SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.28420

Between Algorithm (AI) and Intuition (Human): Preserving Designer Agency in AI-Assisted Sensemaking of Qualitative UX Data

Abstract

The integration of AI into qualitative design research presents a fundamental tension: how do we leverage AI while preserving the subjective, intuitive judgments that define design expertise? This paper examines this question through a case study of analyzing 20 user responses about video conferencing platforms for educational contexts. We argue that AI sensemaking tools risk flattening the rich data patterns, amplifying contradictory textures of user feedback into sterile categories thereby transforming design research from an interpretive craft into a mechanical sorting exercise (rigid and formal). Through comparative analysis of AI-assisted sensemaking versus human-centered approaches to the same dataset, we identify when algorithmic efficiency enhances understanding and when it diminishes the designer's interpretive agency (uncovering hidden needs, critical enquiry, what if enquiries, making decisions, having trade-offs). We present a framework for augmented sensemaking that positions AI as an instrument for amplifying human judgment rather than replacing it. Our findings suggest that the most valuable role for AI in design research is not to eliminate subjectivity, but to make it more intentional, reflective, and accountable.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Md Haseen Akhtar. 2026-08-28. Between Algorithm (AI) and Intuition (Human): Preserving Designer Agency in AI-Assisted Sensemaking of Qualitative UX Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28420

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Beyond Technological Solutionism: Rethinking XR in Healthcare

The healthcare industry's enthusiastic adoption of Extended Reality (XR) technologies obscures a concerning reality: we were building increasingly sophisticated ways to perpetuate fundamentally broken healthcare systems. Through three deeply personal narratives - a rural patient cut off from care infrastructure, an urban professional navigating fragmented services, and a first-generation immigrant confronting cultural barriers - this provocation paper exposes how our obsession with technological innovation often worsens rather than resolves healthcare disparities. By applying the SEIPS 3.0 model to examine diabetes-CVD care coordination, we identify an "innovation paradox" where advanced technology creates new barriers to effective care. Our care interdependencies framework reveals that healthcare outcomes are shaped primarily by human relationships (50-60%), organizational coordination (25-30%), and sociocultural factors (15-20%), not technological sophistication. This research challenges the HCI community to confront its role in perpetuating healthcare inequities, demands a fundamental rethinking and proposes a new framework for healthcare innovation that prioritizes human relationships over technical capability, systemic change over feature sets, and actual care delivery over technological ambition. For healthcare providers, technology developers, and policymakers, our findings suggest that effective care coordination requires us to step back from our techno-solutionist mindset and engage

cs.HC

A brief history of quantum vs classical computational advantage

In this review article we summarize all experiments claiming quantum computational advantage to date. Our review highlights challenges, loopholes, and refutations appearing in subsequent work to provide a complete picture of the current statuses of these experiments. In addition, we also discuss theoretical computational advantage in example problems such as approximate optimization and recommendation systems. Finally, we review recent experiments in quantum error correction -- the biggest frontier to reach experimental quantum advantage in Shor's algorithm.

quant-ph

Redundancy rules for MaxSAT

The concept of redundancy in SAT leads to more expressive and powerful proof search techniques, e.g., able to express various inprocessing techniques, and originates interesting hierarchies of proof systems [Heule et$.$al'20, Buss-Thapen'19]. Redundancy has also been integrated in MaxSAT [Ihalainen et$.$al'22, Berg et$.$al'23, Bonacina et$.$al'24]. In this paper, we define a structured hierarchy of redundancy proof systems for MaxSAT, with the goal of studying its proof complexity. We obtain MaxSAT variants of proof systems such as SPR, PR, SR, and others, previously defined for SAT. All our rules are polynomially checkable, unlike [Ihalainen et$.$al'22]. Moreover, they are simpler and weaker than [Berg et$.$al'23], and possibly amenable to lower bounds. This work also complements the approach of [Bonacina et$.$al'24]. Their proof systems use different rule sets for soft and hard clauses, while here we propose a system using only hard clauses and blocking variables. This is easier to integrate with current solvers and proof checkers. We discuss the strength of the systems introduced, we show some limitations of them, and we give a short cost-SR proof that any assignment for the weak pigeonhole principle $PHP^{m}_{n}$ falsifies at least $m-n$ clauses. We conclude by discussing the integration of our rules with the MaxSAT resolution proof system, which is a commonly studied proof system for MaxSAT.

cs.LO