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.

Anh Dao Phuong

dblp:362/2493 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-0861-9628ORCID · corroborated

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 2 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
Usability and user experience research · 50% Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces · 50%
Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces › tangible interaction
tangible privacy mechanisms
0.812024
Do You Need to Touch? Exploring Correlations between Personal Attributes and Preferences for Tangible Privacy Mechanisms · CHI 2024
Usability and user experience research
user preference
0.812024
Do You Need to Touch? Exploring Correlations between Personal Attributes and Preferences for Tangible Privacy Mechanisms · CHI 2024
Privacy and data protection
privacy protection mechanisms
0.212024
Do You Need to Touch? Exploring Correlations between Personal Attributes and Preferences for Tangible Privacy Mechanisms · CHI 2024

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

online survey · 1.5correlation analysis · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Do You Need to Touch? Exploring Correlations between Personal Attributes and Preferences for Tangible Privacy Mechanisms
abstract
This paper explores how personal attributes, such as age, gender, technological expertise, or “need for touch”, correlate with people’s preferences for properties of tangible privacy protection mechanisms, for example, physically covering a camera. For this, we conducted an online survey (N = 444) where we captured participants’ preferences of eight established tangible privacy mechanisms well-known in daily life, their perceptions of effective privacy protection, and personal attributes. We found that the attributes that correlated most strongly with participants’ perceptions of the established tangible privacy mechanisms were their “need for touch” and previous experiences with the mechanisms. We use our findings to identify desirable characteristics of tangible mechanisms to better inform future tangible, digital, and mixed privacy protections. We also show which individuals benefit most from tangibles, ultimately motivating a more individual and effective approach to privacy protection in the future.
Sarah Delgado Rodriguez, Priyasha Chatterjee, Anh Dao Phuong, Florian Alt, Karola Marky
CHI3
2023 Padlock, the Universal Security Symbol? - Exploring Symbols and Metaphors for Privacy and Security
abstract
The use of symbols and metaphors can be a fast and effective way of conveying abstract concepts. At the same time, misconceived symbols can lead to misunderstandings and errors. Therefore, when it comes to privacy and security, clear communication is essential to avoid putting users’ personal data at risk. In this paper, we elicit 32 symbols and metaphors associated with privacy and security through two brainstorming sessions (n = 8, each). Six experts further separated this collection into security and privacy-related symbols and generated clusters based on similarity. Using participants’ clusters, we derived underlying themes. As a result, we present a symbol and metaphor space for privacy and security and discuss their perceived meaning. Our findings can serve researchers, designers, and developers to find suitable symbols or metaphors for a given scenario (e.g., to decide on the interaction metaphor for a tangible security mechanism) and to understand if a symbol is ambiguous or how it may be understood (e.g., is an eye associated with privacy configurations?). Our work provides an initial knowledge base supporting effective communication in this field.
Sarah Delgado Rodriguez, Anh Dao Phuong, Franziska Bumiller, Lukas Mecke, Felix Dietz, Florian Alt, Mariam Hassib
MUM2