Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 128 references

Regulating Algorithmic Management: A Multi-Stakeholder Study of Challenges in Aligning Software and the Law for Workplace Scheduling

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that regulating algorithmic management succeeds only when legal rules, software, and everyday workplace practice are aligned across the whole regulatory chain, from rulemaking to enforcement.

desk verdict First full-loop empirical map of Fair Workweek regulation—solid, honestly hedged, with a real but acknowledged vendor-side blind spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02329 v3 pith:DEDRYXPM submitted 2025-05-05 cs.CY cs.HCcs.SE

Jonathan Lynn , Rachel Y. Kim , Sicun Gao , Daniel Schneider , Sachin S. Pandya , Min Kyung Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HCcs.SE
keywords algorithmicmanagementworkplaceschedulingFairWorkweeklawslaborlawcompliancesociotechnicalsystemsregulatoryenforcementworkerconsentqualitativeinterviews
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fair Workweek laws were meant to curb unpredictable scheduling, and scheduling software is now marketed as a compliance tool, but this study argues the laws' effectiveness depends on more than whether the software can compute a rule. Drawing on interviews with 38 regulators, defense attorneys, worker advocates, managers, and workers, the paper identifies four determinants of regulatory efficacy: institutional constraints on encoding law into software, on-the-ground use that shapes compliance, mismatches between software and regulatory contexts that obstruct enforcement, and new concerns software raises when it mediates regulation. The consequence is that coding a legal requirement into a product is not enough; the organizations, routines, and enforcement capacities around the software decide whether the law protects workers. The paper concludes that algorithmic-management regulation needs a sociotechnical approach and offers design and policy directions for aligning software with the law.

What carries the argument

The central object is the AM regulatory process, a three-stage pipeline: rule operationalization, software use, and enforcement. The paper treats this pipeline as a single sociotechnical system in which each stage's outputs become the next stage's inputs, so guidance becomes software logic, software logic becomes workplace records, and records become the basis for investigations. Misalignment at any stage propagates forward, which is why regulatory efficacy cannot be evaluated by looking at software features alone. The paper also introduces boundary objects, shared instruments such as personas, flowcharts, pseudocode, and data probes, as the proposed mechanism for keeping stakeholders aligned across the pipeline.

What would settle it

A direct interview and code-inspection study of scheduling-software vendors and developers would settle whether the institutional-constraints factor is accurate. If vendors can produce detailed legal requirement documents, dedicated compliance staff, and evidence that local-law customization pays off, the paper's first factor would be weakened; if they instead describe ambiguous guidance, weak incentives, and translation failures, it would be confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an empirical map of why algorithmic-management regulation underdelivers, drawn from the one AM domain with implemented laws: workplace scheduling. At the rule-operationalization stage, regulatory guidance leaves ambiguous use cases unresolved, legal-technical collaboration is adversarial and error-prone, and vendors lack financial incentives to tailor products to local jurisdictions, so provisions like access-to-hours and good-faith estimates get encoded unevenly or not at all. At the software-use stage, operational demands push managers and workers around the software, so consent is collected after a shift, requests are made in person, and managers override recorded reasons, meaning the data the software generates does not reliably reflect whether the law was followed. At the enforcement stage, rules lack measurable thresholds, data is inconsistent and scattered, procedural evidence such as proof of a one-on-one consent conversation is missing, and agencies lack data-analysis capacity, so violations become hard to prove. The paper also finds that software itself introduces concerns: interaction designs that nudge workers to waive premium pay, checkbox consent that workers later dispute, and opaque vendors that either overpromise compliance or silently omit it. These four factors, the paper argues, jointly determine whether Fair Workweek regulation actually protects workers.

Load-bearing premise

The four-factor account rests on the assumption that 38 self-selected interviewees, none of them software vendors or developers, give a complete enough picture of how scheduling software is built and used; if vendor-side constraints and motives differ substantially from these secondhand accounts, the institutional-constraints finding collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the four-factor account is right, regulations that only specify what software must do, without addressing vendor incentives, legal-technical collaboration, and agency capacity, will leave enforcement gaps that surface later as unprovable violations.
  • Compliance audits should examine software interfaces and interaction flows, not just the data they produce, because design choices like default waivers and checkbox consent can manufacture records that look lawful while workers are harmed.
  • Enforcement agencies need data-analysis staffing, tooling, and standardized record formats, otherwise even well-encoded rules cannot be converted into legal findings from the records employers provide.
  • The appropriate level of automation in compliance software is a policy decision with trade-offs: full automation can prevent violations but hides errors and lacks context, while human discretion is flexible but prone to coercion and error.
  • Procedurally valid compliance requires capturing evidence of process, such as timestamps, one-on-one conversations, and informed consent, not just outcomes; data contextualization and anonymous worker reporting channels are concrete design directions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension beyond this paper's scheduling context: if the four-factor framework generalizes, algorithmic-hiring and platform-work enforcement should show analogous breakdowns at the rule operationalization, use, and enforcement stages, and comparing those regimes would sharpen or revise the account.
  • The paper's account implies that compliance is not a property of a software product but an outcome of relationships among vendor, employer, manager, worker, and regulator; a procurement or audit standard built on this view would evaluate deployment context, not just feature checklists.
  • Directly interviewing software vendors and developers, which the paper identifies as future work, could reveal whether the institutional constraints are best explained by legal ambiguity, weak financial incentives, or technical debt and code architecture; the current findings rely on secondhand reports from regulators and attorneys.
  • The boundary-object recommendation is testable: a co-design workshop with personas, flowcharts, and data probes could measure whether these artifacts reduce the lost-in-translation errors documented in the paper, and whether they change how vendors encode ambiguous provisions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a qualitative interview study (N=38) of stakeholders involved in the regulation of algorithmic management in the workplace, focused on U.S. Fair Workweek laws and shift-scheduling software. The authors interviewed regulators, corporate defense attorneys, worker advocates, scheduling managers, and workers, and supplemented this with a review of 38 scheduling-software product websites. Their central claim is that the efficacy of AM regulation is shaped by four factors: (i) institutional constraints in encoding law into software, (ii) on-the-ground software use that affects compliance, (iii) mismatches between software and regulatory contexts that hinder enforcement, and (iv) software-specific concerns introduced when software is used as a regulatory tool. The paper proposes a sociotechnical approach to AM regulation, arguing for multi-stakeholder engagement, boundary objects, and design- and policy-oriented recommendations for aligning software and law.

