One Week in the Future: Previs Design Futuring for HCI Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the use of cinematic “pre-visualization” (previs) techniques as a rapid ideation and design futuring method for human computer interaction (HCI) research. Previs approaches, which are widely used in animation and film production, use digital design tools to create medium-fidelity videos that capture richer interaction, motion, and context than sketches or static illustrations. When used as a design futuring method, previs can facilitate rapid, iterative discussions that reveal tensions, challenges, and opportunities for new research. We performed eight one-week design futuring sprints, in which individual HCI researchers collaborated with a lead designer to produce concept sketches, storyboards, and videos that examined future applications of their research. From these experiences, we identify recurring themes and challenges and present a One Week Futuring Workbook that other researchers can use to guide their own futuring sprints. We also highlight how variations of our approach could support other speculative design practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".