Creative workflows increasingly rely on technological support, yet less is known about how creators navigate the complex collaborative ecosystems and what roles technology might play in supporting these ecosystems. We investigate podcast production as a case to understand collaborative creative practices and identify opportunities for future technology design. Through diary study and interviews with 14 podcast creators, we examine how teams navigate complex stakeholder ecosystems involving distributed teams, episodic guests, multi-tiered audiences, and networks. Our findings reveal three underlying tensions that lead to frictions in current collaborative creation practices: fragmentation vs. coherence in creative coordination, structure vs. spontaneity in live production, and intimacy vs. scale in listener engagement. We outline design opportunities for technology roles to address these tensions: a Story Architect synthesizing fragmented inputs while preserving accessibility, a Live Collaborator providing real-time support during work, and a Feedback Proxy simulating audience feedback at scale. This work contributes a rich empirical foundation for designing technology that reduces social coordination burden while preserving authentic creative relationships in collaborative creation.

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds tremendous potential but also poses consequential risks. Regulation frameworks like the EU AI Act aim to mitigate these risks, yet organizations struggle to understand and operationalize Responsible AI (RAI). We introduce the RAI Organizational Maturity (RAI-OM) framework as an initial step towards a RAI maturity model to highlight the many factors that influence an organization's RAI maturity. Developed through in-depth qualitative interviews and co-design sessions with 90 RAI experts, the RAI-OM framework consists of 24 dimensions grouped into three main categories: Organizational Foundations, Team Approach, and RAI Practices. Our findings also provide further evidence for the interdependent nature of RAI's organizational factors, the import of collaboration for mature RAI, and the need to start RAI early in the AI lifecyle. Researchers and practitioners can use the RAI-OM framework and our research findings to not only understand the different moving parts in RAI's complex organizational machinery, but also address organizational barriers to RAI, unpack the different types of collaborations needed for mature RAI, and support RAI's articulation work and process.

A recent surge in remote meetings has led to complaints of Zoom fatigue" and collaboration overload," negatively impacting worker productivity and well-being. One way to alleviate the burden of meetings is to de-emphasize their synchronous participation by shifting work to and enabling sensemaking during post-meeting asynchronous activities. Towards this goal, we propose the design concept of meeting bridges, or information artifacts that can encapsulate meeting information towards bridging to and facilitating post-meeting activities. Through 13 interviews and a survey of 198 information workers, we learn how people use online meeting information after meetings are over, finding five main uses: as an archive, as task reminders, to onboard or support inclusion, for group sensemaking, and as a launching point for follow-on collaboration. However, we also find that current common meeting artifacts, such as notes and recordings, present challenges in serving as meeting bridges. After conducting co-design sessions with 16 participants, we distill key principles for the design of meeting bridges to optimally support asynchronous collaboration goals. Overall, our findings point to the opportunity of designing information artifacts that not only support users to access but also continue to transform and engage in meeting information post-meeting.

While revolutionary AI-powered code generation tools have been rising rapidly, we know little about how and how to help software developers form appropriate trust in those AI tools. Through a two-phase formative study, we investigate how online communities shape developers’ trust in AI tools and how we can leverage community features to facilitate appropriate user trust. Through interviewing 17 developers, we find that developers collectively make sense of AI tools using the experiences shared by community members and leverage community signals to evaluate AI suggestions. We then surface design opportunities and conduct 11 design probe sessions to explore the design space of using community features to support user trust in AI code generation systems. We synthesize our findings and extend an existing model of user trust in AI technologies with sociotechnical factors. We map out the design considerations for integrating user community into the AI code generation experience.

Prior research has highlighted opportunities for technology to better support the tabletop game experience in offline and online settings, but little work has focused on the social aspect of tabletop gaming. We investigated the social and collaborative aspects of tabletop gaming in the unique context of “social distancing” during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic to shed light on the experience of remote tabletop gaming. With a multi-method qualitative approach (including digital ethnography and in-depth interviews), we empirically studied how people appropriate existing technologies and adapt their offline practices to play tabletop games remotely. We identify three themes that describe people's game and social experience during remote play: creating a shared tabletop environment (shared space), enabling a collective understanding (shared information and awareness), and facilitating a communal temporal experience (shared time). We reflect on challenges and design opportunities for a better experience in the age of remote collaboration.

Algorithmic decision-making systems are increasingly used throughout the public and private sectors to make important decisions or assist humans in making these decisions with real social consequences. While there has been substantial research in recent years to build fair decision-making algorithms, there has been less research seeking to understand the factors that affect people's perceptions of fairness in these systems, which we argue is also important for their broader acceptance. In this research, we conduct an online experiment to better understand perceptions of fairness, focusing on three sets of factors: algorithm outcomes, algorithm development and deployment procedures, and individual differences. We find that people rate the algorithm as more fair when the algorithm predicts in their favor, even surpassing the negative effects of describing algorithms that are very biased against particular demographic groups. We find that this effect is moderated by several variables, including participants' education level, gender, and several aspects of the development procedure. Our findings suggest that systems that evaluate algorithmic fairness through users' feedback must consider the possibility of "outcome favorability" bias.

Increasingly, algorithms are used to make important decisions across society. However, these algorithms are usually poorly understood, which can reduce transparency and evoke negative emotions. In this research, we seek to learn design principles for explanation interfaces that communicate how decision-making algorithms work, in order to help organizations explain their decisions to stakeholders, or to support users' "right to explanation". We conducted an online experiment where 199 participants used different explanation interfaces to understand an algorithm for making university admissions decisions. We measured users' objective and self-reported understanding of the algorithm. Our results show that both interactive explanations and "white-box" explanations (i.e. that show the inner workings of an algorithm) can improve users' comprehension. Although the interactive approach is more effective at improving comprehension, it comes with a trade-off of taking more time. Surprisingly, we also find that users' trust in algorithmic decisions is not affected by the explanation interface or their level of comprehension of the algorithm.