Designing information savvy societies: an introduction to assessability
Abstract
This paper provides first steps toward an empirically grounded design vocabulary for assessable design as an HCI response to the global need for better information literacy skills. We present a framework for synthesizing literatures called the Interdisciplinary Literacy Framework and use it to highlight gaps in our understanding of information literacy that HCI as a field is particularly well suited to fill. We report on two studies that lay a foundation for developing guidelines for assessable information system design. The first is a study of Wikipedians', librarians', and laypersons' information assessment practices from which we derive two important features of assessable designs: information provenance and stewardship. The second is an experimental study in which we operationalize these concepts in designs and test them using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Professionals use a range of features on Wikipedia, like the references and warnings, to help them navigate the information found there.
“Professionals use a range of features on the site, like the references and warnings, to help them navigate the information found there (Forte et al., 2014).”
From Learning to evaluate sources of science (mis)information on the internet: Assessing students' scientific online reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as Forte et al., 2014
Cites
Kuiper, E., Volman, M., & Terwel, J. (2005) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543075003285 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Augmenting web pages and search results to support credibility assessment
Schwarz, J., & Morris, M. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979127 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, Y., Suhaimi, N., Yongsatianchot, N., Gaggiano, J. D., Kim, M., Patel, S. A., Sun, Y., Marsella, S., Griffin, J., & Parker, A. G. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501889 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Forte, A., Andalibi, N., Park, T., & Willever-Farr, H.
- Affiliations
- Drexel University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-04-26
- Pages
- 2471-2480
- OpenAlex
- W2033001513
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 16.33
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Wikimedia Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- information literacy, information evaluation, information system design, design guidelines, data provenance, information stewardship, information literacy assessment, librarians, laypeople
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review