How this site was built

This site was built by Hauke Sandhaus (Web Chair) using Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.7. The starting prompt was, in essence: "I want to set up another workshop website with very similar organization to a previous CSCW workshop site I built." That was the substantive direction. The previous chat — used to build chiwork-ai.hauke.haus — carried over as context, along with its design opinions and structural choices.

So when this page might tempt one to say "Hauke decided X", the honest version is usually: "a previous version of Hauke, in a previous chat, decided X, and the agent re-applied it here." The page structure, the section breakdown, the tone of the copy, the typographic conventions — most of those were not fresh decisions for this site. They were inherited.

After the initial generation, Hauke asked for a follow-up pass: make this site visually distinct from the previous one, move it to the repo root for deployment, soften the background pattern, correct details that had drifted from the proposal text, and rewrite this very page to be accurate. The agent translated the LaTeX proposal into HTML, drafted the page copy, and produced the CSS. Hauke reviewed and pushed.

What the agent did

• Translated the workshop proposal LaTeX into structured HTML
• Generated the CSS design system (typography, color, layout)
• Drafted page copy by paraphrasing or lifting from the proposal text
• Assembled the organizers list from the LaTeX source
• Inherited and re-applied design conventions from the prior chat's context

What Hauke did

• Wrote the initial prompt ("similar to the previous workshop site")
• Asked for a visually distinct treatment after the first pass
• Asked for content corrections where it drifted from the proposal
• Reviewed the result and approved publication

What Hauke did not do (but might be assumed to have done)

• Pick the fonts, color palette, or layout structure from scratch
• Author the page copy line-by-line
• Decide which sections the site should have
• Write this AI use statement unprompted; it was generated, then corrected

We argue in the proposal that disclosure is not enough — that contribution dissolution is a structural problem about the conditions under which witnessed contribution is produced, not just a documentation problem. This page does not solve that. It is itself an instance of it. The previous chat's opinions and the current chat's outputs are tangled, the agent's defaults sit underneath both, and a clean "who did what" is not recoverable from the git log alone.

Documentation trail

• Git commit history — every change to this site is traceable in the workshop repo. The initial commit reflects an AI-generated scaffold; subsequent commits reflect human-prompted revisions.
• This page — a plain-language account of the build, which, like the rest of the site, was written by the agent and then corrected.