Significance. If the framework holds, the paper provides one of the first empirical, cross-stakeholder accounts of how workplace scheduling regulation actually operates in practice, spanning rule operationalization, software use, and enforcement. This is a meaningful contribution to HCI, software engineering, and regulatory studies, where much prior work is theoretical, experimental, or limited to a single stakeholder group. The paper's strengths include extensive participant quotes, detailed appendices documenting participant characteristics and the software review, full interview protocols, and consistently hedged language ('suggest') when generalizing from interview data. The multi-stakeholder design, including workers and managers alongside legal and regulatory actors, is a genuine advance over prior single-stakeholder studies. The design implications and future research agenda are useful even if the empirical base is not without limitations.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.1.2, §5.1.3, §7] The findings about software vendors' behavior are supported only by secondhand accounts: §5.1.2 attributes vendors' failure to seek guidance proactively and their reliance on the wrong expertise to defense attorneys and regulators (D2, D3, R6), and §5.1.3 attributes the lack of financial incentives to D3, R8, R2, and D4, while Section 7 concedes that software vendors and developers were not directly interviewed. This gap is load-bearing because factor (i) and the remedies in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 (boundary objects, disclosure approaches, regulatory capacity) are predicated on an accurate diagnosis of vendor-side constraints; if vendor behavior is instead driven by legal ambiguity, the cost of jurisdiction-specific configuration, or employer demand, the recommendations could be misdirected. The authors should either re-scope these findings as stakeholders' perceptions of vendor constraints, add direct vendor/developer data or artifact-based triangulation, and clearly mark the recommendations as conditional on that evidentiary base.
  2. [§1, §5 opening, §8] The central claim is stated as 'the efficacy of AM regulation is influenced by' the four factors, but the empirical basis is semi-structured interviews about experiences and beliefs, not measured compliance outcomes or observed enforcement results. This is a construct-level mismatch between the data and the claimed scope of the finding. I recommend consistently referring to 'stakeholders' perceived or reported challenges to efficacy' throughout the abstract, findings, and conclusion, and noting in Section 7 that actual regulatory effectiveness remains an open empirical question, so that the conclusions do not overstate what interview data can establish.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] The software name 'DeDoose' appears to be a typo for 'Dedoose'; please correct it.
  2. [§5.2.2] The quotation 'the exact opposite of what [FWW] law envisions' contains an awkward bracket; consider writing 'what the FWW law envisions' or 'what the Fair Workweek law envisions.'
  3. [§5 and Appendix A] Figure 1, which is central to understanding the four-factor framework, is placed in Appendix A but referenced only as 'Figure 1 in Appendix A'; consider moving it into the main text near the opening of Section 5 or providing a more prominent cross-reference in the Findings section.
  4. [§4.1] Capitalization of 'Fair Workweek Law' is inconsistent across the manuscript (e.g., 'FWW Laws' vs. 'FWW Law'); please unify the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: empirical interview study with inductively derived findings; self-citations are background and design inspiration, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is an interview-based qualitative study, so the claimed findings are not derived mathematically or from fitted parameters. The four-factor framework in the abstract and Section 5 is presented as an inductive summary of 38 semi-structured interviews (Section 3.2), not as a deduction from an input assumption. The paper's central claim—that regulatory efficacy is shaped by institutional, workplace, enforcement, and software-specific factors—is supported by quotations and thematic coding; the limitations section (Section 7) explicitly acknowledges that vendors/developers were not directly interviewed, which is an evidentiary limitation rather than circular reasoning. Self-citations (e.g., [71], [72], [73], [74], [121], [122], [123]) appear in related work and in design suggestions such as data probes in Section 6.3; none of these citations is load-bearing for the empirical findings, and the cited prior work provides background or design inspiration rather than the paper's conclusions. No equation, parameter, or prediction in the paper reduces by construction to its inputs. The closest concern—secondhand vendor attributions in Section 5.1—concerns sample coverage and validity, not circularity, because the claims are reported as participants' perceptions and interpretations, not as an outcome derived from those perceptions by definitional fiat.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric fitting and no invented entities. The central claim is a thematic summary of interviews, so the load-bearing assumptions concern the validity and representativeness of self-reported qualitative data and the website review as a proxy for software behavior.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Interview self-reports are treated as evidence of actual scheduling practices and regulatory experiences.
    The findings rely on what 38 participants said in semi-structured interviews; no observational, archival, or server-log validation of workplace behavior was conducted (Section 3.2 and Section 7).
  • domain assumption The sample of 38 stakeholders is sufficient to represent the diversity of the algorithmic management regulatory process.
    Cell sizes are small, such as 4 advocates and 6 defense attorneys, and recruitment used snowball sampling plus Reddit and Facebook postings; the paper acknowledges limited generalizability in Section 7.
  • domain assumption Public-facing websites of 38 scheduling products reflect the compliance features and behavior of the software.
    Appendix D states that only descriptions, FAQs, blogs, and supplementary documents on public websites were reviewed; implementation details were not disclosed, so the website review is a proxy rather than a code-level audit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regulating Algorithmic Management: A Multi-Stakeholder Study of Challenges in Aligning Software and the Law for Workplace Scheduling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DEDRYXPM

