arXiv subjects

Krzysztof Z. Gajos

Publications and source records attributed to Krzysztof Z. Gajos.

17 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Coral: Contextual Gists for Blind and Low Vision Screen Reader Users' Understanding of Dynamic User Interfaces

Blind and low vision (BLV) screen reader users construct mental models of user interfaces (UIs) through incremental screen reader interaction, a time-consuming and cognitively demanding process complicated by modern interfaces that may not convey dynamic content accessibly. We interviewed eleven BLV screen reader users about UI understanding and derived design objectives that informed Coral, a context-aware browser extension. Coral synthesizes interface and user context to generate screen reader-narrated gists which holistically notify users of interface states and changes relevant to their likely goals and ongoing interaction. In a comparative evaluation with eight BLV screen reader users, participants used Coral to form initial expectations and interpret interface changes, and reported spending less time and effort manually verifying interaction outcomes. Together, our findings provide deeper insight into how BLV screen reader users navigate gaps in their UI understanding, and how intelligent support that combines interface and user context can bridge these gaps.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

"ChatGPT, what am I missing?": Designing AI Workflows around Professional Task Structure to Shape Analytic AI Use

General-purpose AI lets users choose what support to request, but leaves them to structure the support a professional task requires. We examine how interactive workflows can embed professional task structure without prescribing how users engage with AI. We designed two scaffolded interfaces around the same negotiation scaffold: one presented a completed AI analysis, while the other supported user-directed, incremental development. A four-condition randomized experiment with 800 participants compared these interfaces with no-AI and an AI chat interface. AI-supported conditions improved preparation coverage over unaided work; the scaffolded workflows further improved coverage over chat. Although the scaffolded workflows produced similar coverage, the user-directed workflow elicited a broader repertoire of analytic requests and lower subjective effort. Professional scaffolding therefore depends not only on displayed structure but on how workflows organize users' engagement with it. Effective professional AI must structure how users and AI build analysis together.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

To Recommend or Not to Recommend: Designing and Evaluating AI-Enabled Decision Support for Time-Critical Medical Events

AI-enabled decision-support systems aim to help medical providers rapidly make decisions with limited information during medical emergencies. A critical challenge in developing these systems is supporting providers in interpreting the system output to make optimal treatment decisions. In this study, we designed and evaluated an AI-enabled decision-support system to aid providers in treating patients with traumatic injuries. We first conducted user research with physicians to identify and design information types and AI outputs for a decision-support display. We then conducted an online experiment with 35 medical providers from six health systems to evaluate two human-AI interaction strategies: (1) AI information synthesis and (2) AI information and recommendations. We found that providers were more likely to make correct decisions when AI information and recommendations were provided compared to receiving no AI support. We also identified two socio-technical barriers to providing AI recommendations during time-critical medical events: (1) an accuracy-time trade-off in providing recommendations and (2) polarizing perceptions of recommendations between providers. We discuss three implications for developing AI-enabled decision support used in time-critical events, contributing to the limited research on human-AI interaction in this context.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Contrastive Explanations That Anticipate Human Misconceptions Can Improve Human Decision-Making Skills

People's decision-making abilities often fail to improve or may even erode when they rely on AI for decision-support, even when the AI provides informative explanations. We argue this is partly because people intuitively seek contrastive explanations, which clarify the difference between the AI's decision and their own reasoning, while most AI systems offer "unilateral" explanations that justify the AI's decision but do not account for users' thinking. To align human-AI knowledge on decision tasks, we introduce a framework for generating human-centered contrastive explanations that explain the difference between AI's choice and a predicted, likely human choice about the same task. Results from a large-scale experiment (N = 628) demonstrate that contrastive explanations significantly enhance users' independent decision-making skills compared to unilateral explanations, without sacrificing decision accuracy. Amid rising deskilling concerns, our research demonstrates that incorporating human reasoning into AI design can foster human skill development.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

"Come to us first": Centering Community Organizations in Artificial Intelligence for Social Good Partnerships

