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

Vidya Vaidyanathan

dblp:28/11301 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—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
Usability and user experience research · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research › user study
participant response bias
0.112012
"Yours is better!": participant response bias in HCI · CHI 2012
Usability and user experience research › evaluation methodology
cross-cultural evaluation
0.012012
"Yours is better!": participant response bias in HCI · CHI 2012

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

interviews · 0.1experimental study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 "Yours is better!": participant response bias in HCI
abstract
Although HCI researchers and practitioners frequently work with groups of people that differ significantly from themselves, little attention has been paid to the effects these differences have on the evaluation of HCI systems. Via 450 interviews in Bangalore, India, we measure participant response bias due to interviewer demand characteristics and the role of social and demographic factors in influencing that bias. We find that respondents are about 2.5x more likely to prefer a technological artifact they believe to be developed by the interviewer, even when the alternative is identical. When the interviewer is a foreign researcher requiring a translator, the bias towards the interviewer's artifact increases to 5x. In fact, the interviewer's artifact is preferred even when it is degraded to be obviously inferior to the alternative. We conclude that participant response bias should receive more attention within the CHI community, especially when designing for underprivileged populations.
Nicola Dell, Vidya Vaidyanathan, Indrani Medhi-Thies, Edward Cutrell, William Thies
CHI2