=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2621/CIRCLE20_30
|storemode=property
|title=Say it with Emojis: Co-designing Relevance Cues for Searching in the Classroom
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2621/CIRCLE20_30.pdf
|volume=Vol-2621
|authors=Mohammad Aliannejadi,Theo Huibers,Monica Landoni,Emiliana Murgia,Maria Soledad Pera
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/circle/AliannejadiHLMP20
}}
==Say it with Emojis: Co-designing Relevance Cues for Searching in the Classroom==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2621/CIRCLE20_30.pdf
Say it with Emojis: Co-designing Relevance Cues for Searching
in the Classroom
Mohammad Aliannejadi Monica Landoni Theo Huibers
m.aliannejadi@uva.nl monica.landoni@usi.ch t.w.c.huibers@utwente.nl
University of Amsterdam Università della Svizzera Italiana University of Twente
Amsterdam, The Netherlands Lugano, Switzerland Enschede, The Netherlands
Emiliana Murgia Maria Soledad Pera
emiliana.murgia@unimib.it solepera@boisestate.edu
Università degli Studi di PIReT - Dept. of Computer Science
Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy Boise State University, Boise, Idaho
ABSTRACT resource, for young searchers, this task is not as straightforward. As
Search Engine Result Pages (SERP) include snippets of retrieved re- stated by Gossen et al. [18], children’s exploration of SERP tends to
sources as a means to help searchers select the ones that satisfy their be more visual, i.e., influenced by highlighted terms. In other words,
information needs. This way, result relevance can be determined children exhibit a "cued visual jump" strategy [18], one that makes
by scanning through snippets, an exercise that requires experience them jump sequentially to the following resource after reading
with reading, understanding, and assessing the value of a document. the highlighted terms in a given snippet. Moreover, reports in [18]
These are skills that primary school children are still developing indicate that children pay attention to thumbnails and other media
and thus are not yet proficient with. As web search tools are essen- embedded in snippets. This is one of the reasons why we posit
tial to support children learning at school and home, we explore that icons could serve as visual cues that inform the relevance of
how to help young searchers in making informed relevance assess- resources listed in a SERP.
ments while conducting searches in a classroom. In this paper, we We are interested in exploring whether visual cues can influence
describe a collaborative design exercise involving primary school children’s selection of useful resources in response to their queries,
children as co-designers: we asked them to examine interfaces with regardless of the position of such a result in the SERP. To control
combinations of different emojis to help them assess the usefulness scope, and ease comparison and contextualization with respect to
of results in SERP–a crucial factor to determine relevance for the the state-of-the-art, we adopt the framework defined in [21], which
classroom. This activity made our child experts engage with the establishes four pillars for design and evaluation of information
design exercise while enabling us to collect their judgments so as retrieval systems for children: (i) strategy, (ii) user group, (iii) task,
to get a better sense of the user requirements for this age group. and (iv) context. In our case, we define (i) SERP display, (ii) children
Here we discuss the main design issues emerging from the analysis in primary five, (iii) online inquiries pertaining to topics common
of children’s preferences, the rationale behind them, comments and among primary four curricula, and (iv) classroom setting. In this
concerns raised, and alternative proposals children sketched. initial iteration, we focus in fostering children’s selection of results
that are of an educational nature, i.e., aligned with the context of the
information-seeking tasks under study. Consequently, we use emojis
1 INTRODUCTION to signal classroom-aligned vs. more general sources. The choice
Children’s search behaviors have been well-documented [6–8, 15, of emojis is driven by existing research outlining children’s ability
17, 35]. Among the main ones, we find children’s struggles with to relate to emojis [5, 16, 26, 32]. When children are the audience
query formulation – from inability to create succinct queries to under study, emojis have been shown to be effective as a means for
favoring the use of natural language questions. Another issue that children to experience preference, which is why it stands to reason
emerged is children’s linear exploration of Search Engine Result that they will consider them a natural clue for relevance, which is
Pages (SERP) and their tendency to favor results positioned higher the hypothesis of our work. There is not, however, research related
in the SERP, regardless of the relevance of these results. Researchers to which emojis would better serve as clues. Consequently, we start
have attempted to ease query formulation for children, both from our exploration by conducting a study in which we use children as
interface and algorithmic perspectives [15, 27]. Yet, we see seldom expert co-designers to (i) better understand which emojis are more
efforts dedicated to addressing the gaps related to children and their intuitive to understand, in terms to serving as a relevance clue,
judgment of results presented on SERP in response to inquiries sub- and (ii) identify requirements from children as to what constitute
mitted to popular or kid-friendly search engines (SE), like Google a better emoji that can foster completion of successful searches
or Kiddle, respectively. conducted in the classroom.
