Proceedings of CHIdeology 2026: CHI Workshop on Disentangling the fragmented politics, values and imaginaries of Human-Computer Interaction through ideologies

This paper presents the proceedings of the inaugural CHI 2026 workshop held in Barcelona, which aims to disentangle the fragmented politics, values, and imaginaries within Human-Computer Interaction by examining them through the lens of ideologies.

The Gist

Imagine the world of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)—the field where we design everything from your smartphone apps to self-driving cars—as a massive, bustling city.

Right now, this city is a bit chaotic. Everyone is speaking a different dialect of "values." Some people think technology should be all about speed and profit (like a race car driver). Others believe it should be about privacy and safety (like a fortress builder). Still others think it's about social connection (like a community garden). Because everyone is shouting their own version of the truth, the city feels fragmented, and it's hard to agree on where to build the next road or park.

This paper is the "Town Hall Meeting" for that city.

Here is the breakdown of what happened, using simple metaphors:

1. The Problem: A Tower of Babel

The title mentions "disentangling fragmented politics." Imagine a giant, tangled ball of yarn where every color represents a different political belief or value system.

• Red yarn might be "free speech at all costs."
• Blue yarn might be "protecting the vulnerable."
• Green yarn might be "saving the planet."

Right now, these yarns are knotted together so tightly that you can't see the pattern. The designers building our tech are pulling on different ends of the knot, making the whole mess tighter.

2. The Solution: The "CHIdeology" Workshop

The paper is the record of a special meeting (a workshop) held in Barcelona in 2026 called CHIdeology. Think of this meeting as a group of expert unravelers or architects who gathered to sit down with that giant ball of yarn.

Their goal wasn't to cut the yarn (which would destroy the city) but to untangle it. They wanted to ask:

• "Why are we pulling in different directions?"
• "What hidden beliefs (ideologies) are driving our designs?"
• "How can we weave these different colors into a stronger, more coherent fabric?"

3. The "Imaginaries"

The abstract mentions "imaginaries." Think of this as the blueprints or daydreams that designers have.

• One designer dreams of a future where AI runs the world efficiently.
• Another dreams of a future where humans have total control and AI is just a tool.

The workshop was about realizing that these daydreams are actually political choices. By making these invisible blueprints visible, the group hoped to stop designing by accident and start designing with a clear, shared purpose.

The Bottom Line

In simple terms, this paper is a collection of notes from a meeting where tech experts said:

"We are building the future, but we are all using different rulebooks. Let's stop fighting over the rules, understand why we believe what we believe, and try to write a new, shared rulebook that makes our digital world fairer and more human for everyone."

It's a call to stop treating technology as just "neutral tools" and start realizing that every button we press and every algorithm we write carries a hidden political message. This workshop was the first step in learning how to read those messages and fix the knots.

Technical Summary

Based on the text provided, it is not possible to generate a detailed technical summary covering the problem, methodology, key contributions, results, and significance in the traditional sense.

The text provided is not a research paper containing experimental data, a specific methodology, or empirical results. Instead, it is the front matter (title and abstract) for a Workshop Proceedings volume.

Here is an analysis of what the text actually conveys versus what is missing:

1. Nature of the Document

• Type: Proceedings of a Workshop (CHIdeology 2026).
• Context: Held at the ACM CHI Conference 2026 in Barcelona.
• Content: This document serves as a container for multiple papers, position statements, or discussions presented by various authors during the workshop. It does not represent a single study with a unified methodology or result set.

2. Analysis of the Provided Information

• The "Problem" (Implied): The title suggests the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) suffers from "fragmented politics, values, and imaginaries." The workshop aims to address this fragmentation by analyzing these elements through the lens of ideologies.
• The "Methodology" (Missing): The text does not describe a specific research method (e.g., surveys, interviews, system design). In the context of a workshop proceedings, the "methodology" would be the collective discourse, critical analysis, and theoretical frameworks presented by the individual contributors within the full volume.
• The "Key Contributions" (Missing): While the goal is to disentangle fragmented politics, the specific contributions (e.g., new theoretical models, case studies, or design guidelines) are contained in the individual papers inside the proceedings, not in this summary text.
• The "Results" (Missing): There are no quantitative or qualitative results listed. Workshop proceedings typically result in a set of agreed-upon research agendas, critical reflections, or future directions rather than empirical results.
• The "Significance" (Implied): The significance lies in the critical examination of the underlying political and value-laden assumptions in HCI, aiming to unify or clarify the field's ideological foundations.

Conclusion

The text provided is a metadata entry for a collection of works, not a standalone research paper with a singular problem-solution arc.

To obtain the detailed technical summary you requested, one would need access to the full content of the proceedings (the individual papers, position statements, or the workshop summary report contained within the volume arXiv:2603.10681v1), as the abstract provided only defines the scope and event details, not the specific research findings.