Yvonne Rogers

Ashild Kummen, Guanlin Li, Ali Hassan et al.

Touchless computer interaction has become an important consideration during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Despite progress in machine learning and computer vision that allows for advanced gesture recognition, an integrated collection of such open-source methods and a user-customisable approach to utilising them in a low-cost solution for touchless interaction in existing software is still missing. In this paper, we introduce the MotionInput v2.0 application. This application utilises published open-source libraries and additional gesture definitions developed to take the video stream from a standard RGB webcam as input. It then maps human motion gestures to input operations for existing applications and games. The user can choose their own preferred way of interacting from a series of motion types, including single and bi-modal hand gesturing, full-body repetitive or extremities-based exercises, head and facial movements, eye tracking, and combinations of the above. We also introduce a series of bespoke gesture recognition classifications as DirectInput triggers, including gestures for idle states, auto calibration, depth capture from a 2D RGB webcam stream and tracking of facial motions such as mouth motions, winking, and head direction with rotation. Three use case areas assisted the development of the modules: creativity software, office and clinical software, and gaming software. A collection of open-source libraries has been integrated and provide a layer of modular gesture mapping on top of existing mouse and keyboard controls in Windows via DirectX. With ease of access to webcams integrated into most laptops and desktop computers, touchless computing becomes more available with MotionInput v2.0, in a federated and locally processed method.

Leon Reicherts, Zelun Tony Zhang, Elisabeth von Oswald et al.

How can we design AI tools that effectively support human decision-making by complementing and enhancing users' reasoning processes? Common recommendation-centric approaches face challenges such as inappropriate reliance or a lack of integration with users' decision-making processes. Here, we explore an alternative interaction model in which the AI outputs build upon users' own decision-making rationales. We compare this approach, which we call ExtendAI, with a recommendation-based AI. Participants in our mixed-methods user study interacted with both AIs as part of an investment decision-making task. We found that the AIs had different impacts, with ExtendAI integrating better into the decision-making process and people's own thinking and leading to slightly better outcomes. RecommendAI was able to provide more novel insights while requiring less cognitive effort. We discuss the implications of these and other findings along with three tensions of AI-assisted decision-making which our study revealed.

Samangi Wadinambiarachchi, Jenny Waycott, Yvonne Rogers et al.

As designers become familiar with Generative AI, a new concept is emerging: Agentic AI. While generative AI produces output in response to prompts, agentic AI systems promise to perform mundane tasks autonomously, potentially freeing designers to focus on what they love: being creative. But how do designers feel about integrating agentic AI systems into their workflows? Through design fiction, we investigated how designers want to interact with a collaborative agentic AI platform. Ten professional designers imagined and discussed collaborating with an AI agent to organise inspiration sources and ideate. Our findings highlight the roles AI agents can play in supporting designers, the division of authority between humans and AI, and how designers' intent can be explained to AI agents beyond prompts. We synthesise our findings into a conceptual framework that identifies authority distribution among humans and AI agents and discuss directions for utilising AI agents in future design workflows.

Yvonne Rogers

Students routinely use ChatGPT and the like now to help them with their homework, such as writing an essay. It takes less effort to complete and is easier to do than by hand. It can even produce as good if not better output than the student's own work. However, there is a growing concern that over-reliance on using GenAI in this way will stifle the development of learning writing and critical thinking skills. How might this trend be reversed? What if students were required to make more effort when using GenAI to do their homework? It might be more challenging, but the additional effort involved could result in them learning more and having a greater sense of achievement. This tension can be viewed as a form of effort paradox; where effort is both viewed as something to be avoided but at the same time is valued. Is it possible to let students learn sometimes with less and other times more effort? Students are already adept at the former but what about the latter? Could we design new kinds of AI tools that deliberately require more effort to use to deepen the learning experience? In this paper, I begin to outline what form these might take, for example, asking students to use a combination of GenAI tools with traditional learning approaches (e.g. note-taking while reading). I also discuss how else to design tools to think with that augments human cognition; where students learn more the skills of metacognition and reflection.

Lev Tankelevitch, Elena L. Glassman, Jessica He et al. · microsoft-research

Generative AI (GenAI) radically expands the scope and capability of automation for work, education, and everyday tasks, a transformation posing both risks and opportunities for human cognition. How will human cognition change, and what opportunities are there for GenAI to augment it? Which theories, metrics, and other tools are needed to address these questions? The CHI 2025 workshop on Tools for Thought aimed to bridge an emerging science of how the use of GenAI affects human thought, from metacognition to critical thinking, memory, and creativity, with an emerging design practice for building GenAI tools that both protect and augment human thought. Fifty-six researchers, designers, and thinkers from across disciplines as well as industry and academia, along with 34 papers and portfolios, seeded a day of discussion, ideation, and community-building. We synthesize this material here to begin mapping the space of research and design opportunities and to catalyze a multidisciplinary community around this pressing area of research.

Maria Perez-Ortiz, Sahan Bulathwela, Claire Dormann et al.

Prior research has shown how 'content preview tools' improve speed and accuracy of user relevance judgements across different information retrieval tasks. This paper describes a novel user interface tool, the Content Flow Bar, designed to allow users to quickly identify relevant fragments within informational videos to facilitate browsing, through a cognitively augmented form of navigation. It achieves this by providing semantic "snippets" that enable the user to rapidly scan through video content. The tool provides visually-appealing pop-ups that appear in a time series bar at the bottom of each video, allowing to see in advance and at a glance how topics evolve in the content. We conducted a user study to evaluate how the tool changes the users search experience in video retrieval, as well as how it supports exploration and information seeking. The user questionnaire revealed that participants found the Content Flow Bar helpful and enjoyable for finding relevant information in videos. The interaction logs of the user study, where participants interacted with the tool for completing two informational tasks, showed that it holds promise for enhancing discoverability of content both across and within videos. This discovered potential could leverage a new generation of navigation tools in search and information retrieval.

Paweł W. Woźniak, Jakob Karolus, Florian Lang et al.

Interactive technologies are getting closer to our bodies and permeate the infrastructure of our homes. While such technologies offer many benefits, they can also cause an initial feeling of unease in users. It is important for Human-Computer Interaction to manage first impressions and avoid designing technologies that appear creepy. To that end, we developed the Perceived Creepiness of Technology Scale (PCTS), which measures how creepy a technology appears to a user in an initial encounter with a new artefact. The scale was developed based on past work on creepiness and a set of ten focus groups conducted with users from diverse backgrounds. We followed a structured process of analytically developing and validating the scale. The PCTS is designed to enable designers and researchers to quickly compare interactive technologies and ensure that they do not design technologies that produce initial feelings of creepiness in users.