research-article

The Stakeholder Perspective on Using Public Polling Displays for Civic Engagement

Authors:

Paul Biedermann,

Andrew Vande MoereAuthors Info & Claims

C&T '21: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies - Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech

Pages 61 - 74

https://doi.org/10.1145/3461564.3461585

Published: 21 June 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Public polling displays, i.e. interactive interfaces that offer questionnaires in public space, are promised to engage citizens in a dialog with civic stakeholders around local concerns. Although past studies revealed the core factors that impact their usability, little is known about whether civic stakeholders actually consider the deployment of public polling displays to be valuable. We therefore interviewed 12 members of 10 stakeholder organizations who engaged in four different real-world cases, and analyzed all the underlying activities that ranged from planning the deployments to interpreting the final polling results. We thus report on eight key challenges of public polling display deployments, among which: designing polls so that they are responsive, decisive and accessible yet also generate actionable insights, managing the trust of citizens and stakeholder organizations, and facilitating the accurate interpretation of the polling responses. By understanding the process of public polling display deployments from the perspective of civic stakeholders, we inform its continued evolution towards an opportunistic yet trustworthy civic engagement method.

Supplementary Material

p61-coenen-supplement (p61-coenen-supplement.jpg)

Supplemental materials are available via our OSF-page: https://osf.io/9wpqu/?view_only=d5fd3b71763042659b550b04e9c9d4af. Documents include: Questions used during semi-structured interviews, Final code book used during thematic coding, Selected quotes per interview, and Distribution of coded themes.

Download
25.78 KB

References

[1]

Sherry R. Arnstein. 1969. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 4 (1969), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

[2]

Mara Balestrini, Sarah Gallacher, and Yvonne Rogers. 2020. Moving HCI Outdoors: Lessons Learned from Conducting Research in the Wild. In HCI Outdoors: Theory, Design, Methods and Applications, D. Scott McCrickard, Michael Jones, and Timothy L. Stelter (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45289-6_4

[3]

Moritz Behrens, Nina Valkanova, Ava Fatah gen. Schieck, and Duncan P. Brumby. 2014. Smart Citizen Sentiment Dashboard: A Case Study Into Media Architectural Interfaces. In Proceedings of PerDis ’14. ACM, 19:19–19:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2611009.2611036

Digital Library

[4]

Thomas C. Beierle. 1999. Using Social Goals To Evaluate Public Participation In Environmental Decisions. Review of Policy Research 16, 3 (1999), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1999.tb00879.x

[5]

Mark Bilandzic and John Venable. 2011. Towards participatory action design research: adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. Journal of Community Informatics 7, 3 (2011), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v7i3.2592

[6]

Hermann-Josef Blanke and Stelio Mangiameli. 2013. Article 11: Participatory Democracy. In The Treaty on European Union (TEU): A Commentary. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31706-4_12

[7]

Harry Brignull and Yvonne Rogers. 2003. Enticing people to interact with large public displays in public spaces. In INTERACT, Vol. 3. IFIP, 17–24.

[8]

Deborah Carr and Kathleen Halvorsen. 2001. An Evaluation of Three Democratic, Community-Based Approaches to Citizen Participation: Surveys, Conversations With Community Groups, and Community Dinners. Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419201300000526

[9]

Sandy Claes, Jorgos Coenen, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2018. Conveying a Civic Issue Through Data via Spatially Distributed Public Visualization and Polling Displays. In Proceedings of NordiCHI ’18. ACM, 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240206

Digital Library

[10]

Sandy Claes and Andrew Vande Moere. 2013. Street Infographics: Raising Awareness of Local Issues Through a Situated Urban Visualization. In Proceedings of PerDis ’13. ACM, 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491568.2491597

Digital Library

[11]

Antoine Clarinval, Anthony Simonofski, Benoit Vanderose, and Bruno Dumas. 2020. Public displays and citizen participation: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy ahead-of-print (2020), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2019-0127

[12]

Jorgos Coenen, Sandy Claes, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2017. The concurrent use of touch and mid-air gestures or floor mat interaction on a public display. In Proceedings of PerDis ’17. ACM Press, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078810.3078819

Digital Library

[13]

Jorgos Coenen, Maarten Houben, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2019. Citizen Dialogue Kit: Public Polling and Data Visualization Displays for Bottom-Up Citizen Participation. In Companion Publication of DIS’ 19. ACM, 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301019.3325160

Digital Library

[14]

Jorgos Coenen, Eslam Nofal, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2019. How the Arrangement of Content and Location Impact the Use of Multiple Distributed Public Displays. In Proceedings of DIS ’19. ACM, 1415–1426. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322294

