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

Romaine Flor Ofiana

dblp:239/8167 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

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 · 61% Usability and user experience research · 30% Human-AI interaction · 9%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods › user-centered design
child-centered design
0.412019
Laughing is Scary, but Farting is Cute: A Conceptual Model of Children's Perspectives of Creepy Technologies · CHI 2019
Design research and methods
participatory design
0.412019
Laughing is Scary, but Farting is Cute: A Conceptual Model of Children's Perspectives of Creepy Technologies · CHI 2019
Usability and user experience research
user perception
0.412019
Laughing is Scary, but Farting is Cute: A Conceptual Model of Children's Perspectives of Creepy Technologies · CHI 2019

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

participatory design sessions · 0.4interviews · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Laughing is Scary, but Farting is Cute: A Conceptual Model of Children's Perspectives of Creepy Technologies
abstract
In HCI, adult concerns about technologies for children have been studied extensively. However, less is known about what children themselves find concerning in everyday technologies. We examine children's technology-related fears by probing their use of the colloquial term "creepy." To understand children's perceptions of "creepy technologies," we conducted four participatory design sessions with children (ages 7 - 11) to design and evaluate creepy technologies, followed by interviews with the same children. We found that children's fear reactions emphasized physical harm and threats to their relationships (particularly with attachment figures). The creepy signals from technology the children described include: deception, lack of control, mimicry, ominous physical appearance, and unpredictability. Children acknowledged trusted adults will mediate the relationship between creepy technology signals and fear responses. Our work contributes a close examination of what children mean when they say a technology is "creepy." By treating these concerns as principal design considerations, developers can build systems that are more transparent about the risks they produce and more sensitive to the fears they may unintentionally raise.
Jason C. Yip 0001, Kiley Sobel, Allison Marie Hishikawa, Alexis Lim, Laura Meng, Romaine Flor Ofiana, Justin Park, Alexis Hiniker
CHI7