SERP snippets often include the title, source, and sample text Insights from co-designing activities serve as a foundation for re-
from a given resource. While finding it easy to scan through the search in human-computer interaction and information retrieval, in
brief snapshot and determine the relevance of the corresponding terms of fostering design of interfaces and algorithms that provide
the scaffolding needed to support children’s search in the classroom
"Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Com- while learning how to conduct inquiry tasks effectively.
mons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)."
(a) Thumbs-up and down (b) Rainbow and poo (c) Traffic light
Figure 1: Three mock-up designs utilizing different emojis to enrich a SERP.
2 RELATED WORK In our investigation, we reiterate the aforementioned need for
We anchor our work in two main areas: SERP design and co-design richer SERP design that can ease the choice of useful results for
with children. We briefly discuss relevant works below. children in the classroom. We attempt to address such a concern
Gwizdka and Bilal [19] examine children’s interactions with by conducting an exploratory quest guided by children’s expertise
Google. The authors found that when exploring SERP, younger to identify emojis that can serve as relevance cues.
children (age 11) are less deliberate on their choice of results to
click, as they tend to favor top two-ranked results in a SERP. Anuyah
3 METHOD & DATA
et al. [3] describe the type of resources displayed on SERP in re- We describe in this section the participants, data, and protocol, we
sponse to children’s inquiries in the classroom, and argue for the considered in our exploration.
need to prioritize classroom-related materials in SERP, as well as aid Co-Designers. We recruited as co-designers (i.e., study partici-
children in identifying the most suitable results for classroom use. pants) 9 children (ages 10 to 11) from a primary five classroom in
Lurie and Mustafaraj [25] also highlight the disparity in children’s Italy. to align with study goal, we sought children who (i) have reg-
opinions on Knowledge Panels (which provide contextual informa- ular exposure and instruction related to search tools and (ii) have
tion about news) offered on SERP to gauge the credibility of online participated of previous studies involving co-designing interfaces
news. Similarly, Abdullah and Basar [1] study young searchers’ for information retrieval systems tailored to children and the class-
behavior when scanning SERP to identify trustworthy resources. room [21, 28]. It is worth mentioning that recruitment was on
Their findings reveal that children seldom consider source reputa- voluntary basis. We obtained parental consent in advanced; the
tion when determining its relevance. As an attempt to offer users study was approved by the local Ethics committee.
a richer SERP, Demartini and Siersdorfer [11] include sentiment-
related information along with snippets. They propose the use of Mock-up Interfaces. In collaboration with experts in education,
green and red colors to flag the positive and negative connotation we prepared 3 mock-up interfaces, as shown in Figure 1, which we
of content listed on a SERP. This solution, however, aligns with used to stimulate discussion with children. For SERP-generation,
enhancing SERP design for adult searchers, not children. we used Bing API [4], with safe search functionality enabled. Each
The literature pertaining to children as co-designers is rich, start- mock-up includes emojis to cue results that are useful (or not) for
ing from early work by Druin [13], who describes the four main the classroom; neutral results were not associated with any emoji.
roles children can play in design: user, tester, informant, and de- Results for each query were labeled by an expert educator. Note
sign partner. The most widely adopted approaches for engaging that informed by the lessons learned from [9, 21], children often
children as co-designers are participatory design by Read et al. [30] associate result relevance with its usefulness to complete search
and cooperative inquiry by Druin [12]. Crucial is also to find ways tasks aligned with school curriculum. Thus, in our study, we treat
to give children’s opinion the right importance and consideration relevant and useful for the classroom as equivalent.
[20, 29]. We see from the literature that children have mostly been (1) Mock-up 1 (Figure 1a) has thumb-up and down icons next to
involved in the ideation phase of design [22]. Instead, they have sel- relevant and irrelevant results, in order to attract children’s
dom actively contributed to other phases of design, e.g. preparing attention via the use of a very popular icon used to express "I
sketches and storyboards and acting as experts in early usability like it" in social media.
evaluations. Examples of such contribution come from van Doorn (2) Mock-up 2 (Figure 1b) displays two fun icons: rainbow and poo
et al. [33, 34], who explored how children could collaborate in many to hint of (non-)relevance of the associated results.
different ways, from interviewers to full co-researchers. They argue (3) Mock-up 3 (Figure 1c), showcases the classic traffic light icon.
that children uniquely have the necessary knowledge to engage and
In designing the mock-ups, we exploited different metaphors as
understand their peers. On similar lines, Salian et al. [31] debate on
a conduit to prompt discussion. Consequently, we paid particular
how children could act as heuristic evaluators.
attention to offering children a stimulating variety of options that
Table 1: Student interview scheme, translated from Italian, the language spoken by participants.