Digital Library

[15]

Eric Corbett and Christopher A. Le Dantec. 2018. The Problem of Community Engagement: Disentangling the Practices of Municipal Government. In Proceedings of CHI ’18. ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174148

Digital Library

[16]

Andy Dow, Rob Comber, and John Vines. 2018. Between Grassroots and the Hierarchy: Lessons Learned from the Design of a Public Services Directory. In Proceedings of CHI’ 18. Association for Computing Machinery, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174016

Digital Library

[17]

Guiying Du, Auriol Degbelo, and Christian Kray. 2017. Public Displays for Public Participation in Urban Settings: A Survey. In Proceedings of PerDis’ 17. ACM, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078810.3078825

Digital Library

[18]

Titiana-Petra Ertiö. 2015. Participatory Apps for Urban Planning—Space for Improvement. Planning Practice & Research 30, 3 (2015), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052942

[19]

Thore Fechner, Dominik Schlarmann, and Christian Kray. 2016. Facilitating Citizen Engagement in Situ: Assessing the Impact of pro-Active Geofenced Notifications. In Proceedings of MobileHCI ’16. ACM, 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1145/2935334.2935379

Digital Library

[20]

Patrick Tobias Fischer and Eva Hornecker. 2012. Urban HCI: Spatial Aspects in the Design of Shared Encounters for Media Facades. In Proceedings of CHI ’12. ACM, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207719 event-place: Austin, Texas, USA.

Digital Library

[21]

Joel Fredericks and Marcus Foth. 2013. Augmenting public participation: enhancing planning outcomes through the use of social media and web 2.0. Australian Planner 50, 3 (2013), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2012.748083 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2012.748083

[22]

Connie Golsteijn, Sarah Gallacher, Lisa Koeman, Lorna Wall, Sami Andberg, Yvonne Rogers, and Licia Capra. 2015. VoxBox: A Tangible Machine That Gathers Opinions from the Public at Events. In Proceedings of TEI ’15. ACM, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680588

Digital Library

[23]

Jorge Goncalves, Simo Hosio, Yong Liu, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2014. Eliciting situated feedback: A comparison of paper, web forms and public displays. Displays 35, 1 (2014), 27 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2013.12.002

[24]

Jorge Goncalves, Simo Hosio, Jakob Rogstadius, Evangelos Karapanos, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2015. Motivating participation and improving quality of contribution in ubiquitous crowdsourcing. Computer Networks 90(2015), 34 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.002

Digital Library

[25]

Ahmet Gün, Yüksel Demir, and Burak Pak. 2020. Urban design empowerment through ICT-based platforms in Europe. International Journal of Urban Sciences 24, 2 (2020), 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1604250

[26]

Mike Harding, Bran Knowles, Nigel Davies, and Mark Rouncefield. 2015. HCI, Civic Engagement & Trust. In Proceedings of CHI’ 15. ACM, 2833–2842. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702255

Digital Library

[27]

Gillian R. Hayes. 2011. The Relationship of Action Research to Human-computer Interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 18, 3 (2011), 15:1–15:20. https://doi.org/10.1145/1993060.1993065

Digital Library

[28]

Luke Hespanhol and Martin Tomitsch. 2019. Power to the People: Hacking the City with Plug-In Interfaces for Community Engagement. In The Hackable City: Digital Media and Collaborative City-Making in the Network Society, Michiel de Lange and Martijn de Waal (Eds.). Springer Singapore, 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2694-3_2

[29]

Luke Hespanhol, Martin Tomitsch, Ian McArthur, Joel Fredericks, Ronald Schroeter, and Marcus Foth. 2015. Vote as You Go: Blending Interfaces for Community Engagement into the Urban Space. In Proceedings of C&T’ 15. ACM, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/2768545.2768553

Digital Library

[30]

Mathias Hofmann, Sander Münster, and Jörg Rainer Noennig. 2020. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of massive digital participation systems in urban planning. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis 4, 1 (2020), 1–12. Springer.

