EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Nagaravind Challakere
dblp:430/9862
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0000-5598-5757ORCID · 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 |
Collaborative and social computing · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Collaborative and social computing › groupware
meeting support |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Nudging Attention to Workplace Meeting Goals: A Large-Scale, Preregistered Field Experiment · CHI 2026 |
Collaborative and social computing
workplace collaboration |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Nudging Attention to Workplace Meeting Goals: A Large-Scale, Preregistered Field Experiment · CHI 2026 |
Collaborative and social computing › computer-supported cooperative work › collaborative technology
collaborative platform |
0.3 | 1 | 2026 | Nudging Attention to Workplace Meeting Goals: A Large-Scale, Preregistered Field Experiment · CHI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
survey · 1.0nudging · 1.0field experiment · 1.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Nudging Attention to Workplace Meeting Goals: A Large-Scale, Preregistered Field ExperimentabstractIneffective meetings are pervasive. Thinking ahead explicitly about meeting goals may improve effectiveness, but current collaboration platforms lack integrated support. We tested a lightweight goal-reflection intervention in a preregistered field experiment in a global technology company (361 employees, 7196 meetings). Over two weeks, workers in the treatment group completed brief pre-meeting surveys in their collaboration platform, nudging attention to goals for upcoming meetings. To measure impact, both treatment and control groups completed post-meeting surveys about meeting effectiveness. While the intervention impact on meeting effectiveness was not statistically significant, mixed‑methods findings revealed improvements in self‑reported awareness and behaviour across both groups, with post‑meeting surveys unintentionally functioning as an intervention. We highlight the promise of supporting goal reflection, while noting challenges of evaluating and supporting workplace reflection for meetings, including workflow and collaboration norms, and attitudes and behaviours around meeting preparation. We conclude with implications for designing technological support for meeting intentionality. Lev Tankelevitch, Ava Scott, Nagaravind Challakere, Payod Panda, Sean Rintel |
CHI | 3 |