research-article

Public Access

Critique Me: Exploring How Creators Publicly Request Feedback in an Online Critique Community

Authors:

Steven DowAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 4, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 161, Pages 1 - 24

https://doi.org/10.1145/3415232

Published: 15 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Creative workers frequently turn to online critique communities for feedback on their work. While past research has focused primarily on how to yield better feedback from providers, less is known about the strategies feedback seekers use to engage providers and request feedback. We present two studies to explore the feedback exchange dynamics between feedback requesters and providers in the subreddit community, r/design\_critiques. In Study 1, we interviewed 12 community members and found that while creators have strategies to request feedback, they expressed uncertainty about whether and how to include details about the design context, personal background, and specific feedback needs. In Study 2, through a mixed-method analysis, we identified how specific request strategies impact the quantity and quality of community feedback, and found several key, but undervalued strategies: signaling as a novice, critiquing one's own design, and providing design variants. These strategies led to better community response, but were rarely used. We offer design implications around how to leverage these insights to improve online feedback exchange

References

[1]

Bernadette Blair. 2006. Perception interpretation impact; an examination of the learning value of formative feedback to students through the design studio critique. Ph.D. Dissertation. Institute of Education, University of London.

[2]

Benjamin M Bolker, Mollie E Brooks, Connie J Clark, Shane W Geange, John R Poulsen, M Henry H Stevens, and Jada-Simone S White. 2009. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 24, 3 (2009), 127--135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008

[3]

Donald J Boyd. 2015. Public research universities: Changes in state funding. In American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

[4]

Moira Burke, Robert Kraut, and Elisabeth Joyce. 2010. Membership claims and requests: Conversation-level newcomer socialization strategies in online groups. Small group research, Vol. 41, 1 (2010), 4--40.

[5]

Deborah L Butler and Philip H Winne. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of educational research, Vol. 65, 3 (1995), 245--281.

[6]

Julia Cambre, Scott Klemmer, and Chinmay Kulkarni. 2018. Juxtapeer: Comparative Peer Review Yields Higher Quality Feedback and Promotes Deeper Reflection. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173868

Digital Library

[7]

Julie Campbell, Cecilia Aragon, Katie Davis, Sarah Evans, Abigail Evans, and David Randall. 2016. Thousands of Positive Reviews: Distributed Mentoring in Online Fan Communities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 691--704. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819934

Digital Library

[8]

J.M. Carroll. 2012. Creativity and Rationale: Enhancing Human Experience by Design .Springer London. 2012943586 https://books.google.com/books?id=_dZJxlxK0NgC

[9]

Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Ann Holum. 1991. Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, Vol. 15, 3 (1991), 6--11.

[10]

Amy Cook, Jessica Hammer, Salma Elsayed-Ali, and Steven Dow. 2019. How Guiding Questions Facilitate Feedback Exchange in Project-Based Learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300368

Digital Library

[11]

Patrick A. Crain and Brian P. Bailey. 2017. Share Once or Share Often? Exploring How Designers Approach Iteration in a Large Online Community. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Singapore, Singapore) (C&C '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 80--92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059476

Digital Library

[12]

Deanna Dannels, Amy Housley Gaffney, and Kelly Norris Martin. 2008. Beyond Content, Deeper than Delivery: What Critique Feedback Reveals about Communication Expectations in Design Education. International Journal for the Scholarship of teaching and Learning, Vol. 2, 2 (2008), n2.

[13]

Jelle van Dijk, Jirka van der Roest, Remko van der Lugt, and Kees C.J. Overbeeke. 2011. NOOT: A Tool for Sharing Moments of Reflection during Creative Meetings. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (C&C '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157--164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2069618.2069646

[14]

Steven Dow, Julie Fortuna, Dan Schwartz, Beth Altringer, Daniel Schwartz, and Scott Klemmer. 2011a. Prototyping Dynamics: Sharing Multiple Designs Improves Exploration, Group Rapport, and Results. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2807--2816. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979359

Digital Library

[15]

Steven Dow, Elizabeth Gerber, and Audris Wong. 2013. A Pilot Study of Using Crowds in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 227--236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470686

Digital Library

[16]

Steven P. Dow, Alana Glassco, Jonathan Kass, Melissa Schwarz, Daniel L. Schwartz, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2011b. Parallel Prototyping Leads to Better Design Results, More Divergence, and Increased Self-Efficacy. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., Vol. 17, 4, Article 18 (Dec. 2011), bibinfonumpages24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1879831.1879836

Digital Library

[17]

Mukaddes Fasli and Badiossadat Hassanpour. 2017. Rotational critique system as a method of culture change in an architecture design studio: urban design studio as case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 54, 3 (2017), 194--205.

