#SociallyAcceptableHCI: Social Acceptability of Emerging Technologies and Novel Interaction Paradigms

  • Marion KoelleEmail author
  • Ceenu George
  • Valentin Schwind
  • Daniel Perry
  • Yumiko Sakamoto
  • Khalad Hasan
  • Robb Mitchell
  • Thomas Olsson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11749)


The spread of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in all aspects of our lives increases the range and scale of potential issues with social acceptance. In the HCI community there is a growing interest and recognition of social acceptability issues with emerging technologies and novel interaction paradigms. This workshop builds on the success of the CHI 2018 workshop on social acceptability by bringing together academics and practitioners to discuss what social acceptance and acceptability mean in the context of various emerging technologies and modern human-computer interaction. We aim to bring the concept of social acceptability in line with the current technology landscape, as well as to identify relevant research steps for making it more useful, actionable and researchable with well-operationalized metrics. The intended outcome of the workshop is two-fold: first, we will continue the efforts to provide an actionable conceptualization of social acceptability in HCI. Second, we will start a collection of best practices and practical examples to be brought together as a continuously updated “case book” of social acceptability in HCI.


Social computing Social acceptability Social acceptance Technology acceptance Emerging technologies 


  1. 1.
    Alallah, F., et al.: Crowdsourcing vs laboratory-style social acceptability studies?: examining the social acceptability of spatial user interactions for head-worn displays. In: CHI 2018, pp. 310:1–310:7. ACM (2018).
  2. 2.
    Avila Soto, M., Funk, M.: Look, a guidance drone! assessing the social acceptability of companion drones for blind travelers in public spaces. In: ASSETS 2018, pp. 417–419. ACM (2018).
  3. 3.
    Courtland, R.: Bias detectives: the researchers striving to make algorithms fair. Nature 558(7710), 357 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Denning, T., Dehlawi, Z., Kohno, T.: In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies. In: CHI 2014, pp. 2377–2386. ACM (2014).
  5. 5.
    Easwara Moorthy, A., Vu, K.P.L.: Privacy concerns for use of voice activated personal assistant in the public space. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 31(4), 307–335 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Efthymiou, C., Halvey, M.: Evaluating the social acceptability of voice based smartwatch search. In: Ma, S., et al. (eds.) AIRS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9994, pp. 267–278. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koelle, M., Olsson, T., Mitchell, R., Williamson, J., Boll, S.: What is (un)acceptable?: thoughts on social acceptability in HCI research. Interactions 26(3), 36–40 (2019). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koelle, M., et al.: (Un)acceptable!?!: re-thinking the social acceptability of emerging technologies. In: CHI EA 2018, pp. W03:1–W03:8. ACM (2018).
  9. 9.
    Koelle, M., Wolf, K., Boll, S.: Beyond LED status lights - design requirements of privacy notices for body-worn cameras. In: TEI 2018, pp. 177–187. ACM (2018).
  10. 10.
    Lee, D., Lee, Y., Shin, Y., Oakley, I.: Designing socially acceptable hand-to-face input. In: UIST 2018, pp. 711–723. ACM (2018).
  11. 11.
    Linehan, C., Bull, N., Kirman, B.: BOLLOCKS!! designing pervasive games that play with the social rules of built environments. In: Reidsma, D., Katayose, H., Nijholt, A. (eds.) ACE 2013. LNCS, vol. 8253, pp. 123–137. Springer, Cham (2013). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Montero, C.S., Alexander, J., Marshall, M.T., Subramanian, S.: Would you do that?: understanding social acceptance of gestural interfaces. In: MobileHCI 2010, pp. 275–278. ACM (2010).
  13. 13.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Porcheron, M., Fischer, J.E., Reeves, S., Sharples, S.: Voice interfaces in everyday life. In: CHI 2018, pp. 640:1–640:12. ACM (2018).
  15. 15.
    Profita, H., Albaghli, R., Findlater, L., Jaeger, P., Kane, S.K.: The AT effect: how disability affects the perceived social acceptability of head-mounted display use. In: CHI 2016, pp. 4884–4895. ACM (2016).
  16. 16.
    Profita, H.P., et al.: Don’t mind me touching my wrist: a case study of interacting with on-body technology in public. In: ISWC 2013, pp. 89–96. ACM (2013).
  17. 17.
    Rico, J., Brewster, S.: Usable gestures for mobile interfaces: evaluating social acceptability. In: CHI 2010, pp. 887–896. ACM (2010).
  18. 18.
    Savela, N., Turja, T., Oksanen, A.: Social acceptance of robots in different occupational fields: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 10(4), 493–502 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shilton, K.: Values and ethics in human-computer interaction. Found. Trends: Hum.-Comput. Interact. 12(2), 107–171 (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shinohara, K.: Design for social accessibility: incorporating social factors in the design of accessible technologies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Waycott, J., et al.: Ethical encounters in human-computer interaction. In: CHI EA 2016, pp. 3387–3394. ACM (2016).
  22. 22.
    Yao, Y., Xia, H., Huang, Y., Wang, Y.: Privacy mechanisms for drones: perceptions of drone controllers and bystanders. In: CHI 2017, pp. 6777–6788. ACM (2017).

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Koelle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ceenu George
    • 2
  • Valentin Schwind
    • 3
  • Daniel Perry
    • 4
  • Yumiko Sakamoto
    • 5
  • Khalad Hasan
    • 6
  • Robb Mitchell
    • 7
  • Thomas Olsson
    • 8
  1. 1.University of OldenburgOldenburgGermany
  2. 2.Ludwig-Maximilians UniversityMunichGermany
  3. 3.University of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  4. 4.North Inc.KitchenerCanada
  5. 5.University of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  6. 6.University of British ColumbiaOkanaganCanada
  7. 7.University of Southern DenmarkKoldingDenmark
  8. 8.Tampere UniversityTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations