Inför World Usability Day som infaller andra torsdagen i november varje år påminns vi om varför frågan fortfarande är brännhet. I vardagen använder vi runt 25 system parallellt på jobbet. Små brister i ett system spiller snabbt över till nästa. Det som ser bra ut i en prototyp kan fallera i verklig drift med tidspress, kyla, bländande ljus och många handovers.
Samma kärnfråga kvarstår som för 25 år sedan: fungerar det för rätt användare, med rätt mål, i rätt situation. Idag är beroendena tätare, regelkraven fler och upphandlingar gör lokala justeringar svårare. Därför räcker det sällan att flytta en knapp. Vi behöver se hela arbetsmiljön: fysisk miljö, socialt klimat, kognitiv belastning, organisation, digital kvalitet och känslor. AI är nytt, men principerna är desamma. Otydliga mål, ansvar och stöd gör tekniken till ytterligare en belastning.
Tre saker som hjälper i praktiken:
Delat ansvar tidigt mellan roller som kompletterar varandra vid IT-införanden
Fokus på hela arbetsmiljön, inte bara gränssnitt
Skyddad tid för användare att prova, lära och justera
World Usability Day handlar om just detta: att göra tekniken användbar i verkligheten.
World Usability Day påminner oss om vardagens verklighet: teknik blir användbar först när den fungerar i sitt sammanhang!
Last week, the Swedish Transport Research Conference 2025 (STRC2025) took place at Linköping University, Campus Norrköping. This annual event gathers researchers from across Sweden who study transport systems in national or local contexts. The conference offers a platform for interdisciplinary exchange, covering all modes of transport and topics ranging from technology and design to planning, policy, and human factors. It is a very nice meeting point where engineering meets social science, and where both established and early-career researchers contribute. The conference was an inspiring and enjoyable event with many interesting presentations showcasing ongoing research within the Swedish transport community.
At this year’s conference, I presented my contribution titled “Train Driving as Embodied Practice: An Ethnographic Approach.” The paper addresses a critical question in today’s rapidly evolving railway sector: what remains uniquely human in the increasingly automated landscape of train operations? With the growing interest in automation and driver-assisting technologies, understanding the human contribution to train driving becomes essential not only for safety and efficiency but also for preserving forms of knowledge that machines cannot easily replicate.
The study builds on 2.5 years of ethnographic fieldwork in the system for Swedish railway operations, involving participatory observations and contextual interviews with experienced train drivers. Rather than focusing on formal procedures, the research explores the situated and embodied aspects of the train driver’s work, i.e., the tacit, sensory, and bodily knowledge that shapes everyday decisions and reactions on the rails.
The findings illustrate that train driving is far from a purely cognitive or rule-based activity. Drivers are constantly attuned to the train and its environment through a subtle interplay of sound, vibration, and movement. For example, one driver could identify a braking issue simply by hearing a faint difference in rhythm that to an observer sounded like ordinary background noise. Others described how they could “feel” when the tracks were slippery, a sensation difficult to verbalize yet instantly recognisable to those with years of experience. This sensitivity, developed through practice, enables drivers to detect irregularities and respond proactively, often before technical systems register any issue.
From a theoretical perspective, the study draws on frameworks of situated, distributed, and embodied cognition. It shows that knowledge in train driving is not confined to the mind but distributed across the body, the locomotive, and the physical railway environment. The train becomes an extension of the driver’s body, and operating it involves a form of bodily reasoning that combines sensory awareness with technical expertise, which challenges the assumption that human knowledge can be fully codified or automated.
By making these embodied practices visible, the research contributes to ongoing discussions about automation and human–machine collaboration. While automation offers many benefits, it also risks overlooking the non-verbal, experiential, and embodied dimensions of skilled work. Understanding these dimensions is crucial for designing systems that complement rather than replace human capabilities.
STRC2025 was an engaging event and I appreciated the opportunity to present my work and to exchange perspectives with researchers from a wide range of disciplines.
