Kihoon Son

DaEun Choi, Kihoon Son, Jaesang Yu et al.

While designers increasingly leverage Generative AI for divergent exploration, current interaction is optimized for convergent refinement, forcing users to specify fixed targets rather than open-ended search spaces. Based on a formative study (N=7), we define the anatomy of Divergent Intent, comprising property, direction, and range, and identified two critical barriers: the lack of mechanisms to explicitly shape the parametric boundaries of exploration and the difficulty of reusing successful search strategies. We present IdeaBlocks, where users can modularize divergent intents into Exploration Blocks. Users can reuse prior intents at multiple levels (block, path, and project) with options for literal or context-adaptive reuse. In our comparative study (N=12), participants using IdeaBlocks explored 2.13 times more images with 12.5% greater visual diversity than the baseline, demonstrating how structured intent expression and reuse support effective divergence. A three-day deployment study (N=6) further revealed how different reuse mechanisms allowed distinct creative strategies, offering design implications for future intent-aware creativity supports.

Jeongeon Park, Bryan Min, Kihoon Son et al.

From deciding on a PhD program to buying a new camera, unfamiliar decisions--decisions without domain knowledge--are frequent and significant. The complexity and uncertainty of such decisions demand unique approaches to information seeking, understanding, and decision-making. Our formative study highlights that users want to start by discovering broad and relevant domain information evenly and simultaneously, quickly address emerging inquiries, and gain personalized standards to assess information found. We present ChoiceMates, an interactive multi-agent system designed to address these needs by enabling users to engage with a dynamic set of LLM agents each presenting a unique experience in the domain. Unlike existing multi-agent systems that automate tasks with agents, the user orchestrates agents to assist their decision-making process. Our user evaluation (n=12) shows that ChoiceMates enables a more confident, satisfactory decision-making with better situation understanding than web search, and higher decision quality and confidence than a commercial multi-agent framework. This work provides insights into designing a more controllable and collaborative multi-agent system.

Yoonsu Kim, Chanbin Park, Kihoon Son et al.

During complex knowledge work, people engage in iterative sensemaking: interpreting information, connecting ideas, and refining their understanding. Yet in current human-AI collaboration, these cognitive processes are difficult to share and organize for AI. They arise in situ and are rarely captured without interrupting the task, and even when expressed, remain scattered or reduced to system-generated summaries that fail to reflect users' cognitive processes. We address this challenge by enabling AI context that is grounded in users' cognitive traces and can be directly inspected and revised by the user. We first explore this through a probe system that supports in-situ snippet memoing, allowing users to easily share their cognitive moves. Our study (N=10) highlights the value of capturing such context and the challenge of organizing it once accumulated. We then present Contexty, which supports users in inspecting and refining these contexts to better reflect their understanding of the task. Our evaluation (N=12) showed that Contexty improved task awareness, thought structuring, and users' sense of authorship and control, with participants preferring snippet-grounded AI responses over non-grounded ones (78.1%). We discuss how capturing and organizing users' cognitive context enables AI as a context-aware collaborator while preserving user agency.

Kihoon Son, Hyewon Lee, DaEun Choi et al.

Human collaborators coordinate dynamically through process visibility and workspace awareness, yet AI agents typically either provide only final outputs or expose read-only execution processes (e.g., planning, reasoning) without interpreting concurrent user actions on shared artifacts. Building on mixed-initiative interaction principles, we explore whether agents can achieve collaborative context awareness -- interpreting concurrent user actions on shared artifacts and adapting in real-time. Study 1 (N=10 professional designers) revealed that process visibility enabled reasoning about agent actions but exposed conflicts when agents could not distinguish feedback from independent work. We developed CLEO, which interprets collaborative intent and adapts in real-time. Study 2 (N=10, two-day with stimulated recall interviews) analyzed 214 turns, identifying five action patterns, six triggers, and four enabling factors explaining when designers choose delegation (70.1%), direction (28.5%), or concurrent work (31.8%). We present a decision model with six interaction loops, design implications, and an annotated dataset.

