research-article

What Makes Tweetorials Tick: How Experts Communicate Complex Topics on Twitter

Authors:

Katy Ilonka Gero,

Lydia B. ChiltonAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Article No.: 422, Pages 1 - 26

https://doi.org/10.1145/3479566

Published: 18 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

People are increasingly getting information and news from social media. On Twitter we are seeing the emergence of "tweetorials" -- long, explanatory Twitter threads written by experts. In this work we study tweetorials as a form of science writing. While scientists have begun to champion the importance of Twitter as a science communication medium, few have studied how people are successfully using this medium to communicate complex and nuanced ideas. To understand how tweetorials work, we curated a collection of 46 clear and engaging tweetorials from multiple domains. We analyzed these tweetorials for the writing techniques that they employ, and found that while tweetorials use many traditional science writing techniques, they also use more subjective language, actively build credibility, and incorporate media in unique ways. In addition, we report on a workshop we ran to aid science PhD students in writing tweetorials, and find that while providing common tweetorial techniques improves their writing, the students still struggle to balance their scientific sensibilities with the informal tone associated with tweetorials. We discuss the implications of using informal and subjective language in science communication, as well as how technology can support scientists in writing tweetorials.

References

[1]

[n.d.]. Media Logic. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0166.xml

[2]

Kholoud Khalil Aldous, Jisun An, and Bernard J. Jansen. 2019. The Challenges of Creating Engaging Content: Results from a Focus Group Study of a Popular News Media Organization. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1--6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312810

Digital Library

[3]

Tal August, Dallas Card, Gary Hsieh, Noah A. Smith, and Katharina Reinecke. 2020. Explain like I Am a Scientist: The Linguistic Barriers of Entry to r/Science. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376524

Digital Library

[4]

Pablo J. Barrio, Daniel G. Goldstein, and Jake M. Hofman. 2016. Improving Comprehension of Numbers in the News. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2729--2739. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858510

Digital Library

[5]

Liza Berstein. 2019. Tweetorials - From Early Beginnings to Huge Growth and Beyond. https://www.symplur.com/blog/tweetorials-from-early-beginnings-to-huge-growth-and-beyond/

[6]

J. C. Besley. 2015. What Do Scientists Think about the Public and Does It Matter to Their Online Engagement? Science and Public Policy 42, 2 (April 2015), 201--214. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu042

[7]

Cornelia Betsch, Corina Ulshöfer, Frank Renkewitz, and Tilmann Betsch. 2011. The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 31 (03 2011), 742--53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X11400419

[8]

Deborah Blum, Mary Knudson, Robin Marantz Henig, et al. 2006. A field guide for science writers. Oxford University Press, USA.

[9]

Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: Commonsense Transformers for Automatic Knowledge Graph Construction. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 4762--4779. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19--1470

[10]

Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.

[11]

Anthony C. Breu. 2019. Why Is a Cow? Curiosity, Tweetorials, and the Return to Why. New England Journal of Medicine 381, 12 (Sept. 2019), 1097--1098. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1906790

[12]

Anthony C. Breu. 2020. From Tweetstorm to Tweetorials: Threaded Tweets as a Tool for Medical Education and Knowledge Dissemination. Seminars in Nephrology 40, 3 (May 2020), 273--278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2020.04.005

[13]

Ben Britton, Chris Jackson, and Jessica Wade. 2019. The Reward and Risk of Social Media for Academics. Nature Reviews Chemistry 3, 8 (Aug. 2019), 459--461. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-019-0121--3

[14]

Michael Brüggemann, Ines Lörcher, and Stefanie Walter. 2020. Post-normal science communication: exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. Journal of Science Communication 19, 03 (June 2020), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19030202

[15]

Katie Burke. 2015. 12 Tips for Scientists Writing for the General Public. https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/12-tips-for-scientists-writing-for-the-general-public/

[16]

Alex Calderwood, Vivian Qiu, Katy Ilonka Gero, and Lydia B Chilton. 2020. How Novelists Use Generative Language Models: An Exploratory User Study. Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) '20 Workshops (2020).

[17]

Carlos Castillo, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. 2011. Information Credibility on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (Hyderabad, India) (WWW '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 675--684. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963500

Digital Library

[18]

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Smaranda Muresan, and Nanyun Peng. 2020. Generating Similes Like a Pro: A Style Transfer Approach for Simile Generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 6455--6469.