@misc{pith2026250502329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regulating Algorithmic Management: A Multi-Stakeholder Study of Challenges in Aligning Software and the Law for Workplace Scheduling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DEDRYXPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02329}
}
read the original abstract

Algorithmic management (AM)'s impact on worker well-being has led to calls for regulation. However, little is known about the effectiveness and challenges in real-world AM regulation across the regulatory process -- rule operationalization, software use, and enforcement. Our multi-stakeholder study addresses this gap within workplace scheduling, one of the few AM domains with implemented regulations. We interviewed 38 stakeholders across the regulatory process: regulators, defense attorneys, worker advocates, managers, and workers. Our findings suggest that the efficacy of AM regulation is influenced by: (i) institutional constraints that challenge efforts to encode law into AM software, (ii) on-the-ground use of AM software that shapes its ability to facilitate compliance, (iii) mismatches between software and regulatory contexts that hinder enforcement, and (iv) unique concerns that software introduces when used to regulate AM. These findings underscore the importance of a sociotechnical approach to AM regulation, which considers organizational and collaborative contexts alongside the inherent attributes of software. We offer future research directions and implications for technology policy and design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02329 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure illustrates the AM regulatory process, which encompasses the stages of rule operationalization, software [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of software features offered by different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of software features offered by different scheduling software companies ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure

    1978. Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure. 43 FR 38295

    1978

  2. [2]

    2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with regard to the Pro- cessing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of such Data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 4 May 2016, pp. 1–88. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/re...

    2016

  3. [3]

    7Shifts. 2019. The Complete Labor Compliance Playbook for Restaurants - A Guide to Scheduling and Time Clocking Compliance for Restaurants. https: //www.7shifts.com/resources/guides/compliance-playbook/

    2019

  4. [4]

    Lize Alberts, Ulrik Lyngs, and Max Van Kleek. 2024. Computers as Bad Social Actors: Dark Patterns and Anti-Patterns in Interfaces that Act Socially. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW1, Article 202 (April 2024), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3653693

    doi:10.1145/3653693 2024

  5. [6]

    Antonio Aloisi and Nastazja Potocka-Sionek. 2022. De-gigging the Labour Market? An Analysis of the ‘Algorithmic Management’ Provisions in the Pro- posed Platform Work Directive. Italian Labour Law e-Journal 15, 1 (2022), 29–50. https://hdl.handle.net/1814/74929

    2022

  6. [7]

    Saleema Amershi, Maya Cakmak, William Bradley Knox, and Todd Kulesza. 2014. Power to the People: The Role of Humans in Interactive Machine Learning. AI Magazine 35, 4 (Dec. 2014), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513

    doi:10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513 2014

  7. [8]

    Elizabeth O Ananat, Anna Gassman-Pines, and John A Fitz-Henley. 2022. The effects of the emeryville fair workweek ordinance on the daily lives of low-wage workers and their families. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 8, 5 (2022), 45–66

    2022

  8. [10]

    Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Zachary Shea, Zainab Agha, Irina Lediaeva, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2021. Conducting Risky Research with Teens: Co-designing for the Ethical Treatment and Protection of Adolescents. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW3, Article 231 (Jan. 2021), 46 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3432930

    2021

Show all 128 references
  1. [11]

    Nastaran Bateni, Jasmin Kaur, Rozita Dara, and Fei Song. 2022. Content Analysis of Privacy Policies Before and After GDPR. In 2022 19th Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security & Trust (PST) . 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ PST55820.2022.9851983

    2022

  2. [12]

    Ethan Bernstein, Saravanan Kesavan, and Bradley Staats. 2014. How to manage scheduling software fairly. Harvard Business Review 92, 12 (2014)

    2014

  3. [13]

    Wiebe E. Bijker. 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs : toward a theory of sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    1995

  4. [14]

    Gro Bjerknes and Tone Bratteteig. 1995. User Participation and Democracy: A Discussion of Scandinavian Research on System Development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 7, 1 (Jan. 1995). https://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol7/ iss1/1

    1995

  5. [15]

    Guido Boella, Llio Humphreys, Robert Muthuri, Piercarlo Rossi, and Leendert van der Torre. 2014. A critical analysis of legal requirements engineering from the perspective of legal practice. In 2014 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELA W). ...

    2014

  6. [16]

    Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting things out: Classification and its conse-quences. MIT Press, Cambidge, MA

    1999

  7. [17]

    Tone Bratteteig and Ina Wagner. 2012. Disentangling power and decision- making in participatory design. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ’12) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 41–50. https://doi...

    2012

  8. [18]

    Dani Carrillo, Kristen Harknett, Allison Logan, Sigrid Luhr, and Daniel Schneider

  9. [19]

    Orlando Amaral Cejas, Muhammad Ilyas Azeem, Sallam Abualhaija, and Li- onel C. Briand. 2023. NLP-Based Automated Compliance Checking of Data Processing Agreements Against GDPR. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineer- ing 49, 9 (2023), 4282–4303. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.202...

    2023

  10. [20]

    Angèle Christin. 2017. Algorithms in practice: Comparing web journalism and criminal justice. Big data & society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717718855. https: //doi.org/10.1177/2053951717718855

    2017 doi

  11. [21]

    Janet Davis, Harry Hochheiser, Juan Pablo Hourcade, Jeff Johnson, Lisa Nathan, and Janice Tsai. 2012. Occupy CHI! engaging U.S. policymakers. In CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI EA ’12). Association for Computing Machin...

    2012

  12. [22]

    De Souza

    Clarisse Sieckenius. De Souza. 2005.The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction / Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    2005

  13. [23]

    Fernando Delgado, Solon Barocas, and Karen Levy. 2022. An Uncommon Task: Participatory Design in Legal AI. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW1, Article 51 (apr 2022), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512898

    2022 doi

  14. [24]

    Deputy. 2024. Fair Workweek Compliance Software - Deputy . Retrieved June 25, 2024 from https://www.deputy.com/fair-workweek

    2024

  15. [25]

    Nicole M Deterding and Mary C Waters. 2021. Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological methods & research 50, 2 (2021), 708–739

    2021

  16. [26]

    digital.govt.nz. 2022. Better Rules for Government Discovery Report . Retrieved May 1, 2024 from https://www.digital.govt.nz/dmsdocument/95-better-rules- for-government-discovery-report/html

    2022

  17. [27]

    Laurence Diver. 2021. Interpreting the rule (s) of code: performance, performa- tivity, and production. MIT Computational Law Report 3, 2 (2021)

    2021

  18. [28]

    Laurence E Diver. 2022. Digisprudence: Code as Law Rebooted . Edinburgh University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/jj.7358696

    2022 doi

  19. [29]

    Paul Dourish. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8, 1 (Feb. 2004), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779- 003-0253-8

    2004 doi

  20. [30]

    Josh Dzieza. 2020. How hard will the robots make us work. The Verge 27, 02 (2020), 2020. https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/27/21155254/automation- robots-unemployment-jobs-vs-human-google-amazon

    2020

  21. [31]

    Lauren B Edelman. 2020. Working law: Courts, corporations, and symbolic civil rights. University of Chicago Press

    2020

  22. [32]

    Nel Escher, Jeffrey Bilik, Nikola Banovic, and Ben Green. 2024. Code-ifying the Law: How Disciplinary Divides Afflict the Development of Legal Software. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW2, Article 398 (Nov. 2024), 37 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3686937

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    EU AI Act 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial FAccT ’25, June 23–26, 2025, Athens, Greece Lynn et al. intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, ...

    2024

  24. [34]

    Ming Fan, Le Yu, Sen Chen, Hao Zhou, Xiapu Luo, Shuyue Li, Yang Liu, Jun Liu, and Ting Liu. 2020. An Empirical Evaluation of GDPR Compliance Violations in Android mHealth Apps. In 2020 IEEE 31st International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) . 253–264. htt...

    2020

  25. [35]

    International Organization for Standardization. 2022. ISO 8000-1:2022 — Data quality — Part 1: Overview. https://www.iso.org/standard/81745.html

    2022

  26. [36]

    Fox, Samantha Shorey, Esther Y

    Sarah E. Fox, Samantha Shorey, Esther Y. Kang, Dominique Montiel Valle, and Estefania Rodriguez. 2023. Patchwork: The Hidden, Human Labor of AI Inte- gration within Essential Work. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 81 (apr 2023), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2023 doi

  27. [37]

    Archon Fung, Mary Graham, and David Weil. 2007. Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency . Cambridge University Press

    2007

  28. [38]

    G Anthony Giannoumis. 2015. Auditing Web accessibility: The role of interest organizations in promoting compliance through certification. (2015)

    2015

  29. [39]

    Sarah Gibbons. 2017. Service Blueprints: Definition. https://www.nngroup. com/articles/service-blueprints-definition/

    2017

  30. [40]

    Marco Goldoni. 2015. The Politics of Code as Law: Towards Input Reasons. In Freedom of Expression, the Internet and Democracy , Jane Reichel and Anna-Sara Lind (Eds.). Brill, Leiden, 115–133

    2015

  31. [41]

    Jacob Goldstein. 2014. To Increase Productivity, UPS Monitors Drivers’ Every Move. NPR (April 2014). https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/04/17/ 303770907/to-increase-productivity-ups-monitors-drivers-every-move

    2014

  32. [42]

    Alejandra Gomez Ortega, Jacky Bourgeois, and Gerd Kortuem. 2022. Recon- structing Intimate Contexts through Data Donation: A Case Study in Men- strual Tracking Technologies. InNordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference (Aarhus, Denmark) (NordiCHI ’22). Association for Comput...

    2022

  33. [43]

    Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L

    Colin M. Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L. Toombs

  34. [44]

    Gray, Cristiana Santos, Nataliia Bielova, Michael Toth, and Damian Clifford

    Colin M. Gray, Cristiana Santos, Nataliia Bielova, Michael Toth, and Damian Clifford. 2021. Dark Patterns and the Legal Requirements of Consent Banners: An Interaction Criticism Perspective. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokoha...

    2021

  35. [45]

    Lara Groves, Jacob Metcalf, Alayna Kennedy, Briana Vecchione, and Andrew Strait. 2024. Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regime. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)(FAc...

    2024 doi

  36. [46]

    Guamán, Jose M

    Danny S. Guamán, Jose M. Del Alamo, and Julio C. Caiza. 2021. GDPR Com- pliance Assessment for Cross-Border Personal Data Transfers in Android Apps. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 15961–15982. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS. 2021.3053130

    2021

  37. [47]

    Anna Haley-Lock, Kristen Harknett, Shannon Harper, Susan Lambert, Jennifer Romich, and Daniel Schneider. 2019. The Evaluation of Seattle’s Secure Sched- uling Ordinance: Year 1 Findings. West Coast Poverty Center, University of Washington (2019)

    2019

  38. [48]

    Brian W Halpin. 2015. Subject to change without notice: Mock schedules and flexible employment in the United States. Social Problems 62, 3 (2015), 419–438

    2015

  39. [49]

    Kristen Harknett, Daniel Schneider, and Véronique Irwin. 2021. Evaluating the Impacts of the Seattle Secure Scheduling Ordinance. Department of Labor, Labor Research and Evaluation Grants (2021)

    2021

  40. [50]

    Kristen Harknett, Daniel Schneider, and Véronique Irwin. 2021. Im- proving health and economic security by reducing work schedule uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 42 (2021), e2107828118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107828118 arXiv:https://www...

    2021 doi

  41. [51]

    Kristen Harknett, Daniel Schneider, and Véronique Irwin. 2021. Seattle’s secure scheduling ordinance: Year 2 worker impact report. Cambridge, Mass.: The Shift Project. Accessed March 22 (2021)

    2021

  42. [52]

    Mireille Hildebrandt. 2008. Legal and Technological Normativity: more (and less) than twin sisters. Techné: Research in Philosophy & Technology 12, 3 (2008)

    2008

  43. [53]

    Harry Hochheiser and Jonathan Lazar. 2007. HCI and Societal Issues: A Framework for Engagement. International Journal of Human–Computer In- teraction 23, 3 (2007), 339–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310701702717 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310701702717

    2007 doi

  44. [54]

    Jane Hsieh, Oluwatobi Adisa, Sachi Bafna, and Haiyi Zhu. 2023. Designing Individualized Policy and Technology Interventions to Improve Gig Work Con- ditions. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human- Computer Interaction for Work (Oldenburg, Germany) ...

    2023

  45. [55]

    Jane Hsieh, Miranda Karger, Lucas Zagal, and Haiyi Zhu. 2023. Co-Designing Alternatives for the Future of Gig Worker Well-Being: Navigating Multi- Stakeholder Incentives and Preferences. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM De- signing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA,...

    2023

  46. [56]

    Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi, Gemma Newlands, Min Kyung Lee, Christine T Wolf, Eliscia Kinder, and Will Sutherland. 2021. Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data & Society 8, 2 (2021), 20539517211020332

    2021

  47. [57]

    Tomás R Jiménez and Marlene Orozco. 2021. Prompts, not questions: Four techniques for crafting better interview protocols. Qualitative sociology 44 (2021), 507–528

    2021

  48. [58]

    Scott Jordan. 2022. Strengths and Weaknesses of Notice and Consent Require- ments under the GDPR, the CCPA/CPRA, and the FCC Broadband Privacy Order. Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ 40 (2022), 113

    2022

  49. [59]

    Sabine Junginger. 2013. Design and innovation in the public sector: Matters of design in policy-making and policy implementation. Annual Review of Policy Design 1, 1 (2013), 1–11

    2013

  50. [60]

    Jodi Kantor. 2014. Working Anything but 9 to 5. The New York Times 13 (2014)

    2014

  51. [61]

    Kate Kaplan. 2022. Personas: Study Guide. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ personas-study-guide/

    2022

  52. [62]

    Sara Kassir, Lewis Baker, Jackson Dolphin, and Frida Polli. 2023. AI for hiring in context: a perspective on overcoming the unique challenges of employment research to mitigate disparate impact. AI and Ethics 3, 3 (Aug. 2023), 845–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00208-x

    2023 doi

  53. [63]

    Iqbal, Q

    Anna Kawakami, Shreya Chowdhary, Shamsi T. Iqbal, Q. Vera Liao, Alexandra Olteanu, Jina Suh, and Koustuv Saha. 2023. Sensing Wellbeing in the Workplace, Why and For Whom? Envisioning Impacts with Organizational Stakeholders. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 3...

