My  name  is  Jim  Cole. He  has  in  Coley  Soler  was  the  history. I  came  to  Georgia  Tech  in  1991 and  founded  the  Graphics Visualization  and  Usability  Center, which  worked  into  the  View  Center, just  an  abbreviation,  which  just  this  year merged  with  a  C  for  people  have  technology  because  their, their  charters  were  very  similar  and  overlapping. In  the  15th  anniversary  of  the  View  Center, my  HE  student,  my  Georgia  Tech  student  that  Minor, who  was  then  the  director  of  the  View  Center, organize  a  number  of  friends,  faculty, family  to  create  an  endowment for  the  Foley  Scholar  Program. So  the  endowment  supports  the  awards which  are  given  every  year  to  the  Phd  students, normally  three  Phd  students  every  year. This  year,  just  one  through  the  administrative, which  only  won  the  award  is  $5,000  per  Phd  student. Today,  we're  going  to  hear  from the  winner  of  the  Foley  Scholar  Award  for  this  year, as  well  as  the  three  finalists  for  the  award. A  couple  of  administrative announcements,  cell  phones  off. Please  remember  to  put your  trash  in  the  cans  as  you  go  out. How  many  of  your  MSHCIudentsMSHCI  students? The  MSHCI  program  was  a  direct  outgrowth of  the  GU  center  started  in  1998. How  many  are  other  master's  degree  students, Phd  students,  Interested  participants?  Everyone  else. Great.  So  our  first  speaker  today is  the  winner  of  the  Foley  Scholar  Award. Kartik  Bot  is  going  to  be  talking about  technology  mediated  futures  of  care  work. Welcome.  Thank  you. Awesome.  Good  afternoon  and  thank  you  all  for  being  here. It  is  my  honor  to  be  presenting my  work  to  all  of  you  today. I'll  be  talking  about  my  dissertation  work on  envisioning  technology  mediated  futures  of  care  work. I  want  to  start  off  with  defining  care  work. Care  work  can  take  many  forms and  is  a  very  versatile  concept. It  could  involve  aspects  of  self  care, caring  for  your  children  or  others  around  you, providing  education  and  making  time  for  students, or  volunteering  and  activism. These  are  all  activities  of  care. In  my  research,  I  define  care  work  as  the  labor  that  one performs  to  improve  the  health  and  well being  of  themselves  or  others  around  them. My  work,  by  and  large,  focuses  on the  three  main  clauses  in  this  definition. Where  across  my  different  studies, my  dissertation  looks  into  the  health and  well  being  aspect  especially, and  takes  an  ecological  perspective  to understand  how  various  stakeholders  engage  in  care. I  take  into  consideration  how  social  cultural  factors, like  cultural  norms  and  current  policies, influence  who  can  access  or  provide care  and  what  forms  of  care  are  available  to  them. My  work  looks  deeply  into the  labor  that  goes  into  providing  care, be  it  the  physical,  mental,  or  emotional  labor. With  this  definition  in  mind, I  present  three  contexts  that  I've  conducted  research  on. First,  I  look  at  care  closer  to  the  home. And  I  look  at  how  individuals  and their  family  members  engage  in care  work  when  managing  chronic  health  conditions. Next,  I  look  at  care  work  in clinical  settings  like  consultation  rooms  and  hospitals. And  I  present  how  doctors  employ technologies  in  providing  care  remotely. Finally,  I  look  at  how  public  health  organizations are  involved  in  care  work. Particularly,  how  they  leverage technologies  to  overcome  social  cultural  barriers, like  strong  gender  norms, or  taboos  to  ensure  good  health  outcomes  at  scale. Shifting  gears  a  little  bit, I  want  to  think  about  the  future  of  care  work  right  now. There  is  the  growing  belief  that the  future  of  work  lies  in  automation. Ai  technologies,  natural  language  technologies, precision  robotics  are  all being  used  to  portray  a  future  of work  where  automation  has embedded  itself  into  one's  work  and  workplace. And  we're  also  seeing  the  concept  of  workplace  changing. Where  we've  all  been  through the  transition  from  largely  in person  workplaces  before  the pandemic  to  fully  remote  during,  to  somewhere  in  between. Right  now,  given  how  quickly  these  things are  changing  and  adapting  to  the  current  realities, these  conversations  on  the  future of  work  are  also  evolving. So  to  me,  these  are  simultaneously super  exciting  developments  and  also  causes  for  pause. It's  true  that  these  advances arguably  make  work  practices  more streamlined  and  more  efficient in  many  industries  and  domains. But  my  focus  is  on  studying what  this  means  for  the  future  of  care  work, which  is  a  domain  where  human  connections  and emotional  labor  play  a  significant  role. Such  future  of  work  technologies are  surely  exciting  and  have the  potential  to  be  immensely impactful  if  successfully  deployed  at  scale, and  if  they  become  integral  parts  of  care  workflows. However,  these  are  both  big  ifs. At  this  point,  the  problem is  that  caregiving  technologies  are developing  much  faster  than  the  pace  of adoption  of  these  technologies  into  care  workflows. In  the  context  of  my  research  in  India,  