Artificial Intelligence for Social Good (AI4SG) has emerged as a growing body of research and practice exploring the potential of AI technologies to tackle social issues. This area emphasizes interdisciplinary partnerships with community organizations, such as non-profits and government agencies. However, amidst excitement about new advances in AI and their potential impact, the needs, expectations, and aspirations of these community organizations--and whether they are being met--are not well understood. Understanding these factors is important to ensure that the considerable efforts by AI teams and community organizations can actually achieve the positive social impact they strive for. Drawing on the Data Feminism framework, we explored the perspectives of community organization members on their partnerships with AI teams through 16 semi-structured interviews. Our study highlights the pervasive influence of funding agendas and the optimism surrounding AI's potential. Despite the significant intellectual contributions and labor provided by community organization members, their goals were frequently sidelined in favor of other stakeholders, including AI teams. While many community organization members expected tangible project deployment, only two out of 14 projects we studied reached the deployment stage. However, community organization members sustained their belief in the potential of the projects, still seeing diminished goals as valuable. To enhance the efficacy of future collaborations, our participants shared their aspirations for success, calling for co-leadership starting from the early stages of projects. We propose data co-liberation as a grounding principle for approaching AI4SG moving forward, positing that community organizations' co-leadership is essential for fostering more effective, sustainable, and ethical development of AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

"ChatGPT, Don't Tell Me What to Do": Designing AI for Context Analysis in Humanitarian Frontline Negotiations

Frontline humanitarian negotiators are increasingly exploring ways to use AI tools in their workflows. However, current AI-tools in negotiation primarily focus on outcomes, neglecting crucial aspects of the negotiation process. Through iterative co-design with experienced frontline negotiators (n=32), we found that flexible tools that enable contextualizing cases and exploring options (with associated risks) are more effective than those providing direct recommendations of negotiation strategies. Surprisingly, negotiators demonstrated tolerance for occasional hallucinations and biases of AI. Our findings suggest that the design of AI-assisted negotiation tools should build on practitioners' existing practices, such as weighing different compromises and validating information with peers. This approach leverages negotiators' expertise while enhancing their decision-making capabilities. We call for technologists to learn from and collaborate closely with frontline negotiators, applying these insights to future AI designs and jointly developing professional guidelines for AI use in humanitarian negotiations.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Generative AI in the Software Engineering Domain: Tensions of Occupational Identity and Patterns of Identity Protection

The adoption of generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in organizational settings calls into question workers' roles, and relatedly, the implications for their long-term skill development and domain expertise. In our qualitative study in the software engineering domain, we build on the theoretical lenses of occupational identity and self-determination theory to understand how and why software engineers make sense of GAI for their work. We find that engineers' sense-making is contingent on domain expertise, as juniors and seniors felt their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness to be differently impacted by GAI. We shed light on the importance of the individual's role in preserving tacit domain knowledge as engineers engaged in sense-making that protected their occupational identity. We illustrate how organizations play an active role in shaping workers' sense-making process and propose design guidelines on how organizations and system designers can facilitate the impact of technological change on workers' occupational identity.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Hevelius Report: Visualizing Web-Based Mobility Test Data For Clinical Decision and Learning Support

Hevelius, a web-based computer mouse test, measures arm movement and has been shown to accurately evaluate severity for patients with Parkinson's disease and ataxias. A Hevelius session produces 32 numeric features, which may be hard to interpret, especially in time-constrained clinical settings. This work aims to support clinicians (and other stakeholders) in interpreting and connecting Hevelius features to clinical concepts. Through an iterative design process, we developed a visualization tool (Hevelius Report) that (1) abstracts six clinically relevant concepts from 32 features, (2) visualizes patient test results, and compares them to results from healthy controls and other patients, and (3) is an interactive app to meet the specific needs in different usage scenarios. Then, we conducted a preliminary user study through an online interview with three clinicians who were not involved in the project. They expressed interest in using Hevelius Report, especially for identifying subtle changes in their patients' mobility that are hard to capture with existing clinical tests. Future work will integrate the visualization tool into the current clinical workflow of a neurology team and conduct systematic evaluations of the tool's usefulness, usability, and effectiveness. Hevelius Report represents a promising solution for analyzing fine-motor test results and monitoring patients' conditions and progressions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Towards Optimizing Human-Centric Objectives in AI-Assisted Decision-Making With Offline Reinforcement Learning

