Ask Me or Tell Me? Enhancing the Effectiveness of Crowdsourced Design Feedback
Fritz Lekschas, Spyridon Ampanavos, Pao Siangliulue, Hanspeter, Pfister, Krzysztof Z. Gajos

TL;DR
This paper explores how combining open-ended questions with declarative feedback in crowdsourced design improves feedback neutrality and results in more effective design revisions, addressing sentiment bias issues.
Contribution
It introduces a novel feedback approach that integrates questions with statements and demonstrates its effectiveness through user studies.
Findings
Question-based feedback is more neutral in sentiment.
Question-plus-statement feedback leads to better design revisions.
Combining questions with statements enhances feedback effectiveness.
Abstract
Crowdsourced design feedback systems are emerging resources for getting large amounts of feedback in a short period of time. Traditionally, the feedback comes in the form of a declarative statement, which often contains positive or negative sentiment. Prior research has shown that overly negative or positive sentiment can strongly influence the perceived usefulness and acceptance of feedback and, subsequently, lead to ineffective design revisions. To enhance the effectiveness of crowdsourced design feedback, we investigate a new approach for mitigating the effects of negative or positive feedback by combining open-ended and thought-provoking questions with declarative feedback statements. We conducted two user studies to assess the effects of question-based feedback on the sentiment and quality of design revisions in the context of graphic design. We found that crowdsourced…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
