Beyond Theory: A UX Outcomes Casebook for HCI Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CHI community has expressed a growing interest in creating and sharing educational materials related to User Experience (UX) outcomes, particularly emphasizing summative research. Based on insights gathered at a CSCW 2003 workshop on understanding and evaluating UX outcomes at scale, we identified two areas of focus: (1) the need to develop Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) educational resources for UX, specifically focusing on summative methods and industry practices, and (2) the opportunity to further review and discuss the potential of a casebook—a textbook centered around case studies. This Special Interest Group (SIG) at CHI 2024 aims to directly address these opportunities by bringing together a community of academic and industry researchers for the exchange of ideas, ultimately guiding the development of educational resources that equip HCI students with strong summative research skills as they enter the UX field. At the SIG, we will discuss HCI educational resources for UX outcomes and present a casebook outline, gathering feedback, insights, and interest regarding the proposed case studies and general format.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it