Imagine if AI decision-support tools not only complemented our ability to make accurate decisions, but also improved our skills, boosted collaboration, and elevated the joy we derive from our tasks. Despite the potential to optimize a broad spectrum of such human-centric objectives, the design of current AI tools remains focused on decision accuracy alone. We propose offline reinforcement learning (RL) as a general approach for modeling human-AI decision-making to optimize human-AI interaction for diverse objectives. RL can optimize such objectives by tailoring decision support, providing the right type of assistance to the right person at the right time. We instantiated our approach with two objectives: human-AI accuracy on the decision-making task and human learning about the task and learned decision support policies from previous human-AI interaction data. We compared the optimized policies against several baselines in AI-assisted decision-making. Across two experiments (N=316 and N=964), our results demonstrated that people interacting with policies optimized for accuracy achieve significantly better accuracy -- and even human-AI complementarity -- compared to those interacting with any other type of AI support. Our results further indicated that human learning was more difficult to optimize than accuracy, with participants who interacted with learning-optimized policies showing significant learning improvement only at times. Our research (1) demonstrates offline RL to be a promising approach to model human-AI decision-making, leading to policies that may optimize human-centric objectives and provide novel insights about the AI-assisted decision-making space, and (2) emphasizes the importance of considering human-centric objectives beyond decision accuracy in AI-assisted decision-making, opening up the novel research challenge of optimizing human-AI interaction for such objectives.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Evaluating the Experience of LGBTQ+ People Using Large Language Model Based Chatbots for Mental Health Support

LGBTQ+ individuals are increasingly turning to chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) to meet their mental health needs. However, little research has explored whether these chatbots can adequately and safely provide tailored support for this demographic. We interviewed 18 LGBTQ+ and 13 non-LGBTQ+ participants about their experiences with LLM-based chatbots for mental health needs. LGBTQ+ participants relied on these chatbots for mental health support, likely due to an absence of support in real life. Notably, while LLMs offer prompt support, they frequently fall short in grasping the nuances of LGBTQ-specific challenges. Although fine-tuning LLMs to address LGBTQ+ needs can be a step in the right direction, it isn't the panacea. The deeper issue is entrenched in societal discrimination. Consequently, we call on future researchers and designers to look beyond mere technical refinements and advocate for holistic strategies that confront and counteract the societal biases burdening the LGBTQ+ community.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Accuracy-Time Tradeoffs in AI-Assisted Decision Making under Time Pressure

In settings where users both need high accuracy and are time-pressured, such as doctors working in emergency rooms, we want to provide AI assistance that both increases decision accuracy and reduces decision-making time. Current literature focusses on how users interact with AI assistance when there is no time pressure, finding that different AI assistances have different benefits: some can reduce time taken while increasing overreliance on AI, while others do the opposite. The precise benefit can depend on both the user and task. In time-pressured scenarios, adapting when we show AI assistance is especially important: relying on the AI assistance can save time, and can therefore be beneficial when the AI is likely to be right. We would ideally adapt what AI assistance we show depending on various properties (of the task and of the user) in order to best trade off accuracy and time. We introduce a study where users have to answer a series of logic puzzles. We find that time pressure affects how users use different AI assistances, making some assistances more beneficial than others when compared to no-time-pressure settings. We also find that a user's overreliance rate is a key predictor of their behaviour: overreliers and not-overreliers use different AI assistance types differently. We find marginal correlations between a user's overreliance rate (which is related to the user's trust in AI recommendations) and their personality traits (Big Five Personality traits). Overall, our work suggests that AI assistances have different accuracy-time tradeoffs when people are under time pressure compared to no time pressure, and we explore how we might adapt AI assistances in this setting.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Do People Engage Cognitively with AI? Impact of AI Assistance on Incidental Learning

When people receive advice while making difficult decisions, they often make better decisions in the moment and also increase their knowledge in the process. However, such incidental learning can only occur when people cognitively engage with the information they receive and process this information thoughtfully. How do people process the information and advice they receive from AI, and do they engage with it deeply enough to enable learning? To answer these questions, we conducted three experiments in which individuals were asked to make nutritional decisions and received simulated AI recommendations and explanations. In the first experiment, we found that when people were presented with both a recommendation and an explanation before making their choice, they made better decisions than they did when they received no such help, but they did not learn. In the second experiment, participants first made their own choice, and only then saw a recommendation and an explanation from AI; this condition also resulted in improved decisions, but no learning. However, in our third experiment, participants were presented with just an AI explanation but no recommendation and had to arrive at their own decision. This condition led to both more accurate decisions and learning gains. We hypothesize that learning gains in this condition were due to deeper engagement with explanations needed to arrive at the decisions. This work provides some of the most direct evidence to date that it may not be sufficient to include explanations together with AI-generated recommendation to ensure that people engage carefully with the AI-provided information. This work also presents one technique that enables incidental learning and, by implication, can help people process AI recommendations and explanations more carefully.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making

