EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Parth Nitin Pandhare
dblp:374/9703
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0005-9414-2572ORCID · 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.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Design research and methods · 77% Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces · 23% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Design research and methods › design space
design space exploration |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Design Space Exploration for Board-level Circuits: Exploring Alternatives in Component-based Design · CHI 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 0.8design space exploration · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Design Space Exploration for Board-level Circuits: Exploring Alternatives in Component-based DesignabstractWhile recent work explores novel tools to make electronics and device design easier and more accessible, these tend to be either highly automated (great for novices, but limiting for more advanced users) or highly manual (suitable for experts, but imposes a higher skill barrier to entry). In this work, we examine a middle ground: user-guided design space exploration to bridge an intuitive-but-ambiguous high-level representation to a fully-specified, fabrication-ready circuit. Our system helps users understand and make design choices by sweeping the design space of alternatives for electronics parts (e.g., choice of microcontroller), marking invalid options, and plotting points to visualize trade-offs (e.g., for power and size). We discuss the overall system and its structure, report on the results of a small but in-depth user study with participants from a wide range of electronics backgrounds, and draw insights on future directions for improving electronics design for everyone. Richard Lin, Rohit Ramesh, Parth Nitin Pandhare, Kai Jun Tay, Prabal Dutta, Björn Hartmann, Ankur Mehta |
CHI | 3 |