Hi! I’m Jana-Sophie, a PhD student from TU Dortmund University in Germany, where I research sociotechnical work systems and how to meaningfully involve people with disabilities in developing suitable technologies for those systems.
This autumn it’s the first time that I actually step out of my own work system to explore a new one. I’m spending three months here at Uppsala University’s HTO Research Group. A perfect opportunity to experience another work environment and academic culture first-hand.
Now, a few weeks in, some early reflections are already taking shape. What better place to share them than here, as temporary part of the HTO research group and its blog?
The experience of arriving here was immediately both stepping out and coming home.
Stepping Out
Coming from rehabilitation sciences, my daily work in Dortmund usually revolves around teaching, supervision and research on inclusion – always with a focus on how technology can support participation at work. For three months, I’m now stepping out of that familiar academic setting and immerse in a new one. Being here at the HTO research group, where user involvement in technology design is a given, allows me to experience what it feels like when the disciplinary embedding shifts: While my subgroup at home adds an HCI view to rehabilitation research, here rehabilitation and inclusion perspectives become embedded in HCI. This change of perspectives makes the idea of interdisciplinary research much more tangible.
After two years in the German academic system, this visit feels like a rare and valuable opportunity to step back from usual daily tasks, challenge my assumptions and habits, and experience new ways of thinking and collaborating.
Coming Home
With a personal background in Human Computer Interaction (master studies), returning to its core theories, discussions, and methods feels both familiar and inspiring. Reconnecting with HCI and exchanging ideas with people who speak the same “research language” brings a sense of belonging and curiosity at the same time.
Beyond these broader concepts of leaving one’s habitual environment while immersing in a familiar disciplinary setting, there are also some more concrete aspects that I currently find especially rewarding:
Inclusive Design or Non-Excluding Design? HCI or HMI? Coffee breaks or fika? 😊 It’s been a minute since I reflected on basic concepts I use and once defined in the very beginning of my PhD process. These terminologies and grounding concepts get challenged the second you leave your usual environment and that’s a good thing! It broadens my perspectives and sharpens my arguments.
Time and opportunity to look up from my tiny research niche: Having this time abroad with fewer responsibilities (or distractions?) is a wonderful chance. Usually, I’m deeply immersed in my daily tasks and my very specific research focus, involving people with disabilities and neurodivergent people in industrial development to improve accessibility in work-related technologies. Here, the freedom to present myself, my topic, and my project makes it easy to see connections to almost every person and project around me. It’s tempting, exciting… and also a challenge to define and stay true to my own path.
Joining a PhD course, something that’s not part of my PhD journey at home, has been a refreshing experience. It’s the first time in a while that I’ve really dug into theories again, revisiting ideas I was once introduced to, had almost forgotten, and now see in a new light. It also helps me reflect on how my research is situated within HCI (or is it HMI?). Plus, meeting other PhD students here is definitely a big bonus.
So far, this visit feels both grounding and energizing: a mix of revisiting familiar ideas and exploring new perspectives that already inspire me and my research. I’m curious to see how the next weeks will unfold, which collaboration opportunities might arise, and how my idea of coffee as a quick caffeine fix might slowly turn into coffee as a proper fika moment.
Inom TARA-projektet undersöker vi hur automatisering, robotisering och AI påverkar arbetsmiljön för markpersonal på svenska flygplatser – till exempel lastare, flygplatstekniker och tankningspersonal.
Just nu genomför vi en enkätstudie för att samla in erfarenheter och perspektiv från er som arbetar i dessa yrken. Resultaten kommer att användas för att förebygga framtida arbetsmiljöproblem och för att lyfta fram både de positiva och de utmanande effekterna av ny teknik.
I den här korta filmen berättar vi mer om projektet och enkäten. Kontakta Jonathan Källbäcker (jonathan.kallbacker@it.uu.se) om du vill svara på enkäten!