for  example, healthcare  practices  are  still  resolutely low  tech  in  urban  healthcare  settings. Even  though  there  have  been  huge  technological  advances outside  the  care  settings, they've  not  translated  to large  care  technology  adoption  in  care  work. This  means  that  the  current  challenges of  the  day  are  not  only technological  and  there  are  definitely plenty  of  unanswered  questions  in  this  space, but  the  challenges  are  also  socio  technical. For  these  technologies  to  achieve  their  promised  impact, we  need  to  understand  why they're  not  seeing  adoption  yet, and  how  they  can  best  be  integrated into  systems  and  practices  of  care. Through  my  work,  I  try  to identify  where  these  technologies  might clash  with  current  care  practices and  which  might  ultimately  lead  to  their  rejection. I  use  this  as  a  way  to  highlight  where technologies  could  be  introduced  in  ways that  benefit  all  stakeholders involved  across  these  contexts  of  care. My  dissertation  asks,  how  might  we effectively  integrate  emerging  technologies into  existing  care  workflows  to enable  greater  access  to  patient  centered  care? So  this  is  a  summary  of  my  research  contributions  so  far. And  in  the  next  few  minutes, I'll  present  high  level  summaries  of  my  works  across these  three  domains  and  key  takeaways  from  them. I'd  love  to  take  questions  at the  end  of  the  talk  or  at  the  end  of  the  session, depending  on  how  much  time  I  have  left. First,  I  looked  within  the  home  to  see  how  patients  and their  family  members  managed chronic  conditions  like  cardiac  diseases. I  conducted  interviews  with  patients,  their  caregivers, and  doctors  to  understand  how  they  employ health  tracking  technologies  and online  support  technologies  towards helping  their  care  work  practices. I  conducted  all  this  work  in  Bangalore, which  is  a  city  in  South  India. Some  key  findings  from  this  body  of  work  included understanding  how  and  why health  tracking  technologies  were  disused, how  online  health  resources  were  leveraged  in  care  work, and  how  caregivers  play critical  roles  in  decision  making  around  care. My  main  takeaways  from  this  line of  work  were  that  we  need  to  change our  perspectives  on  how  we  see informal  caregivers  roles  in  the  home. If  we  could  recognize  that  they  actually  have  decision making  power  and  are  not  just  supporting  actors, we  could  design  technologies for  them  in  more  meaningful  ways. For  example,  when  thinking  about  creating technologies  to  support  patient  centered  care, we  could  consider  how  to  design  for  caregiver  use  more intentionally  rather  than  thinking about  caregiver  mediated  patient  use. This  might  seem  counter  intuitive  since  I  am suggesting  caregiver  centered  design for  patient  centered  care. But  my  idea  is  that  caregivers already  have  a  lot  of  agency within  the  home  and  are  motivated to  ensure  good  health  outcomes  for  the  patient. Supporting  them  could  better  ensure that  patients  receive  better  care. One  approach  might  involve  leveraging  some  of these  future  work  technologies  to  support  care  work. More  mundane  tasks  like medication  adherence,  exercise  tracking, and  so  on  could  be  automated away  to  unburden  the  caregivers  in  some  form. And  creating  space  for  the more  emotional  and  intentional  forms of  care  work  that  they  do  value. In  my  second  research  theme, I  shifted  attention  towards  the  clinical  settings. Looking  more  deeply  into  doctor's  care  work, I  investigated  how  telemedicine  specifically  was being  employed  during  the  Covid  19  pandemic  in  India. And  identified  how  patients  and doctors  were  creating  technologies  and human  infrastructures  to  support  telemedicine in  a  time  when  it  was  finally  actively  being  used, Having  been  on  the  peripherse  for  decades  before. Then,  in  a  follow  up  study, I  designed  an  intermediated  workflow  for  telemedicine. I  recruited  real  patients  and  doctors  to participate  in  an  intermediated  workflow  to  help compare  such  an  experience  against  the  regular  in  person and  regular  telemedicine  consultations. So  findings  from  this  study  highlighted how  intermediated  workflows  where  I  have an  intermediary  serving  as a  proxy  for  doctors  and  examinations. And  making  sure  that  patients  get  better  care through  telemedicine  could  help  make  telemes, the  telemedicine  experience  better for  patients  and  doctors. My  main  takeaways  from  this  line  of work  was  the  observance that  there  was  an  emerging  parallel  pathways to  care  in  person. Care  was  still  the  gold  standard for  how  clinical  care  was  provided, and  there's  no  real  change  to  that. But  hybrid  telemedicine  could establish  itself  as  a  separate  pathway  to  care. It  would  not  be  looking  to  supplement in  person  care,  just  to  be  clear. But  it  could  give  patients  a  choice of  the  modality  in  which  they choose  to  seek  care  based on  what  they  are  prioritizing  in  the  moment. If  they  did  want  the  emotional  support  of  going to  a  Dr.  then  going  in  person  made  sense. But  if  they  just  wanted  a  quick  resolution, reaching  out  to  the  Dr.  via a  phone  would  work  just  as  well. Second,  it  pointed  me  to more  important  potential  avenues  for future  work  with  telemedicine. Finally,  being  seen  as  a  viable  pathway  to  care, we,  as  researchers  and  technologists, could  actually  design  telemedicine  technologies  that brought  it  closer  to  the  ideals  of  patient  centered  care. Finally,  this  work  did  point  to many  socio  technical  implications, like  the  need  to  reconfigure so  many  elements  of  clinical  care  work. Doctors  need  training  in  diagnosing and  treating  patients  remotely. And  patients  need  to  be  informed  of the  limitations  and  possibilities of  seeking  care  remotely. Finally,  I  looked  into  care  work  at  scale, looking  at  how  public  health  organizations might  leverage  technologies  in  their  practice. Here  I  look  at  how an  organization  involved  in providing  M  health  interventions  for pregnant  women  and  new  mothers  could  begin  to serve  fathers  with  relevant  health  information. To  make  sure  that  they  could  be  more involved  in  their  care  and  the  kinds  of  pushback they  received  in  the  form  of  social  cultural barriers  and  gendered  norms. Our  findings  were  in  fact centered  on  the  fact  that  fathers  were  largely excluded  from  traditional  forms  of care  work  during  pregnancy  and  neonatal  care. So  they  expressed  providing  care through  things  that  they  could  control, like  the  work  they  did  and  how  they provided  financially  for  their  families. The  key  takeaway.  Sorry,  I  will  run  through  this. This  is  the  last  slide.  I  have  20  seconds. The  key  takeaways  were  the  recognition that  work  could  be  supported, technologies  could  support  care, work  in  diverse  forms, like  providing  financial  benefit  for  the  families. So  providing  financial  health  information  or  upskilling knowledge  could  fall  under the  purview  of  Malth  interventions  because  they  do, if  not  directly,  at  least  indirectly,  support  care  work. And  that  was  the  end  of  my  talk.  Thank  you  so  much. We  have  we  have  time  for  a  question,  question, question.  I  have  a  question. You  mentioned  telehealth  has, which  is  getting  to  be  very  important,  and  you  said, we  need  to  get  public  telehealth closer  to  ongoing  practice.  What  does  that  mean? Patient  centered  care  is  focused  on ensuring  patients  have  greater  choice  in  their  care, Making  sure  that  they  get the  best  quality  health  outcomes. And  telemedicine  right  now  does  not  allow  doctors to  diagnose  more  conclusively. They  can  only  come  up  to  sort  of what  a  differential  diagnosis  start  with, like  a  medical  line  of  management  to  see  if  that  works. If  that  doesn't,  then  they  call  the  patient  again  and the  process  for  receiving optimal  care  takes  longer  and  longer. My  hope  is  that  we  can  create  a  form  of  telemedicine where  doctors  can  get  more  conclusive  examinations, conclusive  diagnoses  sooner  so  that  the  path to  full  health  is charter  like  fasteration.  Thank  you.  Thank  you. I  neglected  to  mention. The  Kartik  advisor  is Neha  Kumar  who  is  sitting  right  here. Second,  for  those  of  you  who  are  in  the  HCI  field, you  may  or  may  not  know  that Professor  Kumar  is  the  President  of  Ki, the  Computer  Human  Interaction Special  Interest  Group  of  ACM. So  you  all  are  at  the  right  place. Our  next  speaker  is  R.  Pet  Narcan, who's  talking  about  chloropleth  maps. His  advisor,  Alex  Der,  is  on  a  trip, so  he's  not  here  today.  Okay,  Thanks  Jim. Am  I  audible?  Good  afternoon. My  name  is  Arbit  Nachanya. Today  I'm  going  to  talk  about Coroplet  maps  and  how  they can  trick  you  and  what  you  can  do  about  it. So  consider  this  map  of  the  United  States  counties. I  have  colored  them  in proportion  to  their  life  expectancy  values. For  example,  San  Miquel  County  with the  highest  life  expectancy  of 97.97  years  is  colored  yellow. And  Oglala  Lakota  county  with the  lowest  life  expectancy  of 62.44  years  is  colored  dark  blue. Our  very  own  Fulton  County  is  somewhere  in  the  middle at  79.33  years  colored  teal. This  is  called  the  Cooplet  Map. An  important  aspect  of  Corepit  Maps  is  the  grouping  of the  quantitative  data  values  into  categorical  groups. This  process  is  also  known  as  data binding  or  data  classification. For  example,  this  continuous  range  I  showed  earlier can  be  classified  or  divided  in  four  different  ways. If  you  look  them  in  a  couplet  map,  this  is  how  they  look, notice  how  different  they  all  look, even  though  they  are  essentially showing  the  same  information. These  are  all  established pinning  methods  in  cartographic  literature. For  example,  equal  interval  is  an  interval based  binning  method  in  which each  bin's  range  or  extent  is  of  the  same  length. Alternatively,  quantile is  a  statistical  binning  method  in which  each  bin  consists  of approximately  the  same  number  of  data  observations. Note  that  this  results  in an  equal  distribution  of  green  and  blue  counties, which  is  unlike  the  equal  interval  method  