The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Designing with Friction: Inverting Notions of Seamless Technology
Open accessAbstract
There is growing unease and a sense within the design community of the value placed on efficient, simplified, and seamless interactions, with a growing awareness and documentation of their unintended consequences across society. By prioritizing ‘frictionless’ finance, healthcare, education products, and services, there has been a consorted effort to reduce or eliminate our daily frictions in the pursuit of efficiency and ease of use. The role of friction, however, is more nuanced than this, with a growing appreciation for designing with frictions: leveraging features usually considered problematic or exploring the benefits, barriers, and complexity beyond hindering users. In seeking a more balanced understanding of friction in systems design, this workshop will offer ways of bringing friction to the fore of design and examining its role across the domains of care, privacy, security, repairability, and autonomous vehicles. Participants will contribute to an exhibition of frictions before taking part in sessions that will unpack digital systems, identify frictions, and examine the ethical ambiguities posed by the addition or removal of friction in particular contexts. In employing the concept of friction as a critical and constructive design lens, we seek to develop further a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) agenda for future discourse that inverts and provokes preconceptions and assumptions of a seamless digital landscape.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Building on Bowker and Star’s concept of infrastructural inversion [4], we shift attention from frictions as symptoms of breakdown to frictions as deliberate interventions [51] — counteractive frictions interrupt the pursuit of “frictionlessness” access in both the design [50] and ongoing evolution of infrastructure [20].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries
Cox, A. L., Gould, S. J. J., Cecchinato, M. E., Iacovides, I., & Renfree, I. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2851581.2892410 · Cited by 218
Mejtoft, T., Hale, S., & Söderström, U. (2019) · Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1145/3335082.3335106 · Cited by 51
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- 10.53681/c1514225187514391s.31.139 · DOI
- Jessica Bley 2023. Design friction in autonomous drive—exploring transitions between autonomous and manual drive in non-urgent situations. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-023-01780-7. · DOI
- Matthew Chalmers 2003. Seamful Design: Showing The Seams In Wearable Computing. (2003). · DOI
- 10.1145/3580299 · DOI
- 10.1080/10630732.2014.971525 · DOI
- 10.1145/2470654.2466472 · DOI
- 10.1145/3294109.3300999 · DOI
- 10.1145/3491102.3517558 · DOI
- Vladan Joler. 2023. Black Box Cartography – A critical cartography of the Internet and beyond. Krisis publishing.
- 10.1145/3526113.3545658 · DOI
- Joan C. Tronto. 2015. Moral boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge.
- 10.1515/9781400830596 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3512912 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kim Ly, C., Cross, T., Tasman, S., Mattka, J., Doggett, O., Marathe, M., & Chandra, P. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791638
“Part of a growing scholarship in HCI and design, “designing with friction” [27, 36, 50] has been argued as a deliberate tactic to surface politics and prompt reflection across domains.”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Sheahan, J., Chatting, D., Collins, R., Bley, J., Eriksson, A., Taylor, N., & Rozendaal, M. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Umeå University (SE)
- Volvo (Sweden) (SE)
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Adjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-10-13
- Pages
- 1-4
- OpenAlex
- W4402967824
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 5.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Keywords
- friction, design for care, privacy, security (computing), repairability, autonomous vehicles, moral ambiguity, digital systems, human-computer interaction
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