TARA-projektet drivs av Uppsala universitet i nära samarbete med TYA – Transportfackens Yrkes- och Arbetsmiljönämnd, och finansieras av AFA Försäkring.
Tillsammans arbetar vi för att skapa en säkrare och mer hållbar arbetsmiljö i framtidens flygbransch.
Detta forskningsprojekt, DIGI-RISK, undersöker risker för hot, kränkningar eller trakasserier i samband med digital patientkontakt – till exempel via chatt, video eller meddelanden.
Digitaliseringen av vården har gett stora möjligheter – men den har också medfört nya arbetsmiljörisker. I takt med att video- och chattkonsultationer blivit en allt vanligare del av vårdpersonalens vardag har också förekomsten av hot, trakasserier och gränsöverskridande beteenden ökat. Exempel på digitala aggressioner är hotfulla meddelanden i chattfunktioner, trakasserier via e-post, kränkningar i videosamtal (till exempel nedsättande ton, aggressivitet, sexistiskt eller rasistiskt språk), inspelning av samtal utan samtycke, spridning av personlig information i sociala medier med syfte att hänga ut personal, eller psykologisk press utanför arbetstid.
Projektets syfte är att identifiera riskfaktorer kopplade till digitala aggressioner, undersöka skillnader mellan olika vårdprofessioner och utveckla riktlinjer för en tryggare digital arbetsmiljö. Forskningen kommer att genomföras med hjälp av bland annat intervjuer för att identifiera vilka faktorer som är avgörande för att dessa digitala verktyg ska vara effektiva och samtidigt stödja en hälsosam arbetsmiljö.
Den första delstudien är en intervjustudie med sig till vårdpersonal med erfarenhet av digitala aggressioner – eller chefer vars personal har utsatts för detta. Du kan arbeta i primärvården, på sjukhus, hos en digital vårdgivare, eller annat. Genom att samla in erfarenhete mtida digitala vårdtjänster ska utformas och implementeras för att förbättra arbetsmiljön inom vården.
Intervjuerna tar ca 60 minuter. Intervjun kan genomföras antingen på plats eller digitalt. Under intervjun får du svara på frågor om dina erfarenheter av digitala aggressioner. Vi frågar om ämnen som erfarenheter av digitala hot och trakasserier, hur det påverkar din arbetsmiljö, och vilka roller tekniken, kollegor och organisationen spelar för att skapa en trygg digital arbetsmiljö.
Låter det intressant? Gör en intresseanmälan här så kontaktar vi dig för att boka in en tid för intervju!
Right now, we’re exploring what it means to put time at the center of railway work. What happens when time is the main factor shaping how tasks are organized and how does technology play into it? Does focusing so much on time make work feel more meaningful, or does it simply add pressure? And could we imagine a future where technology takes on a bigger role in planning and managing time in railway work?
In our interviews with railway professionals, many describe problem solving as one of the most rewarding parts of their job. But problem solving almost always comes down to time: either solving things quickly or making sure every minute is used in the best way possible. In trying to understand this intersection of meaning, time and work, we turn to the German sociologist Hartmut Rosa. He has written about how time shapes our modern lives and he uses the concept ‘social acceleration’ to describe how technology pushes us to move faster and use time more efficiently. He also introduces the idea of ‘resonance’ which is the feeling of being connected to the flow of life, being present in the moment rather than being focused on the past or the future.
This leads us to the question: does technology help workers stay present and grounded, or does it pull away from “the now” by keeping them busy with documenting or reporting on the past and planning for the future? What is the relation between meaning and temporal aspects in railway work? Time can feel like a constant pressure, but it can also be what makes the work exciting. Without the constantly ticking clock, the challenges might lose their urgency, and maybe even their meaning.
That’s what we’re reflecting on right now in the AROA project.
Den förra veckan hade vi en konferens där vi arbetade tillsammans med vårt teoretiska ramverk för att förstå hur artificiell intelligens, robotar och automatisering påverkar arbetslivet och människors engagemang i arbetet.
