Cited by 103Innovative Human-Technology InteractionUsability and User Interface DesignInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Implications for Adoption

Open access
Lindley, Joseph, Coulton, Paul, Sturdee, Miriam·2017·Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

In this paper we explore the motivations for, and practicalities of, incorporating "implications for adoption" into HCI research practice. Implications for adoption are speculations which may be used in research projects to scrutinize and explore the implications and requirements associated with a technology's potential adoption in the future. There is a rich tradition within the HCI community of implementing, demonstrating, and testing new interactions or technologies by building prototypes. User-centered design methods help us to develop prototypes to and move toward designs that are validated, efficient, and rewarding to use. However, these studies rarely shift their temporal focus to consider, in any significant detail, what it would mean for a technology to exist beyond its prototypical implementation, in other words how these prototypes might ultimately be adopted. Given the CHI community's increasing interest in technology-related human and social effects, the lack of attention paid to adoption represents a significant and relevant gap in current practices. It is this gap that the paper addresses and in doing so offers three contributions: (1) exploring and unpacking different notions of adoption from varying disciplinary perspectives; (2) discussing why considering adoption is relevant and useful, specifically in HCI research; (3) discussing methods for addressing this need, specifically design fiction, and understanding how utilizing these methods may provide researchers with means to better understand the myriad of nuanced, situated, and technologically-mediated relationships that innovative designs facilitate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3025453.3025742

Cites

96 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Gaver et al. calls making design a tool for raising topics or asking questions, while renouncing the possibility of dictating answers, i.e. design for ambiguity, for adoption, for appropriation, which can bring users like the artists into conversation with the technology.

    “This is what Gaver et al. [46] calls making design a “tool for raising topics or asking questions, while renouncing the possibility of dictating answers” i.e. design for ambiguity[46], for adoption [69], for appropriation [36] which can bring users like our artists into conversation with the technology.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything. The MIT Press, London.
  2. Trevor J Pinch and Wiebe E Bijker. 1984. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science 14, 3: 399-441. http://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Albert H Segars and Varun Grover. 1993. Re- examining perceived ease of use and usefulness. MIS Quarterly 17, 4: 517-525.
  4. Bruce Sterling. 2005. Shaping Things. The MIT Press.
  5. Stuart Walker. 2013. Imagination's Promise: Practice-Based Design, Research for Sustainability. In The Handbook for Design Sustainability, Stuart Walker and Jacques Giard (eds.). Bloomsbury, London & New York, 460-461.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindley, J., Coulton, P., & Sturdee, M.
Affiliations
Lancaster University (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-05-02
Pages
265-277
OpenAlex
W2601976332
Cited by
103
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3
FWCI
9.10
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N02334X/1)
  • Research Councils UK (EP/G037582/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
technology adoption, design fiction, user-centered design, prototype, future of technology

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