    2023 doi

  54. [64]

    Katherine C Kellogg, Melissa A Valentine, and Angele Christin. 2020. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals 14, 1 (2020), 366–410

    2020

  55. [65]

    Rob Kling. 1991. Cooperation, coordination and control in computer-supported work. Commun. ACM 34, 12 (1991), 83–88

    1991

  56. [66]

    Oleksandra Klymenko, Oleksandr Kosenkov, Stephen Meisenbacher, Parisa Elahidoost, Daniel Mendez, and Florian Matthes. 2022. Understanding the Im- plementation of Technical Measures in the Process of Data Privacy Compliance: A Qualitative Study. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM /...

    2022

  57. [67]

    Marguerita Lane. 2020. Regulating Platform Work in the Digital Age. OECD Going Digital Toolkit Notes 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1787/181f8a7f-en

    2020 doi

  58. [68]

    Max Langenkamp, Allan Costa, and Chris Cheung. 2020. Hiring Fairly in the Age of Algorithms. CoRR abs/2004.07132 (2020). arXiv:2004.07132 https: //arxiv.org/abs/2004.07132

    2020 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Something Fast and Cheap

    Tina B. Lassiter and Kenneth R. Fleischmann. 2024. "Something Fast and Cheap" or "A Core Element of Building Trust"? - AI Auditing Professionals’ Perspectives on Trust in AI. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW2, Article 424 (Nov. 2024), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3686963

    2024 doi

  60. [70]

    Jonathan Lazar. 2015. Public policy and HCI: making an impact in the future. Interactions 22, 5 (aug 2015), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/2807916

    2015 doi

  61. [71]

    Min Kyung Lee, Anuraag Jain, Hea Jin Cha, Shashank Ojha, and Daniel Kusbit

  62. [72]

    Procaccia

    Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSC...

    2019 doi

  63. [73]

    Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with Machines: The Impact of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (...

    2015

  64. [74]

    Min Kyung Lee, Ishan Nigam, Angie Zhang, Joel Afriyie, Zhizhen Qin, and Sicun Gao. 2021. Participatory Algorithmic Management: Elicitation Methods for Worker Well-Being Models. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (Virtual Event, USA)(AIES ...

    2021 doi

  65. [75]

    Lola Loustaunau, Larissa Petrucci, Amelia Coffey, Eleanor Lauderback, H Eliza- beth Peters, Ellen Scott, and Lina Stepick. 2020. Combating Unstable Schedules for Low-Wage Workers in Oregon. Washington, DC: Urban Institute (2020)

    2020

  66. [76]

    Yuwen Lu, Chao Zhang, Yuewen Yang, Yaxing Yao, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2024. From Awareness to Action: Exploring End-User Empowerment Interventions for Dark Patterns in UX. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW1, Article 59 (April 2024), 41 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637336

    2024 doi

  67. [77]

    Denis Merigoux. 2022. The Specification Problem of Legal Expert Systems. (Jan. 2022). https://inria.hal.science/hal-03541637 working paper or preprint

    2022

  68. [78]

    Milanez, A

    A. Milanez, A. Lemmens, and C. Ruggiu. 2025. Algorithmic management in the workplace: New evidence from an OECD employer survey . Technical Report 31. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/287c13c4-en

    2025 doi

  69. [79]

    Woźniak, Rainer Malaka, and Jasmin Niess

    Thomas Mildner, Daniel Fidel, Evropi Stefanidi, Paweł W. Woźniak, Rainer Malaka, and Jasmin Niess. 2025. A Comparative Study of How People With and Without ADHD Recognise and Avoid Dark Patterns on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2025

  70. [80]

    John Morison and Philip Leith. 1992. The Barrister’s World–and the Nature of Law. Open University Press Milton Keynes

    1992

  71. [81]

    Josef Nguyen and Bonnie Ruberg. 2020. Challenges of Designing Consent: Consent Mechanics in Video Games as Models for Interactive User Agency. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computi...

    2020

  72. [82]

    Norman and Stephen W

    Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper. 1986. User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction . L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA

    1986

  73. [83]

    Midas Nouwens, Ilaria Liccardi, Michael Veale, David Karger, and Lalana Kagal

  74. [84]

    NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. 2025. Automated Employ- ment Decision Tools (AEDT). https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated- employment-decision-tools.page

    2025

  75. [85]

    NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. 2025. Fair Work- week Law: Information for Fast Food Employers - Employer Tools. https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/businesses/fairworkweek-deductions-laws- employers.page#tools

    2025

  76. [86]

    NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. 2022. Com- ments Received by the Department of Consumer and Worker Pro- tection on Proposed Rules related to the Fair Workweek Law. https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dca/downloads/pdf/about/PublicComments- Proposed-Rules-Related-to-Fa...

    2022

  77. [87]

    Wanda J Orlikowski. 2000. Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization science 11, 4 (2000), 404–428

    2000

  78. [88]

    Paul N Otto and Annie I Antón. 2007. Addressing legal requirements in re- quirements engineering. In 15th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE 2007). IEEE, 5–14

    2007

  79. [89]

    Hyanghee Park, Daehwan Ahn, Kartik Hosanagar, and Joonhwan Lee. 2021. Human-AI Interaction in Human Resource Management: Understanding Why Employees Resist Algorithmic Evaluation at Workplaces and How to Mitigate Burdens. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Fact...