Vi som deltog var Jessica Lindblom, Andreas Bergqvist, Rebecca Cort, Åsa Cajander och Maria Normark.
Syftet med ramverket är att bättre förstå hur ny teknik påverkar samspelet mellan människor, organisation och teknik – och hur vi kan skapa förutsättningar för engagemang och hållbarhet i arbetslivet.
Under dagarna:
diskuterade vi den empiriska data vi hittills har samlat in från olika branscher,
började bygga vidare på en första version av vårt ramverk,
och reflekterade kring vilka frågor som är mest centrala att ta med i det fortsatta arbetet.
En första version av ramverket finns beskriven i vår artikel Towards a Framework for Digital Work Engagement of Enabling Technologies (länk här) . Artikeln presenterar en grundläggande modell och de första resultaten, som vi nu arbetar vidare med för att utveckla och fördjupa.
Vi ser fram emot att jobba vidare med ramverket och att skriva en artikel om det!
Going to conferences are always interesting experiences, and as with any endeavour I think it’s important to ask oneself what the point of doing it is. Attending HCII in Gothenburg [1] gave me the possibility to meet up with friends and family, attending ARPPID in London [2] gave me the possibility to acquire some top-notch cookies, and there are not really that many culinary experiences that reaches the hights of fish and chips or halv special med pucko.
Halv special med Pucko – the point of going to a conference in Gothenburg?
Despite the personal advantages when travelling for work, the point is still to work, to present ideas, to gather ideas, but the challenge remains to put these ideas into practice. At HCII, I presented our paper examining stakeholders’ views of potential future technologies at airports [3], while at ARPPID I presented our paper on the collaboration throughout our airport project TARA [4] [5]. During HCII, I also gathered notes and talked to people about improving my own research, new application possibilities at airports, AI in large organizations, AI in teaching, AI in design practice – many different perspectives that can be of use for our research.
And then what? An attempt to answer this question came in the form of ARPPID, where the focus was on papers about closing the gap between interaction design research and professional practice. One challenge I take with me is that it can be multiple and different steps, incentives, and definitions between researchers at universities, researchers in industry, designers, and people who are not designers, making discussions between the fields and roles difficult.
There were also articles and presentations focusing on the misunderstanding of HCI methods, which is somewhat ironic since a core idea of HCI that I’ve taken with me is that systems should be easy to use, and therefore a big part of the responsibility of how the technology is used should be on the designer. This idea should naturally translate to usability and HCI concepts as well, which of course is easier said than done. This taps into the central issue of having common language between academia and industry, which our paper largely is about. Maybe it’s not that important to be academically correct all the time, and letting go of the prestige around that our well-defined and (hopefully) well-cited concepts are being bastardized could be more pragmatic in settings when collaboration with people who are not in research is being established.
What does it mean?!
A more long-term perspective on the question “and then what?” was also discussed in ARPPID, mostly during a panel about the future of HCI in a world of (more) AI. A very interesting part of this discussion were the points that there are a lot of negative consequences that HCI research and practice have led to (one thought – the book The Anxious Generation [6]). P(doom) numbers [7] were discussed, some saying 100, some saying 0 – as well as solutions how to mitigate the challenges that potential existentially threatening technologies, like AI, can pose. However, I do believe that despite the best of intentions there is always a risk that the methods, technologies, and ideas will be bastardized or fill a purpose that was never the intent of the developer.
What I take with me from these conferences are therefore three questions: Who are the users (of the methods or technology etc.)? What is a metric of success? What are the trade-offs?
These questions will have different answers for different people, and the focus may, depending on the person, vary between better collaborations, better research, or managing of existentially catastrophic outcomes. This makes us come back to the original question: what is the point – of going to conferences, gathering ideas, developing methods, or creating technologies? The choice is (still, maybe, kind of, not really, never was) up to us (designers, researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders and concerned citizens of the world).
In a new publication, my colleague Jessica Lindblom and I explore the work of train traffic controllers and information officers working in Sweden’s train traffic control centers to shed light on how they manage to monitor and control this complex, fast-moving railway system without ever stepping foot on the tracks.
Control rooms are often described as the coordination centre, the hub, of critical systems like aviation, shipping, and railway traffic. The atmosphere in such control rooms is often calm and the concentration is almost tangible. The space is filled with computer screens and the constant noise from ringing phones and low-voiced conversations. In Swedish train traffic, two main work roles are keeping things running. These are the traffic controllers and the information officers. The former ensure that trains move safely and on time by controlling switches and signals along the rail, adjusting timetables, and solving problems when something goes wrong. The latter provides travelling information to passengers in cases of delays, disruptions, or platform changes, etc. Together, these two roles are managing thousands of trains across Sweden every single day. They don’t see the rails outside their windows, yet they know them as if they were standing right there. How can that be? To answer that question, we conducted workplace studies in Sweden’s eight traffic control centres over a time period of 2,5 years. During this time, we observed everything from daily work routines to the handling of accidents and extraordinary events, and discovered subtle and highly skilled ways in which the workers interpret and act on digital and analogue information of situations unfolding far from their own location.
Prior research offers concepts like “professional vision,” “situated seeing,” and “tool-mediated seeing” to explain how people use artifacts and experience to interpret their work environment. We combined these with the idea of “sense of place”, a concept we borrowed from environmental and geographical studies that emphasizes how people develop meaning and attachment to specific locations. From this theoretical standpoint, we propose a new concept: remote situatedness. This concept describes how control room workers can develop a deep, practical knowledge and a sense of connection to remote places, although they are not physically present at those locations. This ability allows them to “see” the railway, predict problems, and act in meaningful ways from a distance.
In the paper, we illustrate remote situatedness with three examples: 1. Mutually Enacted Situated Seeing – how traffic controllers and information officers jointly interpret and act on pieces of information about events along the rail. 2. Mediated Sense of Place – how technology and collaboration shape the workers’ connection to locations far from their own. 3. Failed Sense of Place – what happens when this connection breaks down, and how it affects railway operations. In each of these three cases, we show that the workers’ expertise isn’t just technical but social, spatial, and deeply embedded in the context of railway operations. It’s an intricate mix of technology and human skill!
Our findings highlight that effective railway management depends on more than screens, software, and procedures. It relies on workers’ ability to connect with and interpret remote environments through a combination of technology, collaboration, and lived experience. By recognizing and supporting this remote situatedness, we can design better tools, improve training, and strengthen the resilience of the complex railway system.
For those who want to read more, the full publication can be found here.
New publication by Roger McDermott, Mats Daniels, John N.A. Brown, and Åsa Cajander in ITiCSE 2025
When we talk about research in Computing Education, we often refer to data-driven studies—statistical analyses of learning outcomes, empirical classroom studies, or qualitative work grounded in social science methods. But what if we also turned to philosophy to better understand how and why we teach computing?
In our newly published paper, “Determining the Scope of the Philosophy of Computing Education,” we explore what it means to apply philosophical inquiry within computing education research. Inspired by similar movements in engineering education, we ask fundamental questions:
What is the nature of computing as a discipline?
What assumptions shape our teaching practices?
How can conceptual analysis complement empirical and qualitative research?
Rather than offering yet another case study or dataset, this paper delves into the foundations of the field itself. We suggest that a philosophical perspective can enrich our understanding of key concepts, challenge unexamined assumptions, and help clarify the methods and goals of computing education research.
This is not about replacing empirical work—but about broadening the conversation. By including philosophical methods, we can develop a more reflective and mature field, better equipped to navigate the ethical, conceptual, and educational challenges of a rapidly changing discipline.
In our research group, we study the relationships and dynamics of Human, Technology, and Organisation (HTO) to create knowledge that supports sustainable development and utilization of ICT.
