The success of Wikipedia and other user-generated content communities has been driven by the openness of recruiting volunteers globally, but this openness has also led to a persistent lack of trust in its content. Despite several attempts at developing trust indicators to help readers more quickly and accurately assess the quality of content, challenges remain for practical deployment to general consumers. In this work we identify and address three key challenges: empirically determining which metrics from prior and existing community approaches most impact reader trust; 2) validating indicator placements and designs that are both compact yet noticed by readers; and 3) demonstrating that such indicators can not only lower trust but also increase perceived trust in the system when appropriate. By addressing these, we aim to provide a foundation for future tools that can practically increase trust in user generated content and the sociotechnical systems that generate and maintain them.

People spend a significant amount of time trying to make sense of the internet, collecting content from a variety of sources and organizing it to make decisions and achieve their goals. While humans are able to fluidly iterate on collecting and organizing information in their minds, existing tools and approaches introduce significant friction into the process. We introduce Fuse, a browser extension that externalizes users’ working memory by combining low-cost collection with lightweight organization of content in a compact card-based sidebar that is always available. Fuse helps users simultaneously extract key web content and structure it in a lightweight and visual way. We discuss how these affordances help users externalize more of their mental model into the system (e.g., saving, annotating, and structuring items) and support fast reviewing and resumption of task contexts. Our 22-month public deployment and follow-up interviews provide longitudinal insights into the structuring behaviors of real-world users conducting information foraging tasks.

Consumers conducting comparison shopping, researchers making sense of competitive space, and developers looking for code snippets online all face the challenge of capturing the information they find for later use without interrupting their current flow. In addition, during many learning and exploration tasks, people need to externalize their mental context, such as estimating how urgent a topic is to follow up on, or rating a piece of evidence as a “pro” or “con,” which helps scaffold subsequent deeper exploration. However, current approaches incur a high cost, often requiring users to select, copy, context switch, paste, and annotate information in a separate document without offering specific affordances that capture their mental context. In this work, we explore a new interaction technique called “wiggling,” which can be used to fluidly collect, organize, and rate information during early sensemaking stages with a single gesture. Wiggling involves rapid back-and-forth movements of a pointer or up-and-down scrolling on a smartphone, which can indicate the information to be collected and its valence, using a single, light-weight gesture that does not interfere with other interactions that are already available. Through implementation and user evaluation, we found that wiggling helped participants accurately collect information and encode their mental context with a 58% reduction in operational cost while being 24% faster compared to a common baseline.

Team formation tools assume instructors should configure the criteria for creating teams, precluding students from participating in a process affecting their learning experience. We propose LIFT, a novel learner-centered workflow where students propose, vote for, and weigh the criteria used as inputs to the team formation algorithm. We conducted an experiment (N=289) comparing LIFT to the usual instructor-led process, and interviewed participants to evaluate their perceptions of LIFT and its outcomes. Learners proposed novel criteria not included in existing algorithmic tools, such as organizational style. They avoided criteria like gender and GPA that instructors frequently select, and preferred those promoting efficient collaboration. LIFT led to team outcomes comparable to those achieved by the instructor-led approach, and teams valued having control of the team formation process. We provide instructors and designers with a workflow and evidence supporting giving learners control of the algorithmic process used for grouping them into teams.