that has  a  much  larger  distribution  of  blue  counties. Next,  there  is  natural  breaks, which  is  an  iterative  method, and  this  creates  natural  groupings  of data  that  are  more  meaningful  and  interpretable. However,  if  none  of  these  works, mapmakers  often  utilize  manual  interval  and  divide the  data  into  custom  bins  the  way  they  want. The  choice  of  binning  methods  can very  much  influence  policymaking. For  example,  mapmakers  can  falsely  project a  county  as  doing  good  or bad  when  that  might  not  be  the  case. For  example,  consider  three binning  methods  equal  interval, quantile,  and  natural  breaks. Oglala  Lakota  County,  because of  its  lowest  life  expectancy, always  falls  in  the  first  or  lowest  bin. However,  and  that's  why  it's  colored  blue. However,  Maricopa  County  in  Arizona, with  a  life  expectancy  of  80.46  years, falls  in  three  different  winds,  third,  fifth,  and  fourth, respectively,  resulting  in  different  colors  of  green. Any  devious  mapmaker  can  show Maricopa  to  be  performing  well  using  quantile, maybe  to  look  good  federally  or  not  so  well. Using  equal  interval  maybe  to  seek additional  funding  to  improve  the  current  state. By  the  way,  there  aren't  just  four  methods  to  consider. There  are  many  more,  and  each  of them  has  its  own  strengths  and  weaknesses. So  it  is  very  important  to  carefully consider  what  method  to  use  to  ensure that  the  map  accurately  represents the  underlying  data  and effectively  communicates  it  to  the  viewer. We  built  a  tool  called  Explorer  Plate to  help  users  browse such  a  catalog  of different  data  pinning  methods  and  subsequently  compare, customize,  and  export  custom  maps  from your  own  data.  Let  me  give  a  quick  demo. Okay,  so  in  this  browse  view, we  show  how  the  same  data  looks  in more  than  15  different  binning  methods. You  can  modify  the  number  of  wins, like  how  I'm  just  changing  5-7  Or  you can  change  the  color  from  blues  greens  to  red. You  can  do  a  bunch  of  other  stuff like  sharing,  exporting,  and  so  on. Next,  you  can  also  compare just  the  bins  that  were generated  by  various  pinning  methods, like  taking  the  map  out  of  the  equation. For  example, consider  the  quantile  method  being  highlighted. Now  because  it  has  the  same  number of  data  observations  in  each  bin, each  rectangle  is  of  the  same  height  or  thickness, but  if  you  compare  it  with  a  geometric  interval  method, then  you  start  noticing  subtle  differences. And  not  just  the  bin  sizes, but  also  the  bin  extends. Next,  we  invented a  new  consensus  binning  method,  called  resilience, that  considers  how  a  county is  placed  in  different  binning  methods, and  accordingly  creates  a  smart  average  pin. Remember  the  example  of  Oglala  Lakota  County and  Maricopa  County  from  before? This  view  lets  users  visualize  this  information, also  its  average  pin. But  in  the  interest  of  time, I  won't  go  much  into  specifics  here, but  this  is  a  new  method  be  invented. Finally,  if  the  mapmaker  is still  not  happy  with  any  of  these  methods, we  also  have  a  create  view  wherein  you  can  create their  own  bins  directly  by  modifying  the  bin  extends. Next,  we  were  curious  how couplet  maps  are  actually  made  in practice  and  also  wanted  to  seek  feedback  on  exploroplet. We  interviewed  16  cartographers  and  GIS  experts  from 13  globally  serving  government  organizations  and  NGOs. We  found  that  couplet  mapmaking  is a  complex  undertaking  with many  factors  that  influence  decision  making, Such  as  individual  mapmakers who  bring  in  different  cartographic  knowledge, tool  familiarity,  personal  rules  of  thumb, and  even  personal  moods. That  was  a  surprising  one. The  mapmakers  organization,  they bring  in  their  old  protocols,  guidelines, and  there  are  multiple  teams  from  mapping, reviewing,  branding,  editing,  and  so  on. The  map  itself,  how  is  it  going  to  be  shared? Like  what's  the  medium,  who's  the  audience, what's  the  format,  the  data?  Where  does  it  come  from? Is  it  good  quality  semantics? For  example,  data  related  to water  might  result  in  bluish  maps  and  so  on. And  then  there  are  clients, vendors,  and  even  governments. They  all  have  their  say  before a  map  is  published  and  sold. In  terms  of  data  binding  methods, they  mostly  used  pretty  breaks  and  manual  breaks. Both  methods  involve  making  custom  bins. As  for  the  data,  they  didn't really  rely  on  the  statistical  or the  established  literature  ones in  terms  of  number  of  wins. Five  to  six  bins  were  most  popular, which  aligns  very  well  with prior  cartographic  literature  and  empirical  studies. What  did  they  have  to  say  about  data  binning? Okay,  in  current  tools  such  as  GIS, you  cannot  compare  binning  methods  side  by  side. If  you  use  Python  to  explore  methods  that are  not  supported  by  GIS,  it  is  still  a  hassle. When  they  saw  Explorer  Plath, they  gave  us  positive  and  encouraging  feedback  from both  a  map  making  as  well  as  an  educational  standpoint. They  did,  however,  caution  as  against  some  mapmakers who  may  still  nefariously  try  to  skew  the  data, especially  in  the  create  view  of  the  tool. Our  strategy  to  reduce nefarious  uses  of  peropletse  involves  three  things. First,  educate,  educate  mapmakers about  various  binning  methods  and  their  effects. Now,  tools  like  Explorer  Plate  can  very  much  help  here. Next,  help  mapmakers  decide appropriate  binning  methods  as per  their  data  and  use  cases, potentially,  a  tool  called  decidopleth. Finally,  inappropriately  binned  maps  that are  out  there  in  the  wild  in  a  tool  called  fix  ple. This  is  what  our  awesome  team, including  my  advisor  Dr. Alex  Ender  and  Dr.  