arXiv subjects

Ian Arawjo

Publications and source records attributed to Ian Arawjo.

12 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

"A Second Set of Eyes": The Process and Challenges of Software Documentation Review

Organizations assign documentation work to technical writers, yet the knowledge required to produce it is distributed across developers, managers, and other practitioners. Prior work has established quality criteria for judging "good" documentation, but it has not examined how practitioners bring that expertise to improve documentation quality or the challenges they face in doing so. Through semi-structured interviews with experienced technical writers ($n=31$) from different organizations, our work reveals the individual and collaborative effort required to maintain documentation quality. We identify five distinct stages of the documentation review process: self review, technical review, editorial review, play testing, and post-publication feedback. Each stage draws on practitioners with distinct expertise to address quality across content, presentation, and user experience. Our findings surface organizational and technical challenges writers face in recruiting expert reviewers, navigating development timelines, and contending with tools not specifically designed for documentation workflows. Our work positions documentation review as a crucial yet understudied site of collaborative work and opens new research and design directions for process improvement and tool support.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Reporting and Reviewing LLM-Integrated Systems in HCI: Challenges and Considerations

What should HCI scholars consider when reporting and reviewing papers that involve LLM-integrated systems? We interview 18 authors of LLM-integrated system papers on their authoring and reviewing experiences. We find that norms of trust-building between authors and reviewers appear to be eroded by the uncertainty of LLM behavior and hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding AI. Authors perceive that reviewers apply uniquely skeptical and inconsistent standards towards papers that report LLM-integrated systems, and mitigate mistrust by adding technical evaluations, justifying usage, and de-emphasizing LLM presence. Authors' views challenge blanket directives to report all prompts and use open models, arguing that prompt reporting is context-dependent and justifying proprietary model usage despite ethical concerns. Finally, some tensions in peer review appear to stem from clashes between the norms and values of HCI and ML/NLP communities, particularly around what constitutes a contribution and an appropriate level of technical rigor. Based on our findings and additional feedback from six expert HCI researchers, we present a set of guidelines and considerations for authors, reviewers, and HCI communities around reporting and reviewing papers that involve LLM-integrated systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

How Notations Evolve: A Historical Analysis with Implications for Supporting User-Defined Abstractions

Traditional human-computer interaction takes place through formally-specified systems like structured UIs and programming languages. Recent AI systems promise a new set of informal interactions with computers through natural language and other notational forms. These informal interactions can then lead to formal representations, but depend upon pre-existing formalisms known to both humans and AI. What about novel formalisms and notations? How are new abstractions created, evolved, and incrementally formalized over time -- and how might new systems, in turn, be explicitly designed to support these processes? We conduct a comparative historical analysis of notation development to identify some relevant characteristics. These include three social stages of notation development: invention & incubation, dispersion & divergence, and institutionalization & sanctification, as well as three functional stages: descriptive, generative, and evaluative. Within and across these stages, we detail several patterns, such as the role of linking and grounding metaphors, dimensions of meaningful variation, and analogical alignment. Finally, we offer some implications for design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Democratizing Game Modding with GenAI: A Case Study of StarCharM, a Stardew Valley Character Maker

Game modding offers unique and personalized gaming experiences, but the technical complexity of creating mods often limits participation to skilled users. We envision a future where every player can create personalized mods for their games. To explore this space, we designed StarCharM, a GenAI-based non-player character (NPC) creator for Stardew Valley. Our tool enables players to iteratively create new NPC mods, requiring minimal user input while allowing for fine-grained adjustments through user control. We conducted a user study with ten Stardew Valley players who had varied mod usage experiences to understand the impacts of StarCharM and provide insights into how GenAI tools may reshape modding, particularly in NPC creation. Participants expressed excitement in bringing their character ideas to life, although they noted challenges in generating rich content to fulfill complex visions. While they believed GenAI tools like StarCharM can foster a more diverse modding community, some voiced concerns about diminished originality and community engagement that may come with such technology. Our findings provided implications and guidelines for the future of GenAI-powered modding tools and co-creative modding practices.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Semantic Commit: Helping Users Update Intent Specifications for AI Memory at Scale

How do we update AI memory of user intent as intent changes? We consider how an AI interface may assist the integration of new information into a repository of natural language data. Inspired by software engineering concepts like impact analysis, we develop methods and a UI for managing semantic changes with non-local effects, which we call "semantic conflict resolution." The user commits new intent to a project -- makes a "semantic commit" -- and the AI helps the user detect and resolve semantic conflicts within a store of existing information representing their intent (an "intent specification"). We develop an interface, SemanticCommit, to better understand how users resolve conflicts when updating intent specifications such as Cursor Rules and game design documents. A knowledge graph-based RAG pipeline drives conflict detection, while LLMs assist in suggesting resolutions. We evaluate our technique on an initial benchmark. Then, we report a 12 user within-subjects study of SemanticCommit for two task domains -- game design documents, and AI agent memory in the style of ChatGPT memories -- where users integrated new information into an existing list. Half of our participants adopted a workflow of impact analysis, where they would first flag conflicts without AI revisions then resolve conflicts locally, despite having access to a global revision feature. We argue that AI agent interfaces, such as software IDEs like Cursor and Windsurf, should provide affordances for impact analysis and help users validate AI retrieval independently from generation. Our work speaks to how AI agent designers should think about updating memory as a process that involves human feedback and decision-making.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Assistance or Disruption? Exploring and Evaluating the Design and Trade-offs of Proactive AI Programming Support