Kihoon Son, DaEun Choi, Tae Soo Kim et al.

Capturing professionals' decision-making in creative workflows is essential for reflection, collaboration, and knowledge sharing, yet existing methods often leave rationales incomplete and implicit decisions hidden. To address this, we present CLEAR framework that structures reasoning into cognitive decision steps-linked units of actions, artifacts, and self-explanations that make decisions traceable. Building on this framework, we introduce ClearFairy, a think-aloud AI assistant for UI design that detects weak explanations, asks lightweight clarifying questions, and infers missing rationales to ease the knowledge-sharing burden. In a study with twelve creative professionals, 85% of ClearFairy's inferred rationales were accepted, increasing strong explanations from 14% to over 83% of decision steps without adding cognitive demand. The captured steps also enhanced generative AI agents in Figma, yielding next-action predictions better aligned with professionals and producing more coherent design outcomes. For future research on human knowledge-grounded creative AI agents, we release a dataset of captured 417 decision steps.

Daeheon Jeong, Seoyeon Byun, Kihoon Son et al.

User interface (UI) design is an iterative process in which designers progressively refine their work with design software such as Figma or Sketch. Recent advances in vision language models (VLMs) with tool invocation suggest these models can operate design software to edit a UI design through iteration. Understanding and enhancing this capacity is important, as it highlights VLMs' potential to collaborate with designers within conventional software. However, as no existing benchmark evaluates tool-based design performance, the capacity remains unknown. To address this, we introduce CANVAS, a benchmark for VLMs on tool-based user interface design. Our benchmark contains 598 tool-based design tasks paired with ground-truth references sampled from 3.3K mobile UI designs across 30 function-based categories (e.g., onboarding, messaging). In each task, a VLM updates the design step-by-step through context-based tool invocations (e.g., create a rectangle as a button background), linked to design software. Specifically, CANVAS incorporates two task types: (i) design replication evaluates the ability to reproduce a whole UI screen; (ii) design modification evaluates the ability to modify a specific part of an existing screen. Results suggest that leading models exhibit more strategic tool invocations, improving design quality. Furthermore, we identify common error patterns models exhibit, guiding future work in enhancing tool-based design capabilities.

Yoonsu Kim, Kihoon Son, Seoyoung Kim et al.

AI intent alignment, ensuring that AI produces outcomes as intended by users, is a critical challenge in human-AI interaction. The emergence of generative AI, including LLMs, has intensified the significance of this problem, as interactions increasingly involve users specifying desired results for AI systems. In order to support better AI intent alignment, we aim to explore human strategies for intent specification in human-human communication. By studying and comparing human-human and human-LLM communication, we identify key strategies that can be applied to the design of AI systems that are more effective at understanding and aligning with user intent. This study aims to advance toward a human-centered AI system by bringing together human communication strategies for the design of AI systems.

Yoonjoo Lee, Kihoon Son, Tae Soo Kim et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are nondeterministic, the same input can generate different outputs, some of which may be incorrect or hallucinated. If run again, the LLM may correct itself and produce the correct answer. Unfortunately, most LLM-powered systems resort to single results which, correct or not, users accept. Having the LLM produce multiple outputs may help identify disagreements or alternatives. However, it is not obvious how the user will interpret conflicts or inconsistencies. To this end, we investigate how users perceive the AI model and comprehend the generated information when they receive multiple, potentially inconsistent, outputs. Through a preliminary study, we identified five types of output inconsistencies. Based on these categories, we conducted a study (N=252) in which participants were given one or more LLM-generated passages to an information-seeking question. We found that inconsistency within multiple LLM-generated outputs lowered the participants' perceived AI capacity, while also increasing their comprehension of the given information. Specifically, we observed that this positive effect of inconsistencies was most significant for participants who read two passages, compared to those who read three. Based on these findings, we present design implications that, instead of regarding LLM output inconsistencies as a drawback, we can reveal the potential inconsistencies to transparently indicate the limitations of these models and promote critical LLM usage.