People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI: they accept an AI's suggestion even when that suggestion is wrong. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance and some studies suggest that it might even increase it. Informed by the dual-process theory of cognition, we posit that people rarely engage analytically with each individual AI recommendation and explanation, and instead develop general heuristics about whether and when to follow the AI suggestions. Building on prior research on medical decision-making, we designed three cognitive forcing interventions to compel people to engage more thoughtfully with the AI-generated explanations. We conducted an experiment (N=199), in which we compared our three cognitive forcing designs to two simple explainable AI approaches and to a no-AI baseline. The results demonstrate that cognitive forcing significantly reduced overreliance compared to the simple explainable AI approaches. However, there was a trade-off: people assigned the least favorable subjective ratings to the designs that reduced the overreliance the most. To audit our work for intervention-generated inequalities, we investigated whether our interventions benefited equally people with different levels of Need for Cognition (i.e., motivation to engage in effortful mental activities). Our results show that, on average, cognitive forcing interventions benefited participants higher in Need for Cognition more. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Designing AI for Trust and Collaboration in Time-Constrained Medical Decisions: A Sociotechnical Lens

Major depressive disorder is a debilitating disease affecting 264 million people worldwide. While many antidepressant medications are available, few clinical guidelines support choosing among them. Decision support tools (DSTs) embodying machine learning models may help improve the treatment selection process, but often fail in clinical practice due to poor system integration. We use an iterative, co-design process to investigate clinicians' perceptions of using DSTs in antidepressant treatment decisions. We identify ways in which DSTs need to engage with the healthcare sociotechnical system, including clinical processes, patient preferences, resource constraints, and domain knowledge. Our results suggest that clinical DSTs should be designed as multi-user systems that support patient-provider collaboration and offer on-demand explanations that address discrepancies between predictions and current standards of care. Through this work, we demonstrate how current trends in explainable AI may be inappropriate for clinical environments and consider paths towards designing these tools for real-world medical systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Ask Me or Tell Me? Enhancing the Effectiveness of Crowdsourced Design Feedback

Crowdsourced design feedback systems are emerging resources for getting large amounts of feedback in a short period of time. Traditionally, the feedback comes in the form of a declarative statement, which often contains positive or negative sentiment. Prior research has shown that overly negative or positive sentiment can strongly influence the perceived usefulness and acceptance of feedback and, subsequently, lead to ineffective design revisions. To enhance the effectiveness of crowdsourced design feedback, we investigate a new approach for mitigating the effects of negative or positive feedback by combining open-ended and thought-provoking questions with declarative feedback statements. We conducted two user studies to assess the effects of question-based feedback on the sentiment and quality of design revisions in the context of graphic design. We found that crowdsourced question-based feedback contains more neutral sentiment than statement-based feedback. Moreover, we provide evidence that presenting feedback as questions followed by statements leads to better design revisions than question- or statement-based feedback alone.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2020

Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systems

Explainable artificially intelligent (XAI) systems form part of sociotechnical systems, e.g., human+AI teams tasked with making decisions. Yet, current XAI systems are rarely evaluated by measuring the performance of human+AI teams on actual decision-making tasks. We conducted two online experiments and one in-person think-aloud study to evaluate two currently common techniques for evaluating XAI systems: (1) using proxy, artificial tasks such as how well humans predict the AI's decision from the given explanations, and (2) using subjective measures of trust and preference as predictors of actual performance. The results of our experiments demonstrate that evaluations with proxy tasks did not predict the results of the evaluations with the actual decision-making tasks. Further, the subjective measures on evaluations with actual decision-making tasks did not predict the objective performance on those same tasks. Our results suggest that by employing misleading evaluation methods, our field may be inadvertently slowing its progress toward developing human+AI teams that can reliably perform better than humans or AIs alone.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2017

BubbleView: an interface for crowdsourcing image importance maps and tracking visual attention

In this paper, we present BubbleView, an alternative methodology for eye tracking using discrete mouse clicks to measure which information people consciously choose to examine. BubbleView is a mouse-contingent, moving-window interface in which participants are presented with a series of blurred images and click to reveal "bubbles" - small, circular areas of the image at original resolution, similar to having a confined area of focus like the eye fovea. Across 10 experiments with 28 different parameter combinations, we evaluated BubbleView on a variety of image types: information visualizations, natural images, static webpages, and graphic designs, and compared the clicks to eye fixations collected with eye-trackers in controlled lab settings. We found that BubbleView clicks can both (i) successfully approximate eye fixations on different images, and (ii) be used to rank image and design elements by importance. BubbleView is designed to collect clicks on static images, and works best for defined tasks such as describing the content of an information visualization or measuring image importance. BubbleView data is cleaner and more consistent than related methodologies that use continuous mouse movements. Our analyses validate the use of mouse-contingent, moving-window methodologies as approximating eye fixations for different image and task types.

cs.HC↗