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

Hannah J. Hutton

dblp:344/9128 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0002-1895-0798ORCID · reported

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 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%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection
privacy-enhancing technologies
0.712023
Exploring User Motivations Behind iOS App Tracking Transparency Decisions · CHI 2023
Privacy and data protection
privacy perceptions
0.712023
Exploring User Motivations Behind iOS App Tracking Transparency Decisions · CHI 2023
Privacy and data protection
mobile privacy
0.212023
Exploring User Motivations Behind iOS App Tracking Transparency Decisions · CHI 2023

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

thematic analysis · 0.7survey · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Exploring User Motivations Behind iOS App Tracking Transparency Decisions
abstract
Apple’s App Tracking Transparency framework allows users to decide whether they want to allow their activity to be tracked for advertising purposes. In this work we examine the tracking decisions made by 312 participants and their associations with privacy concern and personality factors, and conduct a thematic analysis on participants’ reasons for choosing to accept or reject tracking requests. Despite 51% of participants reporting that they had rejected tracking for privacy reasons, higher privacy concern scores did not correlate with a lower rate of tracking acceptance. Additionally, 43% of participants held incorrect beliefs about what tracking does, including nearly a quarter who mistakenly believed that accepting a tracking request would share their location with the requesting app. We suggest explanations for these misconceptions and provide recommendations that may improve usability of both App Tracking Transparency and future Privacy Enhancing Technologies.
Hannah J. Hutton, David A. Ellis
CHI1