[19]

Esther K. Choo, Megan L. Ranney, Teresa M. Chan, N. Seth Trueger, Amy E. Walsh, Ken Tegtmeyer, Shannon O. McNamara, Ricky Y. Choi, and Christopher L. Carroll. 2015. Twitter as a Tool for Communication and Knowledge Exchange in Academic Medicine: A Guide for Skeptics and Novices. Medical Teacher 37, 5 (May 2015), 411--416. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.993371

[20]

Michael Conover, Jacob Ratkiewicz, Matthew Francisco, Bruno Goncalves, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2011. Political Polarization on Twitter. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/view/2847

[21]

John Durant. 1999. Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science. science and Public Policy 26, 5 (1999), 313--319.

[22]

Sarah Evans, Katie Davis, Abigail Evans, Julie Ann Campbell, David P Randall, Kodlee Yin, and Cecilia Aragon. 2017. More than peer production: fanfiction communities as sites of distributed mentoring. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 259--272.

Digital Library

[23]

Justin Farrell, Kathryn McConnell, and Robert Brulle. 2019. Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. Nature Climate Change 9, 3 (March 2019), 191--195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0368--6 Number: 3 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.

[24]

Katy Ilonka Gero and Lydia B Chilton. 2019. Metaphoria: An Algorithmic Companion for Metaphor Creation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.

Digital Library

[25]

Sarah A. Gilbert. 2020. "I Run the World's Largest Historical Outreach Project and It's on a Cesspool of a Website." Moderating a Public Scholarship Site on Reddit: A Case Study of r/AskHistorians. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1 (May 2020), 1--27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392822

Digital Library

[26]

Karni Gilon, Joel Chan, Felicia Y Ng, Hila Liifshitz-Assaf, Aniket Kittur, and Dafna Shahaf. 2018. Analogy mining for specific design needs. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--11.

Digital Library

[27]

Anatoliy Gruzd, Priya Kumar, Deena Abul-Fottouh, and Caroline Haythornthwaite. 2020. Coding and Classifying Knowledge Exchange on Social Media: A Comparative Analysis of the #Twitterstorians and AskHistorians Communities. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 29, 6 (Dec. 2020), 629--656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-020-09376-y

Digital Library

[28]

P. Sol Hart and Erik C. Nisbet. 2012. Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. Communication Research 39, 6 (Dec. 2012), 701--723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646

[29]

Emily L. Howell, Julia Nepper, Dominique Brossard, Michael A. Xenos, and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2019. Engagement Present and Future: Graduate Student and Faculty Perceptions of Social Media and the Role of the Public in Science Engagement. PLOS ONE 14, 5 (May 2019), e0216274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216274

[30]

Tianle Huang and Will J. Grant. 2020. A Good Story Well Told: Storytelling Components That Impact Science Video Popularity on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication 5 (Oct. 2020), 581349. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.581349

[31]

Jessica Hullman, Yea-Seul Kim, Francis Nguyen, Lauren Speers, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2018. Improving Comprehension of Measurements Using Concrete Re-expression Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173608

Digital Library

[32]

Kathleen A Kendall-Tackett. 2007. How to write for a general audience: A guide for academics who want to share their knowledge with the world and have fun doing it. American Psychological Association.

[33]

Yea Seul Kim, Jessica Hullman, and Eytan Adar. 2015. DeScipher: A Text Simplification Tool for Science Journalism. 5.

[34]

Yea Seul Kim, Jessica Hullman, Matthew Burgess, and Eytan Adar. 2016. SimpleScience: Lexical Simplification of Scientific Terminology. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1066--1071. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16--1114

[35]

Charles G Knight and Linda K Kaye. 2016. ?To tweet or not to tweet?'A comparison of academics' and students' usage of Twitter in academic contexts. Innovations in education and teaching international 53, 2 (2016), 145--155.

[36]

Kaisu Koivumäki, Timo Koivumäki, and Erkki Karvonen. 2020. "On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human": Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators. Media and Communication 8, 2 (June 2020), 425--439. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2812

[37]

Christoph Kulgemeyer and Cord H Peters. 2016. Exploring the Explaining Quality of Physics Online Explanatory Videos. European Journal of Physics 37, 6 (Nov. 2016), 065705. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/37/6/065705

[38]

Stacey Kuznetsov and Eric Paulos. 2010. Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries. 295--304.