[31]

Simo Hosio, Jorge Goncalves, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jukka Riekki. 2014. Exploring Civic Engagement on Public Displays. In User-Centric Technology Design for Nonprofit and Civic Engagements, Saqib Saeed (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05963-1_7

[32]

Simo Hosio, Jorge Goncalves, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jukka Riekki. 2015. Crowdsourcing Public Opinion Using Urban Pervasive Technologies: Lessons From Real-Life Experiments in Oulu. Policy & Internet 7, 2 (2015), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.90

[33]

Steven Houben, Ben Bengler, Daniel Gavrilov, Sarah Gallacher, Valentina Nisi, Nuno Jardim Nunes, Licia Capra, and Yvonne Rogers. 2019. Roam-IO: Engaging with People Tracking Data Through an Interactive Physical Data Installation. In Proceedings of DIS ’19. ACM, 1157–1169. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322303

Digital Library

[34]

Steven Houben and Christian Weichel. 2013. Overcoming Interaction Blindness Through Curiosity Objects. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA) (CHI EA ’13). ACM, 1539–1544. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468631

Digital Library

[35]

Peter A. Johnson, Pamela J. Robinson, and Simone Philpot. 2020. Type, tweet, tap, and pass: How smart city technology is creating a transactional citizen. Government Information Quarterly 37, 1 (2020), 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101414

[36]

Lisa Koeman, Vaiva Kalnikaité, and Yvonne Rogers. 2015. ”Everyone Is Talking About It!”: A Distributed Approach to Urban Voting Technology and Visualisations. In Proceedings of CHI ’15. ACM, 3127–3136. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702263

Digital Library

[37]

Can Liu, Ben Bengler, Danilo Di Cuia, Katie Seaborn, Giovanna Nunes Vilaza, Sarah Gallacher, Licia Capra, and Yvonne Rogers. 2018. Pinsight: A Novel Way of Creating and Sharing Digital Content Through ’Things’ in the Wild. In Proceedings of DIS ’18. ACM, 1169–1181. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196782

Digital Library

[38]

Thomas Mahatody, Mouldi Sagar, and Christophe Kolski. 2010. State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 26, 8(2010), 741–785.

[39]

Narges Mahyar, Michael R. James, Michelle M. Ng, Reginald A. Wu, and Steven P. Dow. 2018. CommunityCrit: Inviting the Public to Improve and Evaluate Urban Design Ideas Through Micro-Activities. In Proceedings of CHI ’18. ACM, 195:1–195:14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173769

Digital Library

[40]

Narges Mahyar, Diana V. Nguyen, Maggie Chan, Jiayi Zheng, and Steven P. Dow. 2019. The Civic Data Deluge: Understanding the Challenges of Analyzing Large-Scale Community Input. In Proceedings of DIS ’19. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1171–1181. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322354

Digital Library

[41]

Jennifer (Jen) McGinn and Nalini Kotamraju. 2008. Data-Driven Persona Development. In Proceedings of CHI ’08. ACM, 1521–1524. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357292

Digital Library

[42]

Albert Meijer. 2015. E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly 32, 2 (2015), 198 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.001

[43]

Nemanja Memarovic, Ivan Elhart, and Elisa Rubegni. 2016. ”Fun Place Within a Serious Space”: Stimulating Community Interaction and Engagement Through Situated Snapshots in a University Setting. In Proceedings of MUM ’16. ACM, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012709.3012710

Digital Library

[44]

Vicki Moulder, Lorna R. Boschman, Ron Wakkary, William Odom, and Stacey Kuznetsov. 2014. HCI Interventions with Nonprofit Organizations: Tactics for Effective Collaboration. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts. ACM, 877–880. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2559971

Digital Library

[45]

Ville Mäkelä, Sumita Sharma, Jaakko Hakulinen, Tomi Heimonen, and Markku Turunen. 2017. Challenges in Public Display Deployments: A Taxonomy of External Factors. In Proceedings of CHI ’17. ACM, 3426–3475. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025798

Digital Library

[46]

Jörg Müller, Dennis Wilmsmann, Juliane Exeler, Markus Buzeck, Albrecht Schmidt, Tim Jay, and Antonio Krüger. 2009. Display Blindness: The Effect of Expectations on Attention towards Digital Signage. In Pervasive Computing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01516-8

[47]

J. Nakazawa and H. Tokuda. 2007. Phygital Map: Accessing Digital Multimedia from Physical Map. In 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops, Vol. 2. IEEE, 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1109/AINAW.2007.288

Digital Library

[48]

Matti Nelimarkka. 2019. A Review of Research on Participation in Democratic Decision-Making Presented at SIGCHI Conferences. Toward an Improved Trading Zone Between Political Science and HCI. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3 (2019), 139:1–139:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359241

Digital Library

[49]

Timo Ojala, Vassilis Kostakos, Hannu Kukka, Tommi Heikkinen, Tomas Linden, Marko Jurmu, Simo Hosio, Fabio Kruger, and Daniele Zanni. 2012-05. Multipurpose Interactive Public Displays in the Wild: Three Years Later. Computer 45, 5 (2012-05), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.115

Digital Library

[50]