Leo  Andres,  have  been  working  on. There's  much  more  to  come,  but  for  now, I  will  conclude  my  talk and  I'm  most  happy  to  take  questions. Thank  you. Questions  for  Arthur?  Questions?  Questions? Who  was  a  professor  who  said  it's  a  professor's  dream I  cannot  disclose  the  name  of  due  to  anonymity  concerns. Okay.  Bar  No  questions. We'll  proceed. You're  not  off  the  screen. Yeah,  so  attraction  is  a  Phd  candidate  advised  by both  Professor  Kumar  and Professor  Chowderyat,  this  is  working. Yeah.  Awesome.  Yeah,  it's  an  honor  to  be  here. Thank  you  so  much  for  giving me  this  platform  to  talk  about  my  research. My  presentation  is  entitled Computing  for  Mental  Health  Equity. So  let  us  talk  about  presentation  two  towns, one  of  them  is  likely  very  familiar  to  all  of  us  here. It's  Midtown  Atlanta  on  the  left. The  other  is  a  small  town about  100  miles  away  entitled  Milledgeville,  right? That's  the  name  of  the  town  about  2  hours  away. So  we're  pretty  well  resourced  here  in  Atlanta. Metropolitan  Atlanta  has 2,621  mental  health  professionals, which  comes  out  to approximately  one  mental  health  provider to  meet  the  needs  of  every  407  people. That's  quite  the  ratio, but  conditions  are  much  more  difficult. In  Millageville,  which  only  has about  64  mental  health  professionals. This  comes  out  to  one  mental  health  provider  who's responsible  for  every  691  people. Milldeville  is  what's  called a  mental  health  professional  shortage  area, where  there  aren't  enough  mental  health professionals  to  meet  expected  need. Now,  Millageville  is  only  about 100  miles  away  from  Atlanta, or  about  2  hours, 3  hours  if  you  factor  in  Atlanta  traffic. But  the  disparities  are  huge. There  are  thousands  of  mental health  professionals  in  Atlanta, whereas  all  of  the  mental  health  professionals  in Millageville  could  probably  fit  in  this  very  room. However,  my  research  has  shown that  tonight  in  both  Midtown  Atlanta, as  well  as  Millgeville, someone  will  get  on  Google  and search  for  a  way  to  kill  themselves. I  believe  that  we  as  computing  researchers, have  an  important  role  to  play  to make  sure  that  no  matter  who  you  are, whether  you  live  in  Atlanta  or  you  live  in  Millgeville, when  you  come  to  technology  in a  state  of  extreme  distress, you'll  live  to  see  another  day. But  I  think  to  be  able  to  do  that, we  need  to  understand  how  being  from Atlanta  or  being  from  Millgeville  or some  other  place  or  community can  influence  our  mental  health  needs. In  fact,  it's  clear  we  need  to  understand all  the  identity  based  factors  that  lead  up  to  an individual  deciding  to  come  to a  technology  based  system  when  in  distress. We  also  need  to  understand, given  all  of  these  identity  based  factors, what  technology  can  and  can't  feasibly  give a  person  who  is  in  distress  to  be  able  to  feel  better. And  that's  where  my  research  comes  in. I  study  how  marginalization  and  technology  design together  influence  people's  engagements with  mental  health  technologies. I  use  quantitative  and  qualitative  methods from  HCI  and  beyond. Guided  by  histories  of  marginalization  and  justice, my  research  bears  implications  for  designing mental  health  interventions  that  center both  cultural  validity  and  user  autonomy. My  research  is  oriented towards  thinking  about  the  differences  in mental  health  experiences  across  diverse  areas  of  the  US, such  as  Milledgeville  or  Atlanta. As  well  as  thinking  about where  there  may  be  differences  or commonalities  between  someone  in  the  global  south, the  United  States,  or  someone  in  the  global  north, such  as  the  US,  and  someone  in  the  global  south  or  India. I've  examined  the  role  of  identity  and power  and  digital  mental  health  experiences  across a  wide  variety  of  identities and  global  context  as  seen  above. But  in  today's  talk,  I'll  focus  on my  work  analyzing  the  end  to  end  experiences  of people  who  engage  with  mental  health  technologies as  they  move  along  a  pathway  to  care. Highlighting  the  role  of  identity  as  well  as  power. In  that  process,  we'll  start  with  a  basic  question. What  brings  people  to technology  when  they're  in  a  state  of  distress? I'll  draw  upon  my  research  interviewing people  who  engage  with  diverse  forms  of  care, including  suicide  helplines  and community  care  in  India  as  well  as  the  United  States. So  let's  talk  about  some  of  the findings  across  both  studies. I  found  that  people  often  turn  to mental  health  technologies  when  they  have no  other  place  to  turn  and  oftentimes  in  crisis. So  you  see  advertisements  for popular  mental  health  applications being  framed  as  ways  for people  to  maintain  their existing  mental  health  right  coaching or  head  space,  right  mindfulness. But  in  my  research,  I  found  that  people  often came  to  mental  health  technologies when  they  were  in  a  state  of  crisis. They  couldn't  afford  anything  else  and  they  thought that  technology  might  be the  last  thing  that  could  keep  them  alive. So  these  weren't  people  who  were  looking to  maintain  their  mental  health. They  were  looking  for  anything  that  could, like  I  mentioned,  keep  them  alive. I  also  found  that  people  look  for their  distress  to  be  validated  in online  context  after  not  feeling  hurt  offline. So  for  example,  a  participant who  was  living  in  a  rural  area  of  the  US. Described  to  me  how  people  in their  daily  life  didn't  actually  believe that  they  had  depression  because  they  didn't have  the  typical  symptoms  of  depression. So  they  turned  to  online  resources  such  as Web  MD  and  Youtube  to validate  that  they  actually  had  depression. Which  shows  that  the  way  that  online  resources  are framed  has  a  huge  influence  on how  people  think  about  their  mental  health. And  finally,  people  approach  mental  health  technologies with  a  sense  of  fear  due  to  a  lack  of  transparency. So  across  context,  participants described  me  how  they  didn't  really know  what  happened  to them  if  they  would  be  too vulnerable  with  their  care  providers. This  is  illustrated  by  two  quotes  from  two  of  my  studies. So  Juhi  describes  here  how  she  was  concerned  that helpline  providers  would  call  the  police  or her  parents  if  she  was  honest  about  how  suicidal  she  was. And  similarly,  Donna,  a  black  woman  in  the  US, described  how  people  seemed  to  feel  uncomfortable  and scared  if  she  was  fully open  about  her  emotional  experiences. And  speaking  about  language  and  expression, I  also  found  that  across  context, participants  use  diverse  language  to describe  their  symptoms,  including  experiences. So  for  example,  Ape  calls schizophrenia  feeling  like  a  hole  in his  eye  red  that  may  not  be  picked  up by  the  DSM  or  by  traditional  doctors. So  with  that  in  mind,  the  question  arises, are  there  systematic  differences  in  how  people  talk about  their  mental  health  and  what  do those  differences  look  like  on  line? To  answer  this  question,  I  build  on  my  analysis  of large  scale  quantitative  analysis  of posts  from  international  support  communities, as  well  as  Twitter  posts  and  Google  searches from  US  mental  health  professional  shortage  areas. And  look  at  similarities  and  differences. Of  course,  we  have  a  chluroplethic  map  here. Let's  talk  a  little  bit  about  the  findings. I  promise  I've  done  my  best  to  try  not  to  mislead  you. So  what  we  find  is  that  by  comparing US  mental  professional  shortage  in  non  shortage  areas, we  find  significantly  lower  levels  of clinical  language  in  US  shortage  areas  on  Twitter. So  people  are  more  likely  to  say  things  like, I  feel  really  hurt. I  feel  like  I  really  want  to  sleep  forever. As  opposed  to  saying  I  feel  depressed  or  I  feel  anxious. We  also  see  that  this  happens  in  private  as  well. So  Google  searches  also  have similarly  lower  levels  of  clinical  language. Now,  what  does  it  look  like?  When  we  turn  to a  global  north  and  global  south  comparison? We  see  the  same  pattern  carry  in  that  there's lower  levels  of  clinical  language among  global  south  users  on  talk  life. And  across  all  of  these  contexts  we  see  a  lack  of clinical  resources  reflected  in the  language  that  people  use  around  their  distress. So  overall,  my  research demonstrates  that  there  are  strong  ties  to  identity, power  and  context  with  regards  to how  people  talk  about  their  mental  health  and how  that  language  influences how  they  engage  with  mental  health  technologies. But  the  question  arises, so  we  have  these  differences. How  do  we  design  for  them? In  my  work,  I've  argued  that  one  approach  is  thinking critically  about  not  only the  symptoms  that  an  individual  may  have, but  how  an  individual  understands  their  symptoms. So  for  example,  a  common  expression  in shortage  areas  as  well  as  in  the  global  south  in  India, at  least  my  fieldwork  site,  are  mentions  of  God, right,  In  the  expression  that  I feel  like  God  has  given  up  on  me. Integrating  this  information  into online  interfaces  might  look  like embedding  mental  health  resources into  what  seemed  like  innocuous  Google  searches. Right?  