# Tools

Eric: it's all improvisation: nobody has a "workflow". cite [Plans and Situated Actions](https://bookfinder.com/search/?author=&binding=ANY&condition=ANY&currency=USD&destination=US&firstEdition=false&isbn=&keywords=&language=EN&maxPrice=&minPrice=&noIsbn=false&noPrintOnDemand=false&publicationMaxYear=&publicationMinYear=&publisher=&bunchKey=&signed=false&title=Plans+and+Situated+Actions&viewAll=false&mode=BASIC)

Matt: read first part of [Reflective Practitioner](https://bookfinder.com/search/?author=&binding=ANY&condition=ANY&currency=USD&destination=US&firstEdition=false&isbn=&keywords=Reflective%20Practitioner%20professionals&language=EN&maxPrice=&minPrice=&noIsbn=false&noPrintOnDemand=false&publicationMaxYear=&publicationMinYear=&publisher=&bunchKey=&signed=false&title=&viewAll=false)

Justin: look at [Parker's need-finding study for geospatial analysis](https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3544548.3581370)

Dev: Look at ["Who Has Plots?" Paine and Lee](https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3134720)

Eric: Look at the other stuff in [Charlotte Lee's group (UW)](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mHUkeF8AAAAJ&hl=en), e.g. [Boundary Negotiating Artifacts](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5), but don't overuse that idea

Dev: [Understanding Marine Scientist Software Tool Use](https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3706598.3713621)

#### We discussed Systematic vs. Unsystematic and how to do user studies

Eric: systematic is more "valued" but that's false IRL

Justin: systematic at what level? the workflow might look unsystematic at the tool level, but the higher level is systematic

Dev: the process changes them. "using themselves as the instrument"

Eric: in gathering info to saturation, "saturation" names the problem but isn't an explanation of what's happening. the post-hoc thing that looks like a workflow "system" is actually just the researcher's accompishment.

Eric: do a longitudinal study, observe the diversity of how it's used

Brian: I want a baseline, for comparison.

Justin: could have them discuss their existing workflow at first, to provide a partial comparison (c.f. [Pagebreaks](https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3706598.3713620))

Eric: I think comparative questions are the wrong questions. If I have to prove my system is "better", I've lost the battle. Want to provide new possibilities and exposit those.

Matt: I don't think that we're in the business of showing that something is definitely better. The free market can do that.

Justin: But a baseline can still be a point of comparison.

Eric: I have an intuition that CHI reviewers have certain questions that come up when they don't like a paper. Related work? What's the value to the community? These may be "proxies" for vibes against the work.