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

Elaine Ly

dblp:433/2706 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0000-8266-4131ORCID · 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.

Network and information security
1 paper
Privacy and data protection · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection
privacy perceptions
1.012026
Re-Examining the Examiners: Changes in Privacy and Security Perceptions of Exam Proctoring · CHI 2026
Privacy and data protection
surveillance
1.012026
Re-Examining the Examiners: Changes in Privacy and Security Perceptions of Exam Proctoring · CHI 2026
Computing education › educational assessment
online testing
0.312026
Re-Examining the Examiners: Changes in Privacy and Security Perceptions of Exam Proctoring · CHI 2026

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

survey · 2.0replication study · 2.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Re-Examining the Examiners: Changes in Privacy and Security Perceptions of Exam Proctoring
abstract
With the shift to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, educators turned to remote exam proctoring software to support integrity for online tests. However, due to the mechanisms used to surveil test-takers, these systems come with significant privacy and security tradeoffs. At the height of the pandemic, Balash et al. (SOUPS ’21) found that test-takers had privacy concerns with remote proctoring but acquiesced due to a number of factors. We investigate how perceptions have changed four years later. To gain a fuller perspective on how users experience these tools now, we replicate Balash et al.’s study with 127 participants who have experienced exam proctoring. We found a significant shift in favor of proctoring software, with greater acceptance of all monitoring methods compared to 2020. This is likely due to the convenience of remote exams and a growing resignation to privacy trade-offs. We discuss these implications and suggest future directions.
Adryana Hutchinson, Elaine Ly, Collins W. Munyendo, Adam J. Aviv
CHI2