Although HCI research papers offer valuable design insights, designers often struggle to apply them in design workflows due to difficulties in finding relevant literature, understanding technical jargon, the lack of contextualization, and limited actionability. To address these challenges, we present ReFinE, a Figma plugin that supports real-time design iteration by surfacing contextualized insights from research papers. ReFinE identifies and synthesizes design implications from HCI literature relevant to the mockup’s design context, and tailors this research evidence to a specific design mockup by providing actionable visual guidance on how to update the mockup. To assess the system’s effectiveness, we conducted a technical evaluation and a user study. Results show that ReFinE effectively synthesizes and contextualizes design implications, reducing cognitive load and improving designers’ ability to integrate research evidence into UI mockups. This work contributes to bridging the gap between research and design practice by presenting a tool for embedding scholarly insights into the UI design process.

The dark patterns, deceptive interface designs manipulating user behaviors, have been extensively studied for their effects on human decision-making and autonomy. Yet, with the rising prominence of LLM-powered GUI agents that automate tasks from high-level intents, understanding how dark patterns affect agents is increasingly important. We present a two-phase empirical study examining how agents, human participants, and human-AI teams respond to 16 types of dark patterns across diverse scenarios. Phase 1 highlights that agents often fail to recognize dark patterns, and even when aware, prioritize task completion over protective action. Phase 2 revealed divergent failure modes: humans succumb due to cognitive shortcuts and habitual compliance, while agents falter from procedural blind spots. Human oversight improved avoidance but introduced costs such as attentional tunneling and cognitive load. Our findings show neither humans nor agents are uniformly resilient, and collaboration introduces new vulnerabilities, suggesting design needs for transparency, adjustable autonomy, and oversight.

Students’ increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents new challenges for assessing their mastery of knowledge and skills in project-based learning (PBL). This paper introduces a co-design study to explore the potential of students’ AI usage data as a novel material for PBL assessment. We conducted workshops with 18 college students, encouraging them to speculate an alternative world where they could freely employ AI in PBL while needing to report this process to assess their skills and contributions. Our workshops yielded various scenarios of students’ use of AI in PBL and ways of analyzing such usage grounded by students’ vision of how educational goals may transform. We also found that students with different attitudes toward AI exhibited distinct preferences in how to analyze and understand their use of AI. Based on these findings, we discuss future research opportunities on student-AI interactions and understanding AI-enhanced learning.

More and more learning apps like Duolingo are using some form of gamification (e.g., badges, points, and leaderboards) to enhance user learning. However, they are not always successful. Gamification misuse is a phenomenon that occurs when users become too fixated on gamification and get distracted from learning. This undesirable phenomenon wastes users' precious time and negatively impacts their learning performance. However, there has been little research in the literature to understand gamification misuse and inform future gamification designs. Therefore, this paper aims to fill this knowledge gap by conducting the first extensive qualitative research on gamification misuse in a popular learning app called Duolingo. Duolingo is currently the world's most downloaded learning app used to learn languages. This study consists of two phases: (I)a content analysis of data from Duolingo forums (from the past nine years) and (II)semi-structured interviews with 15 international Duolingo users. Our research contributes to the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Learning at Scale ([email protected]) research communities in three ways: (1) elaborating the ramifications of gamification misuse on user learning, well-being, and ethics, (2) identifying the most common reasons for gamification misuse (e.g., competitiveness, overindulgence in playfulness, and herding), and (3) providing designers with practical suggestions to prevent (or mitigate) the occurrence of gamification misuse in their future designs of gamified learning apps.