    2021 doi

  80. [90]

    Larissa Petrucci, Lola Loustaunau, Ellen Scott, and Lina Stepick. 2022. Persistent Unpredictability: Analyzing Experiences with the First Statewide Scheduling Legislation in Oregon. ILR Review 75, 5 (2022), 1133–1158

    2022

  81. [91]

    Aida Ponce del Castillo and Diego Naranjo. 2022. Regulating Algorithmic Man- agement: An Assessment Of The EC’s Draft Directive On Improving Working Conditions In Platform Work. ETUI Research Paper-Policy Brief 8 (2022)

    2022

  82. [92]

    Manish Raghavan, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, and Karen Levy. 2020. Mitigat- ing bias in algorithmic hiring: evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for Com...

    2020

  83. [93]

    Wisniewski

    Afsaneh Razi, Ashwaq Alsoubai, Seunghyun Kim, Nurun Naher, Shiza Ali, Gianluca Stringhini, Munmun De Choudhury, and Pamela J. Wisniewski. 2022. Instagram Data Donation: A Case Study on Collecting Ecologically Valid Social Media Data for the Purpose of Adolescent Online Risk De...

    2022

  84. [94]

    Reginfo.gov. [n. d.]. Frequently Asked Questions: Regulations and the Rulemaking Process. Retrieved June 27, 2024 from https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/ Utilities/faq.myjsp

    2024

  85. [95]

    Max Rehkopf. 2025. User Stories | Examples and Template. https://www. atlassian.com/agile/project-management/user-stories

    2025

  86. [96]

    Kat Roemmich, Tillie Rosenberg, Serena Fan, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2023. Values in Emotion Artificial Intelligence Hiring Services: Technosolutions to Organiza- tional Problems. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1, Article 109 (apr 2023), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579543

    2023 doi

  87. [97]

    Elina Rönnberg and Torbjörn Larsson. 2010. Automating the self-scheduling process of nurses in Swedish healthcare: a pilot study. Health Care Management Science 13 (2010), 35–53

    2010

  88. [98]

    Kevin Roose. 2019. A Machine May Not Take Your Job, but One Could Become Your Boss. The New York Times (June 2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/ 06/23/technology/artificial-intelligence-ai-workplace.html

    2019

  89. [99]

    Rutledge, Aaron K

    Richard L. Rutledge, Aaron K. Massey, and Annie I. Antón. 2016. Privacy Impacts of IoT Devices: A SmartTV Case Study. In 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW). 261–270. https://doi. org/10.1109/REW.2016.050

    2016 doi

  90. [100]

    Daniel Schneider and Kristen Harknett. 2019. Consequences of routine work- schedule instability for worker health and well-being. American Sociological Review 84, 1 (2019), 82–114

    2019

  91. [101]

    We Don’t Want a Bird Cage, We Want Guardrails

    Kelsea Schulenberg, Lingyuan Li, Caitlin Lancaster, Douglas Zytko, and Guo Freeman. 2023. "We Don’t Want a Bird Cage, We Want Guardrails": Understand- ing & Designing for Preventing Interpersonal Harm in Social VR through the Lens of Consent. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7...

    2023 doi

  92. [102]

    Injury-Productivity Trade-off

    United States Senate. 2024. The “Injury-Productivity Trade-off" How Amazon’s Obsession with Speed Creates Uniquely Dangerous Warehouses. Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Majority Staff Report (2024). https: //www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/amazon_investi...

    2024

  93. [103]

    Asghar, Martin Fleury, Nadia Kanwal, Mohammad S

    Amna Shifa, Mamoona N. Asghar, Martin Fleury, Nadia Kanwal, Mohammad S. Ansari, Brian Lee, Marco Herbst, and Yuansong Qiao. 2020. MuLViS: Multi-Level Encryption Based Security System for Surveillance Videos. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 177131–177155. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2...

    2020

  94. [104]

    shiftboard. 2024. SchedulePro Compliance Guarantee. Retrieved June 25, 2024 from https://www.shiftboard.com/schedulepro-compliance-guarantee/

    2024

  95. [105]

    Ben Shneiderman and Pattie Maes. 1997. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. interactions 4, 6 (1997), 42–61

    1997

  96. [106]

    Than Htut Soe, Oda Elise Nordberg, Frode Guribye, and Marija Slavkovik. 2020. Circumvention by Design - Dark Patterns in Cookie Consent for Online News Outlets. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Inter- action: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society (...

    2020

  97. [107]

    Ghanem Soltana, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, and Lionel C. Briand. 2016. Model-Based Simulation of Legal Requirements: Experience from Tax Policy Simulation. In 2016 IEEE 24th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) . 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2016.11

    2016 doi

  98. [108]

    Riordan, Hye Jin Rho, Chinmay Kulkarni, Marlen Martinez-Lopez, Betsy Stringam, Ben Begleiter, and Jodi Forlizzi

    Franchesca Spektor, Sarah E Fox, Ezra Awumey, Christine A. Riordan, Hye Jin Rho, Chinmay Kulkarni, Marlen Martinez-Lopez, Betsy Stringam, Ben Begleiter, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2023. Designing for Wellbeing: Worker-Generated Ideas on Adapting Algorithmic Management in the Hospitali...

    2023

  99. [109]

    Griesemer

    Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berke- ley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Sci- ence 19, 3 (1989), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312890190...

    1989 doi

  100. [110]

    Damiano Torre, Sallam Abualhaija, Mehrdad Sabetzadeh, Lionel Briand, Katrien Baetens, Peter Goes, and Sylvie Forastier. 2020. An AI-assisted Approach for Checking the Completeness of Privacy Policies Against GDPR. In 2020 IEEE 28th International Requirements Engineering Confer...

    2020

  101. [111]

    Wallach, and Marc Hassenzahl

    Alarith Uhde, Nadine Schlicker, Dieter P. Wallach, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2020. Fairness and Decision-making in Collaborative Shift Scheduling Systems. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for ...

    2020

  102. [112]

    UKG. 2023. State Compliance Guide - How to successfully navigate state and lo- cal labor regulations. https://www.ukg.com/resources/ebook/state-compliance- guide

    2023

  103. [113]

    UKG. 2024. Labor Compliance; Workforce Compliance | UKG . Retrieved May 14, 2024 from https://perma.cc/M6KW-MB59

    2024

  104. [114]

    European Union. 2024. Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform FAccT ’25, June 23–26, 2025, Athens, Greece Lynn et al. work (Text with EEA relevance). http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/202...

    2024

  105. [115]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers,

    2024

  106. [116]

    Michael Veale, Michael ‘Six’ Silberman, and Reuben Binns. 2023. Fortifying the algorithmic management provisions in the proposed Platform Work Directive. European Labour Law Journal 14, 2 (2023), 308–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 20319525231167983 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177...

    2023 doi

  107. [117]

    Christo Wilson, Avijit Ghosh, Shan Jiang, Alan Mislove, Lewis Baker, Janelle Szary, Kelly Trindel, and Frida Polli. 2021. Building and Auditing Fair Algorithms: A Case Study in Candidate Screening. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans...

    2021

  108. [118]

    Alice Witt, Anna Huggins, Guido Governatori, and Joshua Buckley. 2023. En- coding legislation: a methodology for enhancing technical validation, legal alignment and interdisciplinarity. Artificial Intelligence and Law (2023), 1–32

    2023

  109. [119]

    Nathan Matias

    Lucas Wright, Roxana Mika Muenster, Briana Vecchione, Tianyao Qu, Pika (Sen- huang) Cai, Alan Smith, Comm 2450 Student Investigators, Jacob Metcalf, and J. Nathan Matias. 2024. Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the chal- lenges of algorithm accountability. In Proceedings ...

    2024

  110. [120]

    Wong, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret D

    Qian Yang, Richmond Y. Wong, Steven Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret D. Hagan, Thomas Gilbert, and John Zimmerman. 2024. The Future of HCI- Policy Collaboration. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24) . Ass...

    2024

  111. [121]

    Angie Zhang, Alexander Boltz, Jonathan Lynn, Chun-Wei Wang, and Min Kyung Lee. 2023. Stakeholder-Centered AI Design: Co-Designing Worker Tools with Gig Workers through Data Probes. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, German...

    2023

  112. [122]

    Angie Zhang, Alexander Boltz, Chun Wei Wang, and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Algorithmic Management Reimagined For Workers and By Workers: Centering Worker Well-Being in Gig Work. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (...

    2022

  113. [124]

    It’s Not What We Were Trying to Get At, but I Think Maybe It Should Be

    Wenqi Zheng, Emma Walquist, Isha Datey, Xiangyu Zhou, Kelly Berishaj, Melissa Mcdonald, Michele Parkhill, Dongxiao Zhu, and Douglas Zytko. 2024. “It’s Not What We Were Trying to Get At, but I Think Maybe It Should Be”: Learning How to Do Trauma-Informed Design with a Data Dona...

    2024

  114. [125]

    Douglas Zytko and Nicholas Furlo. 2023. Online Dating as Context to Design Sexual Consent Technology with Women and LGBTQ+ Stakeholders. In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Ma...

    2023

  115. [126]

    proactive with predictive scheduling compliance,

    Douglas Zytko, Pamela J. Wisniewski, Shion Guha, Eric PS Baumer, and Min Kyung Lee. 2022. Participatory design of AI systems: opportunities and challenges across diverse users, relationships, and application domains. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Exte...

    2022

  116. [2017]

    Social Service Review 91, 3 (2017), 422–455

    Instability of work and care: How work schedules shape child-care arrangements for parents working in the service sector. Social Service Review 91, 3 (2017), 422–455

    2017

  117. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18)

    The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. 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, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108

    2018

  118. [2019]

    Procedural Justice in Algorithmic Fairness: Leveraging Transparency and Outcome Control for Fair Algorithmic Mediation. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 182:1–182:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359284

    2019 doi

  119. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20)

    Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-Ups and Demonstrat- ing Their Influence. 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....

    2020

  120. [2023]

    https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum- wage/2023/ Accessed: 2025-05-05

    BLS Reports, Report 1109. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum- wage/2023/ Accessed: 2025-05-05

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.