So  searches  for  theology around  what  happens  after  death. And  I  believe  that  this  approach, one  that  considers  these identity  and  power  based  aspects, can  make  sure  that  more  people are  able  to  find  support  when  they need  it  that  meets  their  own  ideas around  what  support  and  care  look  like. Finally,  I  want  to  conclude  by expressing  my  gratitude  to  the  amazing  community we  have  at  Georgia  Tech  for positioning  me  well  to  be  able  to  do  this  research. Including  special  thanks  to  my  advisors  for  guiding  me through  all  of  my  research  ipad in  the  GVU  for  giving  me  this  platform  to  speak. And  then  Dr.  Foley  for  all  of his  support  over  the  last  few  years.  Great. Thank  you  again,  time  for  questions. How  common  is  it  in the  United  States  and  India  for  people  to turn  to  online  help  lines  or  whatever, as  opposed  to  the  other  more  traditional  sources? Yeah,  absolutely. I  mean,  doing  a  systematic, I  don't  know  if  a  systematic analysis  has  been  done  right, because  it's  very  difficult  for  people  to talk  about  their  seeking  experiences. But  what  my  research  has  shown  that,  yeah, lots  of  people,  like  you  said, not  traditional  ways  of  seeking mental  health  care  because it's  difficult  for  them  to  do  so. Right.  Insurance,  right. Or  intermediary, many  different  potential  pathways to  different  kinds  of  support. So  yeah,  definitely  a  lot  of  people  using non  traditional  forms  of  care because  traditional  forms  of  not  accessible. A  good  friend  of  her  daughters  works  for a  US  company  that  provides  title  health, psychiatric,  psychological  care. Wow,  thank  you. That's  my  e  mail. Here  we  go. So  Allie  Riggs  talking  about designing  with  ephemera.  All  you're  wrong. All  right.  Hi  everyone. My  talk  is  called  Designing  with  Ephemera, Queering,  Tangible  Interaction  and  Archival  Experiences. I'm  all  to  share  Riggs. I'm  a  third  year  Phd  student. I  work  with  Dr.  Anne  Sullivan, Dr.  Norah  Howell,  and  Dr.  Richmond. My  work  is  at  the  intersection  of  queer  theory, queer  archives,  and  tangible  embodied  interaction. So  what  does  that  actually  mean? I  design  tangible  experiences  that leverage  queer  theory  to  explore  queer  history. My  work  contributes  to  queer  HCI  with  attention  to historicism  or  using  methods  that  involve  history, or  historical  materials, and  tangible  embodied  interaction. What  is  queer  HCI? Well,  according  to  a  recent  meta  review, 2024,  queer  HCI  includes  research  by  queer  scholars, such  as  myself,  research  about  queer  people. So  you  can  study LGBTQ  people  and  their  relationships  with  technology. Or  research  that  leverages  queer  theory. How  do  we  leverage  queer  theory  in  HCI? In  human  computer  interaction? Some  have  suggested  that  this  means challenging  normative  structures  such  as  binaries. Then  others  have  suggested  that  this  means facilitating  uncommon  or  unpredictable, or  even  irrational  relationships between  beings  and  their  environments, basically  making  it  weird. Then  still  others  have  suggested  that  this means  problematizing  or  troubling something  with  critical  intent. What  I'm  aiming  to  do  with  my  work  is  to  ask, how  do  we  queer  HCI, or  trouble  with  critical  intent. Human  computer  interaction  with attention  to  queer  bodies, tangible  embodied  interaction,  and  histories. And  so  I  start  with  ephemera. Ephemera  is  essentially  material  traces that  are  not  traditionally  collected  in  archives. So  this  includes  buttons, this  might  include  T  shirts, this  might  include  flyers, and  this  is  particularly  important  for  queer  history, as  often  LGPTQ  people  do  not  have  as  many  recorded, institutionally  collected historical  materials  in  traditional  forms. We  have  ephemera,  we  have  fliers, we  have  buttons,  we  have  T  shirts. My  research  asks  how  tangible  embodied  design with  ephemera  can  prompt critical  reflections  on  the  past. And  this  is  an  example  of  one  of  my  projects, button  portraits,  which  I'll  talk  about  in  a  little  bit. And  my  work  inspires alternative  configurations  of  bodies, feelings,  and  histories. I  also  ask  why  queer  histories, Or  rather,  you  may  ask  why  queer  histories  and  why. Now,  of  course,  if  you've  all  seen  Oliver  Hamson's  talk, GV  U  talk  a  few  weeks  back, he  also  started  with  one  of  these  similar  statements. There  have  been  lots  of  recent  efforts  to diminish  or  ban  queer  existence  from  classrooms, from  healthcare,  from  public  society. Our  access  to  design  for ourselves  or  design  for  our  experiences  of  history, and  our  access  to  information  is  vital. Also,  studying  queer  histories helps  us  recognize  these  material  traces. So  the  traces  of  ephemera  of  queer  information, activism,  of  the  ways  that queer  people  would  connect  in  the  past. That  can  reconfigure  the  present. That  can  allow  us  to  reflect  on  our  present  state. So  here's  a  few  examples  of  how  I  do  this. One  project  is  called  Designing  an  Archive  of  Feelings, Queering  tangible  Interaction  with  button  Portraits. So  what  we  did  was  we  designed a  wearable  audio  player  where  you  can actually  pin  a  button  onto the  wearable  audio  player  and listen  to  a  fragment  of  oral  history. We  use  artifacts  from the  gender  and  sexuality  collections  at Georgia  State  University  and  made  replicas  of  those, tag  them  with  NFC  tags. And  then  there's  an  NFC  reader  in  the  audio  player. And  that  kind  of  embodied  tangible  interaction with  the  wearable  audio  player  allows  you to  personally  reflect  in an  embodied  way  on the  oral  histories  that  you're  listening  to. And  so  we  shared  the  experience  with participants  and  we  invited  these  intimate  reflections and  observed  their  interactions  and explored  their  effective  connections  to  oral  histories. So  some  takeaways  from  that. Or  rather,  I'll  pause  on  this  slide  so  that  you  can look  at  the  participant  here who  is  listening  to  the  oral  history. Whose  text  includes,  I  just  got  back  from  Boston. I  went  to  their  pride  and  they  had  30,000  *******  people. Atlanta,  2000.  