Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Keith Cheng

dblp:219/1985 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-8366-992XORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
User interface design and tools · 77% Design research and methods · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
User interface design and tools › design tools
design toolkit
0.712023
Playing with Power Tools: Design Toolkits and the Framing of Equity · CHI 2023
Design research and methods › design ethics
values in design
0.212023
Playing with Power Tools: Design Toolkits and the Framing of Equity · CHI 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

thematic analysis · 0.7qualitative analysis · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Playing with Power Tools: Design Toolkits and the Framing of Equity
abstract
Design toolkits that aim to to promote equity offer designers simplified approaches to creating more equitable technology. However, it is important to understand how equity is conceptualized in practice. As a curated collection of methods, toolkits signal how equity is imagined in design. In this paper, we perform a qualitative analysis of 17 design toolkits related to equity. We explore alternative design approaches that address inequity in design. We evaluate whether equity toolkits align with calls for changes to design practice, as well as Nancy Fraser’s dimensions of justice. Finally, we find that design toolkits focus on the ‘digital divide’ rather than redistributing world-building power, and thus continue to keep design power with professional designers. We also find that ‘design thinking’ continues to influence design toolkits. Furthermore, the simplicity of toolkits does not engage with the complexities that shape equity in practice. We conclude with suggestions to help researchers and designers rethink design toolkits.
Adrian Petterson, Keith Cheng, Priyank Chandra
CHI2