Abstract Interactions with technology are part of social life, for example in cafés, trains, or parks. This social situatedness not only changes how users experience these interactions. It also influences the situated experiences for other co-located people (“witnesses”). However, despite a large body of research on user experiences, the relation between an interaction and witness experiences, and ways to design for them, remain underexplored. To address this gap, this paper introduces the “Witness Experience Inventory”, a research tool grounded in social-interpretivist theories, that offers a pragmatic approach to study how interactions with technology affect witness experiences. Based on an analysis of eight interactive technologies, we illustrate how the Witness Experience Inventory can inform the design of socially situated interactions with technology to avoid negative and create more positive witness experiences. We provide guidelines for applications of the Witness Experience Inventory in future research and its adaptable coding template. Both build on experiences from our own research, but give future researchers and practitioners the flexibility to adapt the tool to the social settings they study.

Current “social acceptability” guidelines for interactive technologies advise against certain, seemingly problematic forms of interaction. Specifically, “suspenseful” interactions, characterized by visible manipulations and invisible effects, are generally considered problematic. However, the empirical grounding for this claim is surprisingly weak. To test its validity, this paper presents a controlled replication study ( n = 281) of the “suspensefulness effect”. Although it could be statistically replicated with two out of three social acceptability measures, effect sizes were small ( r ≤.2), and all compared forms of interaction, including the suspenseful one, had high absolute social acceptability scores. Thus, despite the slight negative effect, suspenseful interactions seem less problematic in the overall scheme of things. We discuss alternative approaches to improve the social acceptability of interactive technology, and recommend to more closely engage with their specific social situatedness.

Work is an important part of our lives - not only as a way to earn a living but as a crucial source for experiencing meaningfulness. The introduction of autonomous systems (or in the widest sense "artificial intelligence", AI) will fundamentally impact work practices. However, while most existing models of human-AI collaboration focus on performance goals, less is known about their potential influence on job satisfaction. In this paper, we present an online experiment in which we compared the perception of job meaningfulness and accountability in a human-AI collaboration across three interaction paradigms: Supervisory, Advisory, and Interactive. Our results showed that, unlike the common notion of supervisory control, people find their job more satisfying when they directly interact with the AI and are involved and remain accountable for action and decision-making. Introducing AI as a teammate in the interactive paradigm was associated with the highest job meaningfulness.

Our interactions with technology do not just shape our individual experiences. They also affect people around us. Although previous research has addressed such "witness" experiences, the actual effect of interaction design on the witness experience remains largely unknown. In an online study (n = 407), we explored how witnesses perceive mid-air gesture-based interactions with a hearing aid, using four video vignettes. We studied witnesses' subjective visibility of manipulations and effects (following Reeves and colleagues' taxonomy), perceived form of interaction, subjective experience, and relationships between these measures. Although visibility patterns matched the intended form, they did not lead to the supposed experience (i.e., "suspenseful" gestures did not lead to suspenseful experiences). The paper illustrates gaps in current research about witness experiences, demonstrates the need to overcome basic hiding/revealing profiles, and indicates a path forward by focusing on aesthetic forms and experiences.

Nowadays, interactive technologies are used almost everywhere. As a result, designers need to increasingly make them “socially acceptable”. Previous work recommends “subtle” forms of interaction to increase social acceptability and avoid negative experiences. Although often appropriate, such uniform recommendations neglect the variety of social situations. We demonstrate this limitation in an experiment (N=35), by comparing the observer experience of different forms of interaction in “face-to-face conversations”, a social situation rarely studied. Here, the typically recommended form of interaction (“subtle”) led to a more negative observer experience than the usually deprecated form (“suspenseful”), in terms of affective experience and product perception. It also made the user appear less extraverted. We conclude by positioning interactions with technology not as separate from the social situation in which they are performed, but as a constitutive part of it that meaningfully relates to other situated activities.

Our life from today’s point of view can be understood as an elaborate story we tell ourselves. It is based on an abundance of past experiences and heavily influenced by the way we look back at them...

Shift scheduling impacts healthcare workers' well-being because it sets the frame for their social life and recreational activities. Since it is complex and time-consuming, it has become a target for automation. However, existing systems mostly focus on improving efficiency. The workers' needs and their active participation do not play a pronounced role. Contrasting this trend, we designed a social practice-based, worker-centered, and well-being-oriented self-scheduling system which gives healthcare workers more control during shift planning. In a following nine month appropriation study, we found that workers who were cautious about their social standing in the group or who had a more spontaneous personal lifestyle used our system less often than others. Moreover, we revealed several conflict prevention practices and suggest to shift the focus away from a competitive shift distribution paradigm towards supporting these pro-social practices. We conclude with guidelines to support individual planning practices, self-leadership, and for dealing with conflicts.

The strains associated with shift work decrease healthcare workers' well-being. However, shift schedules adapted to their individual needs can partially mitigate these problems. From a computing perspective, shift scheduling was so far mainly treated as an optimization problem with little attention given to the preferences, thoughts, and feelings of the healthcare workers involved. In the present study, we explore fairness as a central, human-oriented attribute of shift schedules as well as the scheduling process. Three in-depth qualitative interviews and a validating vignette study revealed that while on an abstract level healthcare workers agree on equality as the guiding norm for a fair schedule, specific scheduling conflicts should foremost be resolved by negotiating the importance of individual needs. We discuss elements of organizational fairness, including transparency and team spirit. Finally, we present a sketch for fair scheduling systems, summarizing key findings for designers in a readily usable way.

Abstract Nowadays, automation not only permeates industry but also becomes a substantial part of our private, everyday lives. Driven by the idea of increased convenience and more time for the “important things in life,” automation relieves us from many daily chores—robots vacuum floors and automated coffee makers produce supposedly barista-quality coffee on the press of a button. In many cases, these offers are embraced by people without further questioning. However, while we save time by delegating more and more everyday activities to automation, we also may lose chances for enjoyable and meaningful experiences. In two field studies, we demonstrate that a manual process has experiential benefits over more automated processes by using the example of coffee-making. We present a way to account for potential experiential costs of everyday automation and strategies of how to design interaction with automation to reconcile experience with the advantages of a more and more powerful automation.