Gendered or neutral? Considering the language of HCI

Proceedings - Graphics Interface

Volumn 2015-June, Issue , 2015, Pages 163-170

  Bradley, Adam ^a   MacArthur, Cayley ^a   Hancock, Mark ^a   Carpendale, Sheelagh ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Gender issues in HCI; Language; People; Users

Indexed keywords

GENDER ISSUES; GENDER NEUTRALS; LANGUAGE; MECHANICAL TURKS; PEOPLE; USERS;

SOCIAL SCIENCES;

EID: 85014996480     PISSN: 07135424     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. S. Bardzell, E. Churchill, J. Bardzell, J. Forlizzi, R. Grinter, and D. Tatar, “Feminism and interaction design,” in CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011, pp. 1–4.
2. S. Bardzell, S. Gross, J. Wain, A. Toombs, and J. Bardzell, “The significant screwdriver: care, domestic masculinity, and interaction design,” in Proceedings of the 25th BCS Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2011, pp. 371–377.
3. S. Bardzell and J. Bardzell, “Towards a feminist HCI methodology: social science, feminism, and HCI,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011, pp. 675–684.
4. S. Bardzell, “Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2010, pp. 1301–1310.
5. L. Beckwith and M. Burnett, “Gender: An important factor in end-user programming environments?,” in Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, 2004 IEEE Symposium on, 2004, pp. 107–114.
6. M. M. Burnett, L. Beckwith, S. Wiedenbeck, S. D. Fleming, J. Cao, T. H. Park, V. Grigoreanu, and K. Rector, “Gender pluralism in problem-solving software,” Interact. Comput., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 450–460, Sep. 2011.
7. L. Buttrick, C. Linehan, B. Kirman, and D. O'Hara, “Fifty shades of CHI: the perverse and humiliating human-computer relationship,” 2014, pp. 825–834.
8. J. Margolis and A. Fisher, Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002.
9. G. Kannabiran, S. Bardzell, and J. Bardzell, “Designing (for) desire: a critical study of technosexuality in HCI,” in Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design, 2012, pp. 655–664.
10. A. Light, “HCI as heterodoxy: Technologies of identity and the queering of interaction with computers,” Interact. Comput., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 430–438, Sep. 2011.
11. L. Hemphill, I. Erickson, D. Ribes, and I. Mergel, “Feminism and social media research,” 2014, pp. 319–322.
12. M. Muller, “Feminism asks the 'Who' questions in HCI,” Interact. Comput., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 447–449, Sep. 2011.
13. B. Vasilescu, A. Capiluppi, and A. Serebrenik, “Gender, Representation and Online Participation: A Quantitative Study,” Interact. Comput., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 488–511, Sep. 2014.
14. S. Padilla, T. S. Methven, D. W. Corne, and M. J. Chantler, “Hot topics in CHI: trend maps for visualising research,” 2014, pp. 815–824.
15. S. M. Dray, A. N. Peters, A. M. Brock, A. Peer, A. Druin, S. Gitau, J. Kumar, and D. Murray, “Leveraging the Progress of Women in the HCI Field to Address the Diversity Chasm,” in CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 2399–2406.
16. A. Forte, J. Antin, S. Bardzell, L. Honeywell, J. Riedl, and S. Stierch, “Some of All Human Knowledge: Gender and Participation in Peer Production,” in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion, New York, NY, USA, 2012, pp. 33–36.
17. A. Dillon and C. Watson, “User analysis in HCI—the historical lessons from individual differences research,” Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 619–637, 1996.
18. J. Grudin and J. Pruitt, “Personas, participatory design and product development: An infrastructure for engagement,” in PDC 2002, Malmo, Sweden, 2002, pp. 144–152.
19. J. Wajcman, Feminism confronts technology. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991.
20. T. Winograd, Understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for design. Norwood, N.J: Ablex Pub. Corp, 1986.
21. J. Butler, Undoing gender. New York; London: Routledge, 2004.
22. S. Sontag, On photography. New York: Picador USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001.
23. A. H. Brafman, The Language of Drawings: A New Finding in Psy-chodynamic Work. London: Karnac Books, 2012.
24. B. Türkcan, “Semiotic approach to the analysis of children's drawings,” Educ. Sci. Theory Pract., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 600–607, 2013.
25. S. Wright, “'I Mean, the Queen's Fierce and the King's Not': Gendered Embodiment in Children's Drawings,” Int. J. Early Child., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 391–406, Nov. 2014.
26. D. W. Chambers, “Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test,” Sci. Educ., vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 255–265, Apr. 1983.
27. N. S. Dalton, “Neurodiversity & HCI,” in CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2013, pp. 2295–2304.
28. B. Coleman, Hello avatar: rise of the networked generation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2011.
29. T. A. M. Carnegie, “Interface as Exordium: The Rhetoric of Interactivity,” Comput. Compos., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 164–173, Sep. 2009.
30. P. Dourish, Divining a digital future: mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2011.
31. M. Czerwinski, D. S. Tan, and G. G. Robertson, “Women take a wider view,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2002, pp. 195–202.
32. I. Chalmers, “People are 'participants' in research. Further suggestions for other terms to describe 'participants' are needed,” BMJ, vol. 318, no. 7191, p. 1141, Apr. 1999.
33. P. M. Boynton, “People should participate in, not be subjects of, research,” BMJ, vol. 317, no. 7171, p. 1521, Nov. 1998.
34. S. McMaster, “New Approaches to Image-based Research and Visual Literacy: A Pilot Project Report,” New Horiz. Vis. Lit. Sel. Read. Int. Vis. Lit. Assoc., pp. 122–132, 2012.
35. C. Cohn, “Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals,” Signs, pp. 687–718, 1987.
36. M. Schmettow, M. L. Noordzij, and M. Mundt, “An implicit test of UX: individuals differ in what they associate with computers,” in CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2013, pp. 2039–2048.
37. “user, n.1.,” OED Online. Oxford University Press, 2014.
38. M. Balarajan, M. Gray, and M. Mitchell, Monitoring equality: developing a gender identity question. 2011.