[18]

Gerhard Fischer, Kumiyo Nakakoji, Jonathan Ostwald, Gerry Stahl, and Tamara Sumner. 1993. Embedding critics in design environments. The knowledge engineering review, Vol. 8, 4 (1993), 285--307.

[19]

David Fletcher. 2008. Confidence intervals for the mean of the delta-lognormal distribution. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, Vol. 15, 2 (2008), 175--189.

[20]

Eureka Foong, Steven P. Dow, Brian P. Bailey, and Elizabeth M. Gerber. 2017. Online Feedback Exchange: A Framework for Understanding the Socio-Psychological Factors. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4454--4467. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025791

Digital Library

[21]

Denae Ford, Kristina Lustig, Jeremy Banks, and Chris Parnin. 2018. 'We Don't Do That Here': How Collaborative Editing with Mentors Improves Engagement in Social Q&A Communities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174182

Digital Library

[22]

Sharon Nelson-Le Gall. 1985. Chapter 2: Help-Seeking Behavior in Learning. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 12, 1 (1985), 55--90.

[23]

Elizabeth M Gerber, Jeanne Marie Olson, and Rebecca LD Komarek. 2012. Extracurricular design-based learning: Preparing students for careers in innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 28, 2 (2012), 317.

[24]

Trudy Govier. 2013. A practical study of argument .Cengage Learning.

[25]

F Maxwell Harper, Joseph Weinberg, John Logie, and Joseph A Konstan. 2010. Question types in social Q&A sites. First Monday, Vol. 15, 7 (2010).

[26]

John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, Vol. 77, 1 (2007), 81--112.

[27]

Catherine M. Hicks, Vineet Pandey, C. Ailie Fraser, and Scott Klemmer. 2016. Framing Feedback: Choosing Review Environment Features That Support High Quality Peer Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 458--469. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858195

Digital Library

[28]

John Horner and Michael E Atwood. 2006. Effective design rationale: understanding the barriers. In Rationale management in software engineering. Springer, 73--90.

[29]

Julie S. Hui, Amos Glenn, Rachel Jue, Elizabeth M Gerber, and Steven P. Dow. 2015. Using Anonymity and Communal Efforts to Improve Quality of Crowdsourced Feedback. In Proceedings of the Third AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Elizabeth Gerber and Panos Ipeirotis (Eds.). AAAI Press, 72--82.

[30]

Julie S Hui, Matthew W Easterday, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2019. Distributed Apprenticeship in Online Communities. Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 34, 4 (2019), 328--378.

[31]

Julie S. Hui, Elizabeth M. Gerber, and Steven P. Dow. 2014. Crowd-Based Design Activities: Helping Students Connect with Users Online. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (DIS '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 875--884. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598538

[32]

Julie S. Hui, Darren Gergle, and Elizabeth M. Gerber. 2018. IntroAssist: A Tool to Support Writing Introductory Help Requests. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173596

[33]

Joy Kim, Maneesh Agrawala, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. Mosaic: Designing Online Creative Communities for Sharing Works-in-Progress. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CSCW '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 246--258. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998195

Digital Library

[34]

Yasmine Kotturi and McKayla Kingston. 2019. Why Do Designers in the 'Wild' Wait to Seek Feedback until Later in Their Design Process?. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition (San Diego, CA, USA) (C&C '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 541--546. https://doi.org/10.1145/3325480.3326580

Digital Library

[35]

Yubo Kou and Colin M Gray. 2017. Supporting distributed critique through interpretation and sense-making in an online creative community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 1, CSCW (2017), 60.

Digital Library

[36]

Yubo Kou and Colin M. Gray. 2018. 'What Do You Recommend a Complete Beginner like Me to Practice'': Professional Self-Disclosure in an Online Community. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 2, CSCW, Article 94 (Nov. 2018), bibinfonumpages24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274363

[37]

Markus Krause, Tom Garncarz, JiaoJiao Song, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Brian P. Bailey, and Steven P. Dow. 2017. Critique Style Guide: Improving Crowdsourced Design Feedback with a Natural Language Model. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4627--4639. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025883

Digital Library

[38]

Robert E Kraut and Paul Resnick. 2012. Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design .Mit Press.