ID Questions
Q1 Which of the 3 interfaces would you use if you were looking for information on the tornado topic? Why?
Q2 Which of the 3 interfaces do you think kids your age would use if they were looking for information about tornadoes? Why?
Q3 Which of the 3 interfaces would you use if you were looking for information on another topic for school research? Why?
Q4 Which of the 3 interfaces do you think kids your age would use if they were looking for information on other topics for school research? Why?
Q5 Please add your comments on what you like or dislike in the 3 interfaces. What changes would you propose?
Q6 If you had to design a new interface to use for school research material, what would it look like?
Q7 You can add a drawing and an explanation of why you would do it that way.
Table 2: User Experience Questionnaire for each mock-up. how useful other children would find the three proposed inter-
Likert scale faces. Also, we reminded the students that they were acting as
experts, knowing what would better work, and be useful for
Obstructive □ □ □ □ □ Supportive other children like them. We stressed the fact that they knew
Complicated □ □ □ □ □ Easy
this area better than any adults, including their teachers.
Inefficient □ □ □ □ □ Efficient
(2) In Phase 2, still online, the researcher, who plays the role of
Confusing □ □ □ □ □ Clear
Boring □ □ □ □ □ Exiting facilitator, guided children so that they could frame the ap-
Not Interesting □ □ □ □ □ Interesting plicability of the mock-ups in the context of searching in the
Conventional □ □ □ □ □ Inventive classroom. It was aimed initially for one specific task and then
Usual □ □ □ □ □ Leading Edge for generic ones, moving the focus from their perspective to
how their peers would react. Children were invited to act as
at the same time (i) were familiar to them, (ii) suitably represented assessors and discuss preferences and reasons behind them. At
a dichotomy for relevance judgment, and (iii) showcased different the end of the discussion, children were asked to pick their most
combinations of colors and shapes. liked and disliked features across the three interfaces. Then, for
Tools to Stimulate and Gather Feedback. We used two different each interface, they were invited to fill a short questionnaire
tools to stimulate children and engage them in co-design activity. (see Table 2). This questionnaire enabled us to gather insights
First, we adopted an existing interview scheme, which we used as regarding desirable features for emojis that would better help
an early inspection method involving experts. Specifically, we lever- children understand the usefulness of resources retrieved in
aged the Cognitive Walkthrough approach [10], where children response to online inquiries related to curriculum topics.
acted as experts of other children’s needs and preferences when (3) In Phase 3, children, assumed the creative role of designers and
searching in the classroom. In this instance, while walking chil- worked off the line on sketches to represent new interfaces and
dren through a search activity, we asked not only their individual icons for the same purpose. Here, they were advised to draw the
preferences but also which of the mock-ups they reckoned their sketches using personal devices of their choice, such as tablets,
classmates would choose. We also asked children to consider what smartphones, and PCs.
would happen when searching for other school-related subjects. At Upon completion of the three phases, children shared with re-
the end of the search walkthrough, we encouraged the children to searchers via email their responses for the interview and question-
comment on what they liked and disliked the proposed mock-ups. naires, along with the sketches created during Phase 3.
We also invited to sketch a possible alternative. We include the full
interview questionnaire in Table 1. Data. Children’s preferences and the reasons behind them provided
We also used a standard User Experience Questionnaire [2, 23]. us with essential insights. For analysis purposes, we considered
We include in Table 2 a snapshot of its the short version, which children’s responses to the questionnaires in Tables 1 and 2, as well
we adapted to better suit the age of the target population under as their suggestions in the form of sketches and a brief description
study. We did so by simply adding a note to clarify terms deemed too of suitable emojis. Observations from teachers who administered
difficult for children, e.g., obstructive, and providing more examples the protocol, as mentioned earlier, were also valuable in better
of how to express the assessment of each of the listed terms. understanding the outcome of this design exercise.
Protocol. We conducted co-design sessions online, as schools had
4 ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
to close for a medical/health emergency. We organized these ses-
sions in 3 phases with one researcher acting as facilitator. In this study, we intended mock-ups to be used as probes to engage
our co-design experts and stimulate their creativity. Therefore, our
(1) In Phase 1, the researcher presented children the three mock-
findings are meant to contribute towardsa better understanding of
up interfaces (see Figure 1), each including a SERP for the same
young searchers’ needs and to provide necessary grounds for the
given query. For the topic of the query included in the mock-up
design of SERP that can support children in searches in the school
interfaces, we followed the framework and protocol in [21] and
context. In the rest of this section, we discuss the main issues and
settled on common subjects in the 4𝑡ℎ and 5𝑡ℎ grades: torna-
discoveries emerging from this co-design effort.
does. In each mock-up, we used a different emoji to highlight
the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the corresponding result. The Inclusiveness. From the discussion with children and answers
researcher kept children engaged by asking them to imagine to questionnaires, it is clear that inclusiveness is an important
hence the only hint needed was to find child-friendly ones among
the results in the SERP.
Remarks. Our study has elicited user requirements to guide the
next stage of production design for innovative SERP. It has also
provided an insight into how children interpret the concept of
relevance when searching for school-related tasks. In particular,
children judge as "good" those results that are useful, reliable, and
trustworthy. Literature confirms how children naturally trust tech-
nology and struggle to assess the quality of search results critically
[14]. Thus, it is important to design search tools that foster the
development of such skills by providing extra hints in a clear form,
such as emojis.
(a) Traditional emojis (b) New emojis
Figure 2: Emoji alternatives proposed by co-design experts. Limitations. Our study and findings also have some limitations
that we are aware of and plan to address in the future. Recent
feature when choosing emojis for enhancing the SERP. Children developments of COVID-19 caused the closure of schools. Thus,
commented on the use of red and green as not suitable for color- we conducted the studies via online tools such as Skype. As a
blind readers (mock-up 3). One child, in particular, peculiarly used result, children could have been distracted or influenced by their
the questionnaire to express this concept. When asked to put an X in environment, being at home. Also, the manner in which the co-
the row with Confused and Clear, he put two: one next to confused design sessions were conducted, could have affected the children’s
for people who would not be able to distinguish green and red, and creativity, as well as their interaction with the researcher. Currently,
one next to clear for people who would see the difference. This we only use binary relevance values. In future iterations of our work
shows how a standard tool for experience evaluation can be used in broader ranges of values should be taken into account to better
a flexible and meaningful way when running design activities. This reflect varying degrees of confidence in a result’s relevance.
interaction also showcased how the child was acting as an expert
and providing an answer based on other children he knew of.
Fun vs. Formal. Mock-up 2 was judged as the most fun, but at 5 CONCLUSIONS & FUTURE WORK
the same time, children commented on it not being suitable to be
We have explored how to design emoji-enhanced SERP, as means of
used in class, "What do you think my teacher would think of it?!"
visual cues to bias selection of resources that are not only relevant to
was one of such comments. It was interesting to see how answers
children’s information needs but also the context of the search. We
to questionnaires served to clarify the answers given during the
conducted a number of collaborative design sessions with children
interactive interview session. When directly asked about what
in primary five, who were offered three mock-up interfaces to
other children would prefer, mock-up 2 had the most votes. Yet,
stimulate their critical thinking and creativity.
when reflecting on why, children mostly highlighted how silly it
Results emerging from this initial iteration of our work reveal
was; further, in the questionnaires, children gave it the lowest score
a need for further exploration on how to generate snippets and
across usability features. As an alternative, three children suggested
what other cues should be considered, in order to help children
combining easy and fun icons, that were still simple and suitable
locate relevant resources, when using their preferred SE–often
for the school setting, including smile vs. sad emojis (see Figure 2a).