AI programming tools enable powerful code generation, and recent prototypes attempt to reduce user effort with proactive AI agents, but their impact on programming workflows remains unexplored. We introduce and evaluate Codellaborator, a design probe LLM agent that initiates programming assistance based on editor activities and task context. We explored three interface variants to assess trade-offs between increasingly salient AI support: prompt-only, proactive agent, and proactive agent with presence and context (Codellaborator). In a within-subject study (N=18), we find that proactive agents increase efficiency compared to prompt-only paradigm, but also incur workflow disruptions. However, presence indicators and interaction context support alleviated disruptions and improved users' awareness of AI processes. We underscore trade-offs of Codellaborator on user control, ownership, and code understanding, emphasizing the need to adapt proactivity to programming processes. Our research contributes to the design exploration and evaluation of proactive AI systems, presenting design implications on AI-integrated programming workflow.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

ChainBuddy: An AI Agent System for Generating LLM Pipelines

As large language models (LLMs) advance, their potential applications have grown significantly. However, it remains difficult to evaluate LLM behavior on user-defined tasks and craft effective pipelines to do so. Many users struggle with where to start, often referred to as the "blank page problem." ChainBuddy, an AI workflow generation assistant built into the ChainForge platform, aims to tackle this issue. From a single prompt or chat, ChainBuddy generates a starter evaluative LLM pipeline in ChainForge aligned to the user's requirements. ChainBuddy offers a straightforward and user-friendly way to plan and evaluate LLM behavior and make the process less daunting and more accessible across a wide range of possible tasks and use cases. We report a within-subjects user study comparing ChainBuddy to the baseline interface. We find that when using AI assistance, participants reported a less demanding workload, felt more confident, and produced higher quality pipelines evaluating LLM behavior. However, we also uncover a mismatch between subjective and objective ratings of performance: participants rated their successfulness similarly across conditions, while independent experts rated participant workflows significantly higher with AI assistance. Drawing connections to the Dunning-Kruger effect, we draw design implications for the future of workflow generation assistants to mitigate the risk of over-reliance.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences

Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Imagining a Future of Designing with AI: Dynamic Grounding, Constructive Negotiation, and Sustainable Motivation

We ideate a future design workflow that involves AI technology. Drawing from activity and communication theory, we attempt to isolate the new value large AI models can provide design compared to past technologies. We arrive at three affordances -- dynamic grounding, constructive negotiation, and sustainable motivation -- that summarize latent qualities of natural language-enabled foundation models that, if explicitly designed for, can support the process of design. Through design fiction, we then imagine a future interface as a diegetic prototype, the story of Squirrel Game, that demonstrates each of our three affordances in a realistic usage scenario. Our design process, terminology, and diagrams aim to contribute to future discussions about the relative affordances of AI technology with regard to collaborating with human designers.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Antagonistic AI

The vast majority of discourse around AI development assumes that subservient, "moral" models aligned with "human values" are universally beneficial -- in short, that good AI is sycophantic AI. We explore the shadow of the sycophantic paradigm, a design space we term antagonistic AI: AI systems that are disagreeable, rude, interrupting, confrontational, challenging, etc. -- embedding opposite behaviors or values. Far from being "bad" or "immoral," we consider whether antagonistic AI systems may sometimes have benefits to users, such as forcing users to confront their assumptions, build resilience, or develop healthier relational boundaries. Drawing from formative explorations and a speculative design workshop where participants designed fictional AI technologies that employ antagonism, we lay out a design space for antagonistic AI, articulating potential benefits, design techniques, and methods of embedding antagonistic elements into user experience. Finally, we discuss the many ethical challenges of this space and identify three dimensions for the responsible design of antagonistic AI -- consent, context, and framing.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

An AI-Resilient Text Rendering Technique for Reading and Skimming Documents

Readers find text difficult to consume for many reasons. Summarization can address some of these difficulties, but introduce others, such as omitting, misrepresenting, or hallucinating information, which can be hard for a reader to notice. One approach to addressing this problem is to instead modify how the original text is rendered to make important information more salient. We introduce Grammar-Preserving Text Saliency Modulation (GP-TSM), a text rendering method with a novel means of identifying what to de-emphasize. Specifically, GP-TSM uses a recursive sentence compression method to identify successive levels of detail beyond the core meaning of a passage, which are de-emphasized by rendering words in successively lighter but still legible gray text. In a lab study (n=18), participants preferred GP-TSM over pre-existing word-level text rendering methods and were able to answer GRE reading comprehension questions more efficiently.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testing

Evaluating outputs of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, requiring making -- and making sense of -- many responses. Yet tools that go beyond basic prompting tend to require knowledge of programming APIs, focus on narrow domains, or are closed-source. We present ChainForge, an open-source visual toolkit for prompt engineering and on-demand hypothesis testing of text generation LLMs. ChainForge provides a graphical interface for comparison of responses across models and prompt variations. Our system was designed to support three tasks: model selection, prompt template design, and hypothesis testing (e.g., auditing). We released ChainForge early in its development and iterated on its design with academics and online users. Through in-lab and interview studies, we find that a range of people could use ChainForge to investigate hypotheses that matter to them, including in real-world settings. We identify three modes of prompt engineering and LLM hypothesis testing: opportunistic exploration, limited evaluation, and iterative refinement.

cs.HC↗