'Ohhh, he's the boss!': Unpacking Power Dynamics Among Developers, Designers, and End-Users in FLOSS Usability
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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