mainstreams ones, like Google, which were not designed with kids
Easy to Recognize. Mock-up 1 was judged to be easy and clear; in mind. Issues emerging from the sessions will drive the design
"hands save the day" was how one of our co-design experts de- of innovative SERP to provide scaffolding to children searching at
scribed it. However, children expressed their concerns about not school. We will start by producing a series of disposable prototypes
being able to distinguish the two icons, thumbs up and down, while to be evaluated by a larger cohort of children of similar age. We
scrolling quickly in a page of results. From this, it arises that icons will pay particular attention to including a representative sample
should have clear and recognizable features to let users discriminate of children who are technically savvy vs. novices, as this could
between them even on the run. The use of a simple metaphor of bring in different needs and preferences as in studies with adults
binary change: up and down or on and off have to be reinforced [24]. From co-design experts’ feedback, it seems that emojis could
in combination with an easy-to-spot difference in color to be ef- also serve as cues for different types of resources included in SERP
fective also while scanning the SERP quickly. Two of the children, (magazines for children, video, Wikipedia, etc.). This is another
independently, suggested the same creative new design, i.e., a bulb research path that needs consideration. Adding emojis to a SERP
switched on and off bulb, which was motivated by the need for introduces a new kind of bias towards the results that the system
emojis to be easy to recognize when scrolling while keeping up favors. That is why in the future, we plan to run a comparative user
with the inclusiveness requirements. Another proposed emoji in- study where we will ask children to complete some search tasks
line with this idea is the use of a divider to isolate child-friendly and provide them with regular SERP, as well as emoji-equipped
vs. adult results (see Figure 2b). In this particular case, the child SERP. We expect to study the effect of emojis on helping students
stated emphatically that there was no need to cue for useful results. find useful information. Also, we plan to investigate if emoji bias is
This is because she expected the SE to present only relevant results, stronger than order bias in a SERP.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS assistant to search at school. In International Conference of the Cross-Language
Evaluation Forum for European Languages. Springer, Cham, 101–113.
We would like to thank the co-design experts who were willing to [22] Monica Landoni, Elisa Rubegni, Emma Nicol, and Janet Read. 2016. How many
join online to share their feedback. We also appreciate the work by roles can children play?. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference
on Interaction Design and Children. 720–725.
Mihail Kicev, who designed the mock-ups used in our co-design [23] Bettina Laugwitz, Theo Held, and Martin Schrepp. 2008. Construction and
exercise. evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In Symposium of the Austrian HCI
and Usability Engineering Group. Springer, 63–76.
[24] Ewa Luger and Abigail Sellen. 2016. " Like Having a Really Bad PA" The Gulf be-
REFERENCES tween User Expectation and Experience of Conversational Agents. In Proceedings
[1] Noorhidawati Abdullah and Siti Khairatul Razifah Basar. 2020. How Children of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5286–5297.
Gauge Information Trustworthiness in Online Search: Credible or Convenience [25] Emma Lurie and Eni Mustafaraj. 2018. Investigating the Effects of Google’s
Searcher? Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries 21 (2020), Search Engine Result Page in Evaluating the Credibility of Online News Sources.
1–19. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. 107–116.
[2] Martin Schrepp Andreas Hinderks and Jorg Thomaschewski. Accessed March 19, [26] Catherine Mackenzie, Colin MacDougall, Jennifer Fane, and Lisa Gibbs. 2018.
2020. User Experience Questionnaire. https://www.ueq-online.org/ Using Emoji in Research with Children and Young People: Because We Can?. In
[3] Oghenemaro Anuyah, Ashlee Milton, Michael Green, and Maria Soledad Pera. World Conference on Qualitative Research, Vol. 1.
2019. An empirical analysis of search engines’ response to web search queries [27] Ion Madrazo Azpiazu, Nevena Dragovic, Oghenemaro Anuyah, and Maria Soledad
associated with the classroom setting. Aslib Journal of Information Management Pera. 2018. Looking for the Movie Seven or Sven from the Movie Frozen? A Multi-
(2019). perspective Strategy for Recommending Queries for Children. In Proceedings of
[4] API | Microsoft Azure. Accessed March 19, 2020. Bing Web Search API: Microsoft the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval. 92–101.
Azure. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-services/bing-web- [28] Maria Soledad Pera, Emiliana Murgia, Monica Landoni, and Theo Huibers. 2019.
search-api With a Little Help from My Friends: Use of Recommendations at School. In ACM
[5] Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Diva Smriti, Brenna McNally, Evan Golub, Elizabeth RecSys 2019 Late-Breaking Results: Co-Located with the 13th ACM Conference on
Bonsignore, and Pamela J Wisniewski. 2019. Stranger Danger! Social Media App Recommender Systems (RecSys 2019). 61–65.
Features Co-designed with Children to Keep Them Safe Online. In Proceedings [29] Janet C Read, Daniel Fitton, and Matthew Horton. 2014. Giving ideas an equal
of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. chance: inclusion and representation in participatory design with children. In
394–406. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and children. 105–114.
[6] Dania Bilal. 2000. Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I. [30] Janet C Read, Peggy Gregory, Stuart MacFarlane, Barbara McManus, Peter Gray,
Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal and Raj Patel. 2002. An investigation of participatory design with children-
of the American Society for information Science 51, 7 (2000), 646–665. informant, balanced and facilitated design. In Interaction design and Children.
[7] Dania Bilal and Jacek Gwizdka. 2018. Children’s query types and reformulations Eindhoven, 53–64.
in Google search. Information Processing & Management 54, 6 (2018), 1022–1041. [31] Kishan Salian, Gavin Sim, and Janet C Read. 2013. Can children perform a heuristic
[8] Dania Bilal and Li-Min Huang. 2019. Readability and word complexity of SERPs evaluation?. In Proceedings of the 11th Asia Pacific Conference on Computer Human
snippets and web pages on children’s search queries. Aslib Journal of Information Interaction. 137–141.
Management (2019). [32] Joachim J Schouteten, Jan Verwaeren, Sofie Lagast, Xavier Gellynck, and Hans
[9] Dania Bilal and Joe Kirby. 2002. Differences and similarities in information De Steur. 2018. Emoji as a tool for measuring children’s emotions when tasting
seeking: children and adults as Web users. Information processing & management food. Food quality and preference 68 (2018), 322–331.
38, 5 (2002), 649–670. [33] Fenne van Doorn, Mathieu Gielen, and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2014. Children as
[10] Marilyn Hughes Blackmon, Peter G Polson, Muneo Kitajima, and Clayton Lewis. coresearchers: more than just a roleplay. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on
2002. Cognitive walkthrough for the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference Interaction design and children. 237–240.
on human factors in computing systems. 463–470. [34] Fenne van Doorn, Pieter Jan Stappers, and Mathieu Gielen. 2013. Design research
[11] Gianluca Demartini and Stefan Siersdorfer. 2010. Dear search engine: what’s by proxy: using children as researchers to gain contextual knowledge about
your opinion about...? sentiment analysis for semantic enrichment of web search user experience.. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in
results. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Search Workshop. 1–7. Computing Systems. 2883–2892.
[12] Allison Druin. 1999. Cooperative inquiry: developing new technologies for [35] Nicholas Vanderschantz and Annika Hinze. 2017. A study of children’s search
children with children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors query formulation habits. In Proceedings of the 31st British Computer Society
in Computing Systems. 592–599. Human Computer Interaction Conference. BCS Learning & Development Ltd., 7.
[13] Allison Druin. 2002. The role of children in the design of new technology.
Behaviour and information technology 21, 1 (2002), 1–25.
[14] Allison Druin, Elizabeth Foss, Leshell Hatley, Evan Golub, Mona Leigh Guha,
Jerry Fails, and Hilary Hutchinson. 2009. How children search the internet
with keyword interfaces. In Proceedings of the 8th International conference on
interaction design and children. 89–96.
[15] Jerry Alan Fails, Maria Soledad Pera, Oghenemaro Anuyah, Casey Kennington,
Katherine Landau Wright, and William Bigirimana. 2019. Query formulation
assistance for kids: What is available, when to help & what kids want. In Proceed-
ings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children.
109–120.
[16] Jennifer Fane, Colin MacDougall, Jessie Jovanovic, Gerry Redmond, and Lisa
Gibbs. 2018. Exploring the use of emoji as a visual research method for eliciting
young children’s voices in childhood research. Early Child Development and Care
188, 3 (2018), 359–374.
[17] Tatiana Gossen. 2016. Search engines for children: search user interfaces and
information-seeking behaviour. Springer.
[18] Tatiana Gossen, Juliane Höbel, and Andreas Nürnberger. 2014. A comparative
study about children’s and adults’ perception of targeted web search engines.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
1821–1824.
[19] Jacek Gwizdka and Dania Bilal. 2017. Analysis of children’s queries and click
behavior on ranked results and their thought processes in google search. In
Proceedings of the 2017 conference on conference human information interaction
and retrieval. 377–380.
[20] Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2017. Child as
protagonist: Expanding the role of children in participatory design. In Proceedings
of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 27–37.
[21] Monica Landoni, Davide Matteri, Emiliana Murgia, Theo Huibers, and
Maria Soledad Pera. 2019. Sonny, Cerca! evaluating the impact of using a vocal