Callum Parker, Marius Hoggenmueller, and Martin Tomitsch. 2018. Design Strategies for Overcoming Failures on Public Interactive Displays. In Proceedings of PerDis ’18. ACM, 2:1–2:7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3205873.3205889

Digital Library

[51]

Callum Parker, Martin Tomitsch, Nigel Davies, Nina Valkanova, and Judy Kay. 2020. Foundations for Designing Public Interactive Displays That Provide Value to Users. In Proceedings of CHI ’20 (New York, NY, USA). ACM, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376532

Digital Library

[52]

Callum Parker, Martin Tomitsch, and Judy Kay. 2018. Does the Public Still Look at Public Displays?: A Field Observation of Public Displays in the Wild. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 2(2018), 73:1–73:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3214276

Digital Library

[53]

Phil Parvin. 2018. Democracy Without Participation: A New Politics for a Disengaged Era. Res Publica 24, 1 (2018), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9382-1

[54]

J. Ponterotto. 2006. Brief Note on the Origins, Evolution, and Meaning of the Qualitative Research Concept ”Thick Description”. The Qualitative Report 11 (2006), 538–549.

[55]

PJ Robinson and M DeRuyter. 2016. I ‘like’you, you make my heart twitter, but… reflections for urban planners from an early assessment of social media deployment by Canadian local governments. Oxford University Press Don Mills, ON. 260–268 pages.

[56]

Yvonne Rogers. 2011. Interaction Design Gone Wild: Striving for Wild Theory. Interactions 18, 4 (2011), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978834

Digital Library

[57]

Lynn M Sanders. 1997. Against deliberation. Political theory 25, 3 (1997), 347–376.

[58]

Gianluca Schiavo, Marco Milano, Jorge Saldivar, Tooba Nasir, Massimo Zancanaro, and Gregorio Convertino. 2013. Agora2.0: Enhancing Civic Participation through a Public Display. In Proceedings of C&T ’13 (New York, NY, USA). ACM, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/2482991.2483005

Digital Library

[59]

Ronald Schroeter. 2012. Engaging New Digital Locals with Interactive Urban Screens to Collaboratively Improve the City. In Proceedings of CSCW ’12. ACM, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145239

Digital Library

[60]

Ronald Schroeter, Marcus Foth, and Christine Satchell. 2012. People, Content, Location: Sweet Spotting Urban Screens for Situated Engagement. In Proceedings of DIS ’12 (New York, NY, USA). ACM, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317980

Digital Library

[61]

Carolin Schröder. 2015. Through Space and Time: Using mobile apps for urban participation. In Proceedings of CeDEM15: conference for e-democracy and open government. Technische Universität Berlin, 134–142.

[62]

Aidan Slingsby, Jason Dykes, Jo Wood, and Robert Radburn. 2014. Designing an exploratory visual interface to the results of citizen surveys. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 28, 10(2014), 2090–2125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.920845

Digital Library

[63]

Fabius Steinberger, Marcus Foth, and Florian Alt. 2014. Vote With Your Feet: Local Community Polling on Urban Screens. In Proceedings of PerDis ’14. ACM, 44:44–44:49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2611009.2611015

Digital Library

[64]

Nick Taylor, Keith Cheverst, Peter Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Leaving the Wild: Lessons from Community Technology Handovers. In Proceedings of CHI’ 13. ACM, 1549–1558. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466206

Digital Library

[65]

Nick Taylor, Justin Marshall, Alicia Blum-Ross, John Mills, Jon Rogers, Paul Egglestone, David M. Frohlich, Peter Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2012. Viewpoint: Empowering Communities with Situated Voting Devices. In Proceedings of CHI’ 12. ACM, 1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208594

Digital Library

[66]

Ana Valencia, Ruth Mugge, Jan Schoormans, and Hendrik Schifferstein. 2015. The design of smart product-service systems (PSSs): An exploration of design characteristics. International Journal of Design 9, 1 (2015), 13–28.

[67]

Nina Valkanova, Robert Walter, Andrew Vande Moere, and Jörg Müller. 2014. MyPosition: Sparking Civic Discourse by a Public Interactive Poll Visualization. In Proceedings of CSCW ’14. ACM, 1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1145/2531602.2531639

Digital Library

[68]

Andrew Vande Moere and Niels Wouters. 2012. The Role of Context in Media Architecture. In Proceedings of PerDis ’12. ACM, 12:1–12:6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2307798.2307810

Digital Library

[69]

Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Rob Comber, Karim Ladha, Nick Taylor, Paul Dunphy, Patrick McCorry, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. PosterVote: Expanding the Action Repertoire for Local Political Activism. In Proceedings of DIS ’14. ACM, 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598523

Digital Library

[70]

Jagoda Walny, Sarah Storteboom, Richard Pusch, Steven Munsu Hwang, Søren Knudsen, Sheelagh Carpendale, and Wesley J. Willett. 2020. PixelClipper: Supporting Public Engagement and Conversation About Visualizations. PRISM. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/10182

[71]

C. Webster and Charles Leleux. 2018. Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity 23(2018), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170065

Digital Library

[72]

William Foote Whyte, Davydd J Greenwood, and Peter Lazes. 1991. Participatory action research: Through practice to science in social research. Participatory action research 32, 5 (1991), 19–55.