Digital Library

[39]

Chinmay Kulkarni, Koh Pang Wei, Huy Le, Daniel Chia, Kathryn Papadopoulos, Justin Cheng, Daphne Koller, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2013. Peer and Self Assessment in Massive Online Classes. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., Vol. 20, 6, Article 33 (Dec. 2013), bibinfonumpages31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2505057

Digital Library

[40]

Chinmay E. Kulkarni, Michael S. Bernstein, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2015. PeerStudio: Rapid Peer Feedback Emphasizes Revision and Improves Performance. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (L@S '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 75--84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2724670

Digital Library

[41]

Kurt Luther, Jari-Lee Tolentino, Wei Wu, Amy Pavel, Brian P. Bailey, Maneesh Agrawala, Björn Hartmann, and Steven P. Dow. 2015. Structuring, Aggregating, and Evaluating Crowdsourced Design Critique. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CSCW '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 473--485. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675283

Digital Library

[42]

Jennifer Marlow and Laura Dabbish. 2014. From Rookie to All-Star: Professional Development in a Graphic Design Social Networking Site. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (CSCW '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 922--933. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531651

Digital Library

[43]

Tanushree Mitra and Eric Gilbert. 2014. The Language That Gets People to Give: Phrases That Predict Success on Kickstarter. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (CSCW '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49--61. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531656

Digital Library

[44]

Kumiyo Nakakoji, Yasuhiro Yamamoto, Shingo Takada, and Brent N. Reeves. 2000. Two-Dimensional Spatial Positioning as a Means for Reflection in Design. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (New York City, New York, USA) (DIS '00). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 145--154. https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347697

Digital Library

[45]

Richard S Newman. 1994. Adaptive help seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learning. (1994).

[46]

Tricia J Ngoon, C Ailie Fraser, Ariel S Weingarten, Mira Dontcheva, and Scott Klemmer. 2018. Interactive Guidance Techniques for Improving Creative Feedback. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 55.

Digital Library

[47]

David J Nicol and Debra Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, Vol. 31, 2 (2006), 199--218.

[48]

Minna Puustinen and Jean-François Rouet. 2009. Learning with new technologies: Help seeking and information searching revisited. Computers & Education, Vol. 53, 4 (2009), 1014 -- 1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.002 Learning with ICT: New perspectives on help seeking and information searching.

Digital Library

[49]

Ken Reily, Pam Ludford Finnerty, and Loren Terveen. 2009. Two Peers Are Better than One: Aggregating Peer Reviews for Computing Assignments is Surprisingly Accurate. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) (GROUP '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 115--124. https://doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531692

Digital Library

[50]

Brian J Reiser. 2004. Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning sciences, Vol. 13, 3 (2004), 273--304.

[51]

D. Royce Sadler. 1989. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, Vol. 18, 2 (01 Jun 1989), 119--144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714

[52]

Donald A Schön. 2017. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action .Routledge.

[53]

Amy Shannon, Jessica Hammer, Hassler Thurston, Natalie Diehl, and Steven Dow. 2016. PeerPresents: A Web-Based System for In-Class Peer Feedback during Student Presentations. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) (DIS '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 447--458. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901816

Digital Library

[54]

Oscar Tomico, Joep W. Frens, and C. J. Overbeeke. 2009. Co-Reflection: User Involvement for Highly Dynamic Design Processes. In CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI EA '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2695--2698. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520389

[55]

Anbang Xu and Brian Bailey. 2012. What Do You Think? A Case Study of Benefit, Expectation, and Interaction in a Large Online Critique Community. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Seattle, Washington, USA) (CSCW '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 295--304. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145252

Digital Library

[56]

Anbang Xu, Shih-Wen Huang, and Brian Bailey. 2014. Voyant: Generating Structured Feedback on Visual Designs Using a Crowd of Non-Experts. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (CSCW '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1433--1444. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531604

Digital Library

[57]

Lichun Yang, Shenghua Bao, Qingliang Lin, Xian Wu, Dingyi Han, Zhong Su, and Yong Yu. 2011a. Analyzing and Predicting Not-Answered Questions in Community-Based Question Answering Services. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (San Francisco, California) (AAAI'11). AAAI Press, 1273--1278.

Digital Library

[58]

Lichun Yang, Shenghua Bao, Qingliang Lin, Xian Wu, Dingyi Han, Zhong Su, and Yong Yu. 2011b. Analyzing and Predicting Not-Answered Questions in Community-Based Question Answering Services. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (San Francisco, California) (AAAI'11). AAAI Press, 1273--1278.

Digital Library

[59]

Yu Chun Grace Yen, Steven P. Dow, Elizabeth Gerber, and Brian P. Bailey. 2017. Listen to others, listen to yourself: Combining feedback review and reflection to improve iterative design. In C and C 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C and C 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition). Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 158--170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059468

[60]

Yu-Chun (Grace) Yen, Steven P. Dow, Elizabeth Gerber, and Brian P. Bailey. 2016. Social Network, Web Forum, or Task Market? Comparing Different Crowd Genres for Design Feedback Exchange. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) (DIS '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 773--784. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901820

Digital Library

[61]

Yu-Chun Grace Yen, Joy O. Kim, and Brian P. Bailey. 2020. Decipher: An Interactive Visualization Tool for Interpreting Unstructured Design Feedback from Multiple Providers. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376380

[62]

Alvin Yuan, Kurt Luther, Markus Krause, Sophie Isabel Vennix, Steven P Dow, and Bjorn Hartmann. 2016. Almost an Expert: The Effects of Rubrics and Expertise on Perceived Value of Crowdsourced Design Critiques. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (San Francisco, California, USA) (CSCW '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1005--1017. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819953

Digital Library

Cited By

Wang DEng JTurpitka MEpstein D(2024)Exploring Activity-Sharing Response Differences Between Broad-Purpose and Dedicated Online Social PlatformsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36868988:CSCW2(1-37)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686898
Kotturi YYu JKhadpe PGatz EZheng HFox SKulkarni C(2024)Peerdea: Co-Designing a Peer Support Platform with Creative EntrepreneursProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373848:CSCW1(1-24)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637384
Peng ZChen QShen ZMa XOulasvirta A(2024)DesignQuizzer: A Community-Powered Conversational Agent for Learning Visual DesignProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373218:CSCW1(1-40)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637321
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Critique Me: Exploring How Creators Publicly Request Feedback in an Online Critique Community
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing

Recommendations

What do you think?: a case study of benefit, expectation, and interaction in a large online critique community
CSCW '12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Critique is an indispensible part of creative work and many online communities have formed for this shared purpose. As design choices within the communities can impact the effectiveness of the critiques produced, it is important to study these ...
Fruitful Feedback: Positive Affective Language and Source Anonymity Improve Critique Reception and Work Outcomes
CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

Feedback is information that can improve task performance. Online communities, educational forums, and crowd-based feedback platforms all support feedback exchange among a more diverse set of sources than ever before, with greater control over how to ...
Building 'participation' upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, Cumbria, UK

This article considers lay participation in modelling as part of a much larger trend - the inclusion of non-expert publics in areas of environmental decision-making that have traditionally been the domain of those with specialist expertise. The authors ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 4, Issue CSCW2

CSCW

October 2020

2310 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3430143

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc.

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 15 October 2020

Published in PACMHCI Volume 4, Issue CSCW2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

NSF

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

28
Total Citations
View Citations
933
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)303
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)39

Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wang DEng JTurpitka MEpstein D(2024)Exploring Activity-Sharing Response Differences Between Broad-Purpose and Dedicated Online Social PlatformsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36868988:CSCW2(1-37)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686898
Kotturi YYu JKhadpe PGatz EZheng HFox SKulkarni C(2024)Peerdea: Co-Designing a Peer Support Platform with Creative EntrepreneursProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373848:CSCW1(1-24)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637384
Peng ZChen QShen ZMa XOulasvirta A(2024)DesignQuizzer: A Community-Powered Conversational Agent for Learning Visual DesignProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373218:CSCW1(1-40)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637321
E JYen YPan ILin GLi MJin HChen MXia HDow S(2024)When to Give Feedback: Exploring Tradeoffs in the Timing of Design FeedbackProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition10.1145/3635636.3656183(292-310)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3635636.3656183
Guo QYuan KHe CPeng ZMa X(2024)Exploring the Evolvement of Artwork Descriptions in Online Creative Community under the Surge of Generative AI: A Case Study of DeviantArtExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613905.3650851(1-7)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613905.3650851
Cheng TZhang ZZong BZhao YChang ZKim YZheng CAbowd GOh H(2023)SwellSense: Creating 2.5D interactions with micro-capsule paperProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581125(1-13)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581125
Guo QZhang CLyu HPeng ZMa X(2023)What Makes Creators Engage with Online Critiques? Understanding the Role of Artifacts’ Creation Stage, Characteristics of Community Comments, and their InteractionsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581054(1-17)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3581054
Zhou MMeng BFan W(2023)How do we elicit more user feedback in the social Q&A community? A consideration of the expertise-required questionInformation Technology & People10.1108/ITP-10-2022-075137:4(1587-1612)Online publication date: 22-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2022-0751
Jiang YBenatallah BBáez M(2023)Rsourcer: Scaling Feedback on Research DraftsIntelligent Information Systems10.1007/978-3-031-34674-3_8(61-68)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34674-3_8
Cheng RFrens J(2022)Feedback Exchange and Online Affinity: A Case Study of Online Fanfiction WritersProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35551276:CSCW2(1-29)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555127
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents