'Ohhh, he's the boss!': Unpacking Power Dynamics Among Developers, Designers, and End-Users in FLOSS Usability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing usability in free, libre, and open-source software (FLOSS) is a challenging issue, particularly due to a long-existing ''by developer, for developer'' mentality. Engaging designers and end-users to work with developers can help improve its usability, but unequal power dynamics among those stakeholder roles must be mitigated. To explore how the power of different FLOSS stakeholders manifests and can be mediated during collaboration, we conducted eight design workshops with different combinations of key FLOSS stakeholders (i.e., developers, designers, and end-users). Leveraging existing theories on Dimensions of Power, we revealed how participants navigate existing role-based power structures through resource utilization, knowledge gap management, and experience referencing. We also observed that participants exhibited diverse behaviors confirming and challenging the status quo of FLOSS usability. Overall, our results contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the power dynamics among FLOSS stakeholders, providing valuable insights into ways to balance their power to improve FLOSS usability. Our work also serves as an exemplar of using design workshops as a research method to study power dynamics during collaboration that are usually hidden in the field.
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 | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".