Digital Library

[39]

Mi Kyung Lee, Ho Young Yoon, Marc Smith, Hye Jin Park, and Han Woo Park. 2017. Mapping a Twitter scholarly communication network: a case of the association of internet researchers' conference. Scientometrics 112, 2 (2017), 767--797.

Digital Library

[40]

Bex Lewis and David Rush. 2013. Experience of Developing Twitter-Based Communities of Practice in Higher Education. Research in Learning Technology 21 (June 2013). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v21i0.18598

[41]

Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova. 2011. Text Specificity and Impact on Quality of News Summaries. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Monolingual Text-To-Text Generation. 9.

Digital Library

[42]

Alice E. Marwick and danah boyd. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13, 1 (Feb. 2011), 114--133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313

[43]

Craig McClain and Liz Neeley. 2014. A Critical Evaluation of Science Outreach via Social Media: Its Role and Impact on Scientists. F1000Research 3 (Dec. 2014), 300. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5918.1

[44]

Robin Meadows. 2015. Good Beginnings: How to Write a Lede Your Editor-and Your Readers-Will Love. https://www.theopennotebook.com/2015/07/14/good-beginnings/

[45]

Matthew C. Nisbet and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2009. What's next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions. American Journal of Botany 96, 10 (Oct. 2009), 1767--1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

[46]

Muireann O'Keeffe. 2019. Academic Twitter and professional learning: myths and realities. International Journal for Academic Development 24, 1 (2019), 35--46.

[47]

Denis Parra, Christoph Trattner, Diego Gómez, Matías Hurtado, Xidao Wen, and Yu-Ru Lin. 2016. Twitter in Academic Events: A Study of Temporal Usage, Communication, Sentimental and Topical Patterns in 16 Computer Science Conferences. Computer Communications 73 (Jan. 2016), 301--314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2015.07.001

Digital Library

[48]

Sasank Reddy. 2017. Nice Threads. https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/product/2017/nicethreads.html

[49]

Elisa Shearer and Katerina Eva Matsa. 2018. News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2018. Pew Research Center (Sept. 2018).

[50]

Ashley Shelby and Karen Ernst. 2013. Story and science: How providers and parents can utilize storytelling to combat anti-vaccine misinformation. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 9, 8 (Aug. 2013), 1795--1801. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24828

[51]

Molly J Simis, Haley Madden, Michael A Cacciatore, and Sara K Yeo. 2016. The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public understanding of science 25, 4 (2016), 400--414.

[52]

Alice Soragni and Anirban Maitra. 2019. Of Scientists and Tweets. Nature Reviews Cancer 19, 9 (Sept. 2019), 479--480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0170--4

[53]

StoryCollider Staff. 2021. Writing Your Story. https://www.storycollider.org/writing-your-story/

[54]

Cassidy R. Sugimoto and Mike Thelwall. 2013. Scholars on Soap Boxes: Science Communication and Dissemination in TED Videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, 4 (April 2013), 663--674. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22764

[55]

Bongwon Suh, Lichan Hong, Peter Pirolli, and Ed H Chi. 2010. Want to be retweeted? large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing. IEEE, 177--184.

Digital Library

[56]

Michael B Twidale. 2005. Over the shoulder learning: supporting brief informal learning. Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) 14, 6 (2005), 505--547.

[57]

Onur Varol, Emilio Ferrara, Clayton A. Davis, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2017. Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization. CoRR abs/1703.03107 (2017). arXiv:1703.03107 http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03107

[58]

Molly McLure Wasko and Samer Faraj. 2005. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly (2005), 35--57.

[59]

Peter Weingart, Anita Engels, and Petra Pansegrau. 2000. Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science 9, 3 (July 2000), 261--283. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963--6625/9/3/304

[60]

Sarah Weir, Juho Kim, Krzysztof Z Gajos, and Robert C Miller. 2015. Learnersourcing subgoal labels for how-to videos. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 405--416.

Digital Library

[61]

Dustin J. Welbourne and Will J. Grant. 2016. Science Communication on YouTube: Factors That Affect Channel and Video Popularity. Public Understanding of Science 25, 6 (Aug. 2016), 706--718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068

[62]

Kai-Cheng Yang, Francesco Pierri, Pik-Mai Hui, David Axelrod, Christopher Torres-Lugo, John Bryden, and Filippo Menczer. 2020. The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook. (2020). arXiv:arXiv:2012.09353

[63]

Sara K Yeo. 2015. Public engagement with and communication of science in a Web-2.0 media environment. Washington, DC: The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2015).

[64]

Igor Zakhlebin and Emoke-Agnes Horvát. 2020. Diffusion of Scientific Articles across Online Platforms. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 14. 762--773.

[65]

Carl Zimmer. 2015. Explaining Complexity. https://www.theopennotebook.com/2015/07/07/zimmers-guide-to-explainers/

Cited By

Ye YNa JLiu M(2025)Examining scholarly communication on X (Twitter): insights from participants tweeting COVID-19 and ChatGPT publicationsScientometrics10.1007/s11192-025-05246-w130:2(1045-1076)Online publication date: 5-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05246-w
Wang SNing ZTruong ADontcheva MLi DChilton L(2024)PodReels: Human-AI Co-Creation of Video Podcast TeasersProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661591(958-974)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661591
Long TGero KChilton L(2024)Not Just Novelty: A Longitudinal Study on Utility and Customization of an AI WorkflowProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661587(782-803)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661587
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

What Makes Tweetorials Tick: How Experts Communicate Complex Topics on Twitter
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing

Recommendations

What makes you tick? The psychology of social media engagement in space science communication

The rise of social media has transformed the way the public engages with science organisations and scientists. Retweet, Like, Share and Comment are a few ways users engage with messages on Twitter and Facebook, two of the most popular social media ...
Celebrity's self-disclosure on Twitter and parasocial relationships

This study investigated how celebrities' self-disclosure on personal social media accounts, particularly Twitter, affects fans' perceptions. An online survey was utilized among a sample of 429 celebrity followers on Twitter. Results demonstrated that ...
Information resonance on Twitter: watching Iran
SOMA '10: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics

Twitter has undoubtedly caught the attention of both the general public, and academia as a microblogging service worthy of study and attention. Twitter has several features that sets it apart from other social media/networking sites, including its 140 ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

CSCW2

October 2021

5376 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3493286

Editor:
Jeff Nichols
Apple Inc., United States

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 October 2021

Published in PACMHCI Volume 5, Issue CSCW2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

NSF

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
823
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)126
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16

Reflects downloads up to 28 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ye YNa JLiu M(2025)Examining scholarly communication on X (Twitter): insights from participants tweeting COVID-19 and ChatGPT publicationsScientometrics10.1007/s11192-025-05246-w130:2(1045-1076)Online publication date: 5-Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05246-w
Wang SNing ZTruong ADontcheva MLi DChilton L(2024)PodReels: Human-AI Co-Creation of Video Podcast TeasersProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661591(958-974)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661591
Long TGero KChilton L(2024)Not Just Novelty: A Longitudinal Study on Utility and Customization of an AI WorkflowProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3661587(782-803)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3661587
Lim HCho JKim TPark JShin HChoi SPark SLee KKim JLee MHong H(2024)Co-Creating Question-and-Answer Style Articles with Large Language Models for Research PromotionProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660705(975-994)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660705
He CDeng YHe LGuo QZhang YLu ZLi B(2024)Engage Wider Audience or Facilitate Quality Answers? a Mixed-methods Analysis of Questioning Strategies for Research Sensemaking on a Community Q&A SiteProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373278:CSCW1(1-31)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637327
Jit SSpinney JChandra PChilton LSoden R(2024)Writing out the Storm: Designing and Evaluating Tools for Weather Risk MessagingProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3641926(1-16)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3641926
Sethi JStauss MMirioglu SFloyd LWoywodt A(2024)Only the Bluesky is the limit: ten tips for a trending #SkytorialClinical Kidney Journal10.1093/ckj/sfae41418:2Online publication date: 18-Dec-2024
https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfae414
Mysore SJasim MSong HAkbar SRandall AMahyar N(2023)How Data Scientists Review the Scholarly LiteratureProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3576840.3578309(137-152)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3576840.3578309
Wang SPetridis SKwon TMa XChilton L(2023)PopBlends: Strategies for Conceptual Blending with Large Language ModelsProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580948(1-19)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3580948
Williams SJones RReinecke KHsieh G(2022)An HCI Research Agenda for Online Science CommunicationProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35555916:CSCW2(1-22)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3555591

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents