Ingolstadt, DE)
Orit Shaer (Wellesley College, US)

Auskunft zu diesem Dagstuhl-Seminar erteilt

Dagstuhl Service Team

Dokumente

Dagstuhl Report, Volume 11, Issue 5 Dagstuhl Report
Motivationstext
Teilnehmerliste

Summary

Agenda in a nutshell

The seminar was conducted online during the week of June 6-10, 2021. A particular difficulty in planning the agenda (see Fig. 1) arose due to the different time zones of the individual participants. It was especially important to us to offer at least some of the program items together to all participants (Opening and Group Work on Day 1, Summit and Closing on the last day). On the other days, we planned different activities in smaller (2-3 people) and larger (up to half of the participants) groups to better accommodate the participants based on their time zones. Figure 1 Compact overview of the agenda for the week including different geographical zones (for better planning with participants from all-over the world). Figure 1 Compact overview of the agenda for the week including different geographical zones (for better planning with participants from all-over the world)

  • Monday, June 6: The seminar was opened and its main goals introduced by the seminar co-organizers Stephen Brewster, Andrew Kun, Andreas Riener and Orit Shaer. The presented slides can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15NtQy96wAS_dMHpdqTO-2TfZhbSGssWAn96RxHJizVA/edit#slide=id.gdd9402fdbb_0_8. After a social "warm-up" activity, Pecha Kucha presentations of all participants followed. During the presentations, all participants were instructed to collect questions, ideas, thoughts, etc. on a Miro-board; The items were clustered by the organizers (in a short coffee break) and after that, a voting of topics to be picked-up/focusing on in the next days of the seminar (see Fig. 2) followed. This activity ended day 1. Figure 2 Group activities on day 1: Collecting of ideas, thoughts, questions from the individual presentations; Majority voting after clustering of collected items. Figure 2 Group activities on day 1: Collecting of ideas, thoughts, questions from the individual presentations; Majority voting after clustering of collected items.
  • Tuesday, June 7: The second day of the seminar was dedicated to the “Work(shop) for the Future of Work and Mobility in Automated Vehicles”. In this workshop, participants (see Fig. 3) worked together on user needs and how to fulfill them during shared or private automated mobility. The workshop was conducted twice – each with half of the participants and lasted for about two hours including a short coffee break. In order to get all participants in the mood for the workshop and to allow them to reflect on the topic from their personal point of view, we invited everybody to complete a brief ( 10 min.) “pre-questionnaire” before the workshop (Link: https://thimib.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_03eUqLNatcDgzs2). For details, see section 3.3. The results from both the questionnaire and the two workshops are currently analyzed and will be later submitted as conference paper or journal article (with recognition of the Dagstuhl seminar). Figure 3 Introduction to the two workshops on day 2 including participants. Figure 3 Introduction to the two workshops on day 2 including participants. Figure 4 Intermediary results of the interactive workshop part on the Miro-board (group 2 workshop)
  • Wednesday, June 8: On this day, in the Dagstuhl tradition to offer a social activity, we watched – again in two groups of each ca. 15 people – the documentary “Coded Bias” (https://www.codedbias.com/). While watching the video, participants were asked to record their thoughts (issues, concerns, suprises, technical problems/solutions, societal/policy related solutions) in a Miro-board, e.g., https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_lCMqEEY=/ for group 1. After watching, we used 10 minutes for clustering the items followed by another 5 minutes for voting. The top voted items where than discussed in the large group and conclusions drawn for our work.
  • Coded Bias - group 1 results:

    Figure 5 Post-its collected by the participants of group 1 and voting results.
    • 5 votes: "ensure the right to be forgotten" (removal/deletion of data)
    • 4 votes: "AI algorithm uses historical information for the prediction -- not everything has been seen before..."
    • 3 votes: "Salery automatically based on office environment" (stationary, in the car, on the go) -> lot of discussion
    • 2 votes: "Transparency"
    • 2 votes: "Use a diverse data set to train the AI"
    • 2 votes: "Ways of opening the black box...?"

    Coded Bias - group 2 results:

    Figure 6 Post-its collected by the participants of group 2 and results of the voting on most relevant elements identified during watching "Coded Bias".
    • 9 votes: "Transparency and explainability of algorithms (related to and used in automated cars)"
    • 6 votes: "Where would bias be exhibited toward passengers or those outside the vehicle?"
    • 6 votes: "Lack of regulation and legal structure for AI implementation"
    • 6 votes: "mass surveillance unlocked by networked AVs"
    • 6 votes: "Ethics education"
  • Thursday, June 9: On the second last day of the seminar, all seminar participants met in small groups (2 to 3 people, see Fig. 7) to discuss one of the topics identified as most important (and to make a video of the discussion) or to jointly create a Youtube playlist of most-impactful videos in a dedicated topical area related to the seminar. The results were collected by the co-organizers of the seminar and distributed among the participants. Examples of bilateral interviews can be found in Sections 4.1 or 4.2, among others, and an example of a playlist is shown in Section 4.3.
  • Figure 7 PCouples who either had a curated conversation or created a Youtube playlist on Thursday bilaterally (≤= 5 minutes each).
  • Friday, June 10: The last day of the seminar has ended with a summit (Fig. 8). The first half of this activity was devoted to two panels with distinguished panelists. Panelists started the conversations with brief statements, which were then followed by moderated discussions with the group. For the second half of this activity all participants were sent into breakout rooms in Zoom and worked in smaller groups on a Miro-board (https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_l_-usxU=) on problems discussed during the panels. After the group work, all met again in the main Zoom room and each group presented the results of the group activity (Fig. 9).
Figure 8 The highlight of the seminar: A summit with contributions from seminar participants and keynote speeches from invited experts (including Neha Kumar, ACM SIGCHI President). Figure 9 Overview of the results of the six groups in Miro.
Summary text license
  Creative Commons BY 4.0
  Stephen Brewster, Andrew Kun, Andreas Riener, and Orit Shaer

Dagstuhl-Seminar Series

Classification

  • Computers And Society
  • Emerging Technologies
  • Human-Computer Interaction

Keywords

  • HCI
  • Automation
  • Work
  • Wellbeing

Dokumentation

In der Reihe Dagstuhl Reports werden alle Dagstuhl-Seminare und Dagstuhl-Perspektiven-Workshops dokumentiert. Die Organisatoren stellen zusammen mit dem Collector des Seminars einen Bericht zusammen, der die Beiträge der Autoren zusammenfasst und um eine Zusammenfassung ergänzt.

 

Download Übersichtsflyer (PDF).

Dagstuhl's Impact

Bitte informieren Sie uns, wenn eine Veröffentlichung ausgehend von Ihrem Seminar entsteht. Derartige Veröffentlichungen werden von uns in der Rubrik Dagstuhl's Impact separat aufgelistet  und im Erdgeschoss der Bibliothek präsentiert.

Publikationen

Es besteht weiterhin die Möglichkeit, eine umfassende Kollektion begutachteter Arbeiten in der Reihe Dagstuhl Follow-Ups zu publizieren.