[73]

Sarah Williams. 2020. Data Action: Using Data for Public Good. MIT Press.

[74]

Niels Wouters, John Downs, Mitchell Harrop, Travis Cox, Eduardo Oliveira, Sarah Webber, Frank Vetere, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2016. Uncovering the Honeypot Effect: How Audiences Engage with Public Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of DIS ’16. ACM, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901796

Digital Library

[75]

Kaifeng Yang and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2011. Further Dissecting the Black Box of Citizen Participation: When Does Citizen Involvement Lead to Good Outcomes?Public Administration Review 71, 6 (2011), 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x

Cited By

Mackenzie BLiu MThangarajan ACoenen JMichiels SClaes SHughes DMoere A(2024)Fully Autonomous In-Situ Surveying with Multi-Year Battery Lifetime2024 17th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication System (ICSPCS)10.1109/ICSPCS63175.2024.10815833(1-10)Online publication date: 16-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPCS63175.2024.10815833
Slingerland GOverdiek A(2023)Beyond human sensors: More-than-human Citizen Sensing in biodiversity Urban Living LabsProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Communities and Technologies10.1145/3593743.3593753(27-38)Online publication date: 29-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593743.3593753
Long TPandita SWon A(2023)Perspectives from Naive Participants and Experienced Social Science Researchers on Addressing Embodiment in a Virtual Cyberball TaskCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing10.1145/3584931.3607014(189-194)Online publication date: 14-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3584931.3607014
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

HCI, Civic Engagement & Trust
CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

There is a widespread belief that pervasive technologies will encourage and facilitate partnerships between citizens and civic authorities, enabling individuals to play a greater role in civic planning, service delivery and infrastructure management. ...
Civic innovation as a response to social problems: the case of Civic and public challenges in Mexico
TEEM '16: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality

In this paper, the Civic Challenges and Public Challenges initiatives developed in Mexico, as an innovation experience on the implementation of technological strategies for the solution of social problems, are described.

We will reflect on the concept of ...
Exploring requirements for civic engagement via public displays
British HCI '15: Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference

In recent years, we could observe a shift from static to more interactive content and features for public displays. In this paper, we present an initial user study exploring people's awareness of large public displays and basic requirements for ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

C&T '21: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies - Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech

June 2021

345 pages

ISBN:9781450390569

DOI:10.1145/3461564

Editors:
Florian Cech
University of Stuttgart, Germany
,
Shelly Farnham
University of Stuttgart, Germany

Copyright © 2021 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 the author(s) 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: 21 June 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

ITEA3

Conference

C&T '21

C&T '21: Communities & Technologies 2021

June 20 - 25, 2021

WA, Seattle, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 183 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
206
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)38
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Mackenzie BLiu MThangarajan ACoenen JMichiels SClaes SHughes DMoere A(2024)Fully Autonomous In-Situ Surveying with Multi-Year Battery Lifetime2024 17th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication System (ICSPCS)10.1109/ICSPCS63175.2024.10815833(1-10)Online publication date: 16-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPCS63175.2024.10815833
Slingerland GOverdiek A(2023)Beyond human sensors: More-than-human Citizen Sensing in biodiversity Urban Living LabsProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Communities and Technologies10.1145/3593743.3593753(27-38)Online publication date: 29-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593743.3593753
Long TPandita SWon A(2023)Perspectives from Naive Participants and Experienced Social Science Researchers on Addressing Embodiment in a Virtual Cyberball TaskCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing10.1145/3584931.3607014(189-194)Online publication date: 14-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3584931.3607014
Biedermann PCoenen JDe Roeck DVande Moere A(2023)PosterTalk: Expanding Participatory Agency in Public Survey Platforms via Middle-Out GatekeepingProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3563657.3595984(2573-2592)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3563657.3595984
Bressa NKorsgaard HTabard AHouben SVermeulen J(2022)What's the Situation with Situated Visualization? A Survey and Perspectives on SituatednessIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2021.311483528:1(107-117)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114835

View Options

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 Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten