I've been wrestling with the gap between HCI curricula, which tend to focus on the design process, and the big theories and ideas that animate us in HCI. Here's a model that has starting working well here for me here at Stanford: @msbernst@medium.com
Michael Bernstein
Stanford CS prof, human-computer interaction and social computing. Surely I will be interesting and entertaining here, even though I failed to achieve this on Twitter.
Big congratulations to Helena Vasconcelos on winning a 2025 CRA Outstanding Undergraduate Researcher Award! https://cra.org/about/awards/outstanding-undergraduate-researcher-award/
Coming very soon: #cscw2024 panel on "Is Human-AI Interaction CSCW?" alongside @asb@hci.social, @jbigham@hci.social, @andresmh@hci.social, and Merrie Morris!
https://programs.sigchi.org/cscw/2024/program/content/179232
Stanford's Symbolic Systems Program is hiring a three-year lecturer position: https://academicjobsonline.org/ajo/program/29530
You just got asked to review another paper; your third emoji is your review.
@andresmh@hci.social Yes, the main difference is that the network is at best secondary and possibly just nonexistent. For example, you can follow on TikTok, but it's not a main driver of the FYP.
In theory, you can algorithmically rank any threaded design: spaces (Reddit), network (FB/Insta feed), or commons (TikTok FYP). Commons-based designs have few options beyond algorithmic ranking, though.
And yeah, when there's a bounded space, paid subscriptions to gain access is a clear metaphor.