arXiv subjects

Richmond Y. Wong

Publications and source records attributed to Richmond Y. Wong.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Values of Value in AI Adoption: Rethinking Efficiency in UX Designers' Workplaces

Although organizations increasingly position AI adoption as a pathway to competitiveness and innovation, organizations' perspectives on productivity and efficiency often clash with workers' perspectives on AI's economic and social value. Through design workshops with 15 UX designers, we examine how AI adoption unfolds across individual, team, and organizational scales. At the individual level, designers weighed efficiency, skill development, and professional worth. At the team level, they negotiated collaboration, responsibility, and rigor. At the organizational level, adoption was shaped by compliance requirements and organizational norms. Across these scales, discourses of efficiency carried social and ethical dimensions of responsibility, trust, and autonomy. We view adoption as a site where roles, relationships, and power are reconfigured. We argue that AI adoption should be understood as a process of negotiating values, and call for future work examining how AI systems redistribute responsibility among team members, while understanding how such shifts could strengthen worker agency.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Towards Creating Infrastructures for Values and Ethics Work in the Production of Software Technologies

Recognizing how technical systems can embody social values or cause harms, human-computer interaction (HCI) research often approaches addressing values and ethics in design by creating tools to help tech workers integrate social values into the design of products. While useful, these approaches usually do not consider the politics embedded in the broader processes, organizations, social systems, and governance structures that affect the types of actions that tech workers can take to address values and ethics. This paper argues that creating infrastructures to support values and ethics work, rather than tools, is an approach that takes these broader processes into account and opens them up for (re)design. Drawing on prior research conceptualizing infrastructures from science \& technology studies and media studies, this paper outlines conceptual insights from infrastructures studies that open up new tactics for HCI researchers and designers seeking to support values and ethics in design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Ethics Pathways: A Design Activity for Reflecting on Ethics Engagement in HCI Research

This paper introduces Ethics Pathways, a design activity aimed at understanding HCI and design researchers' ethics engagements and flows during their research process. Despite a strong ethical commitment in these fields, challenges persist in grasping the complexity of researchers' engagement with ethics -- practices conducted to operationalize ethics -- in situated institutional contexts. Ethics Pathways, developed through six playtesting sessions, offers a design approach to understanding the complexities of researchers' past ethics engagements in their work. This activity involves four main tasks: recalling ethical incidents; describing stakeholders involved in the situation; recounting their actions or speculative alternatives; and reflection and emotion walk-through. The paper reflects on the role of design decisions and facilitation strategies in achieving these goals. The design activity contributes to the discourse on ethical HCI research by conceptualizing ethics engagement as a part of ongoing research processing, highlighting connections between individual affective experiences, social interactions across power differences, and institutional goals.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Broadening Privacy and Surveillance: Eliciting Interconnected Values with a Scenarios Workbook on Smart Home Cameras

We use a design workbook of speculative scenarios as a values elicitation activity with 14 participants. The workbook depicts use case scenarios with smart home camera technologies that involve surveillance and uneven power relations. The scenarios were initially designed by the researchers to explore scenarios of privacy and surveillance within three social relationships involving "primary" and "non-primary" users: Parents-Children, Landlords-Tenants, and Residents-Domestic Workers. When the scenarios were utilized as part of a values elicitation activity with participants, we found that they reflected on a broader set of interconnected social values beyond privacy and surveillance, including autonomy and agency, physical safety, property rights, trust and accountability, and fairness. The paper suggests that future research about ethical issues in smart homes should conceptualize privacy as interconnected with a broader set of social values (which can align or be in tension with privacy), and reflects on considerations for doing research with non-primary users.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics

Numerous toolkits have been developed to support ethical AI development. However, toolkits, like all tools, encode assumptions in their design about what work should be done and how. In this paper, we conduct a qualitative analysis of 27 AI ethics toolkits to critically examine how the work of ethics is imagined and how it is supported by these toolkits. Specifically, we examine the discourses toolkits rely on when talking about ethical issues, who they imagine should do the work of ethics, and how they envision the work practices involved in addressing ethics. Among the toolkits, we identify a mismatch between the imagined work of ethics and the support the toolkits provide for doing that work. In particular, we identify a lack of guidance around how to navigate labor, organizational, and institutional power dynamics as they relate to performing ethical work. We use these omissions to chart future work for researchers and designers of AI ethics toolkits.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

This Thing Called Fairness: Disciplinary Confusion Realizing a Value in Technology

The explosion in the use of software in important sociotechnical systems has renewed focus on the study of the way technical constructs reflect policies, norms, and human values. This effort requires the engagement of scholars and practitioners from many disciplines. And yet, these disciplines often conceptualize the operative values very differently while referring to them using the same vocabulary. The resulting conflation of ideas confuses discussions about values in technology at disciplinary boundaries. In the service of improving this situation, this paper examines the value of shared vocabularies, analytics, and other tools that facilitate conversations about values in light of these disciplinary specific conceptualizations, the role such tools play in furthering research and practice, outlines different conceptions of "fairness" deployed in discussions about computer systems, and provides an analytic tool for interdisciplinary discussions and collaborations around the concept of fairness. We use a case study of risk assessments in criminal justice applications to both motivate our effort--describing how conflation of different concepts under the banner of "fairness" led to unproductive confusion--and illustrate the value of the fairness analytic by demonstrating how the rigorous analysis it enables can assist in identifying key areas of theoretical, political, and practical misunderstanding or disagreement, and where desired support alignment or collaboration in the absence of consensus.

cs.CY↗