We  can  do  better. So  this  is  an  example  of  one  of the  oral  histories  that  was  included  and  that  button unlocks  that  oral  history  if  you  touch  it  to  your  chest. Okay,  so  some  takeaways  from  this. Designing  tangible  archives  of  feeling. These  tangible  wearable  interactions  can engender  these  effective  sensory  responses  to  history. And  this  can  prompt  personal  engagement  and even  personal  responsibility  towards  queer  history. Second,  queering  wearable  interactions  of  design. Centering  ephemera  in  design  is  an  example  of  how  we can  queer  tangible  interaction by  attending  to  these  ephemeral  traces, these  ephemeral  materials, and  then  designing  for  personal  archival  experiences. Let's  start  with  these  personal  collections. Let's  start  with  these  ephemeral  materials, or  ephemeral  unusual  traces  to  offer these  alternative  modes  of  engagement outside  of  the  institution  of  the  archive. And  then  lastly,  designing  with  indifference, acknowledging  difference  intentions  within queer  communities  and  bodies when  designing  tangible  experiences  of  history. So  a  lot  of  the  participants came  from  many  different  backgrounds. So  it's  important  to  acknowledge the  differences  within  the  queer  community. Queer  communities  are  not  monoliths. We  are  all  coming  from  different  perspectives, and  so  acknowledging  these  differences within  design  is  important. A  second  project  I'll  go  over  very quickly  because  I  want  to  be  aware  of  time. This  is  called  red  redacted Theater  Querying  Puzzle Based  tangible  interaction  design. So  essentially  what  we  did  was  we  used these  archives  also  from the  gender  and  sexuality  collections  at  Georgia  State. And  we  created  tangible  puzzles that  explore  queer  history by  having  multiple  states  and multiple  ways  that  you  can  solve  puzzles. So  for  instance,  an  artifact  like  this  flyer  from Lesbian  Theater  Company  in  the  1970s  has  two  states, and  you  actually  can  solve the  puzzle  by  opening  the  flyer. It  doesn't  look  like  it  might  be opened  because  it's  covered  in  plastic. So  you  have  to  actually  take the  flyer  out  of  the  plastic. And  it  has  this  visual  puzzle  where  it  looks complete  and  closed  on  the  upper  left. And  it  has  a  surface  answer that  gives  you  this  surface  understanding  of  history. But  if  you  open  the  puzzle, then  you  can  get  this  censored  answer, or  you  can  get  this  queer  answer  that leads  you  to  this further  deeper  understanding  of  history. Similarly,  another  puzzle  here explores  the  difference  between historical  linearity  and  a  different  way of  conceiving  of  history  through  relationship. So  you  can  order  the  slides  here,  these  photo  slides, which  are  another  artifact  from the  theater  company  in  the  1970s. You  can  order  them  either  according  to  temporality, according  to  a  timeline, or  you  can  order  them  according  to  the  relationships  of, of  the  people  in  the  photographs. And  so  here  we're  playing  with  this  idea  that there  is  not  one  way  to  understand  history. There's  not  necessarily  one  way  to understand  history  as  linear. I'll  go  through  the  takeaways. In  conclusion,  how  do  we  queer HCI  with  attention  to  queer  bodies  in  our  histories? I'm  intentionally  entangling and  troubling  the  relationships between  ephemera  bodies,  feelings  and  histories. I  prompt  critical  reflection and  queer  understandings  of  the  past. By  challenging  these  normative  structures, such  as  the  archival  institution  and  such  as historical  linearity  or  what counts  in  the  archival  record. Through  that,  I  deepen  queering tangible  interaction  as  a  critical  area for  design  and  HCI. Thank  you,  questions  for  all. It's  pretty  interesting  studies  what research  methods  used  to  come  to your  conclusions  about  the  effects of  the  different  interventions  that  you  used. Yeah,  that's  a  great  question. I  situate  all  of  this  work within  research  through  design  largely, but  I'm  also  drawing  from critical  fabulations,  Daniel  Ross  work, where  she  actually  takes, takes  pieces  of  the  past  and reconfigures  them  in  the  present,  in  tangible  designs. And  then  for  studying  participants, I'm  doing  Grounded  Theory  thematic  analysis. Okay,  thank  you.  Other  questions,  Questions,  questions. Okay,  that's  it  for  today. Thank  you  all  very  much,  and congratulations  all  colleges.