World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
59
Citations
10633
World Ranking
3491
National Ranking
1681

James Fogarty publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where James Fogarty sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 134 publications — 20th percentile

20% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

James Fogarty D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where James Fogarty sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 59 D-Index — 77th percentile

77% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

James Fogarty is affiliated with the University of Washington in the United States. Their research primarily spans the field of Computer Science, with a focus on Human-Computer Interaction and Applied Psychology, alongside contributions to Demography, Artificial Intelligence, and Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

The main topics of their work include Innovative Human-Technology Interaction, Digital Mental Health Interventions, Technology Use by Older Adults, Green IT and Sustainability, Digital Accessibility for Disabilities, Behavioral Health and Interventions, and Persona Design and Applications.

Frequent coauthors in Fogarty's research include Sean A. Munson, Jacob O. Wobbrock, Ravi Karkar, Julie A. Kientz, and Mingyuan Zhong.

Fogarty has published multiple papers in a range of scholarly venues. The most common publication venues for their work are:

  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Journal of Choice Modelling
  • ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
  • Frontiers in Digital Health
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Notable recent papers authored by or with Fogarty include:

  • DreamCatcher: Exploring How Parents and School-Age Children can Track and Review Sleep Information Together, 2020, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • An Epidemiology-inspired Large-scale Analysis of Android App Accessibility, 2020, ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
  • Parallel Journeys of Patients with Cancer and Depression: Challenges and Opportunities for Technology-Enabled Collaborative Care, 2020, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • R packages and tutorial for case 1 best-worst scaling, 2022, Journal of Choice Modelling
  • The Importance of Starting With Goals in N-of-1 Studies, 2020, Frontiers in Digital Health

Best Publications

  • A lived informatics model of personal informatics

    Daniel A. Epstein;An Ping;James Fogarty;Sean A. Munson

  • Predicting human interruptibility with sensors

    James Fogarty;Scott E. Hudson;Christopher G. Atkeson;Daniel Avrahami

  • Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: a Wizard of Oz feasibility study

    Scott Hudson;James Fogarty;Christopher Atkeson;Daniel Avrahami

  • Examining Menstrual Tracking to Inform the Design of Personal Informatics Tools

    Daniel A. Epstein;Nicole B. Lee;Jennifer H. Kang;Elena Agapie

  • Sensing from the basement: a feasibility study of unobtrusive and low-cost home activity recognition

    James Fogarty;Carolyn Au;Scott E. Hudson

  • Barriers and Negative Nudges: Exploring Challenges in Food Journaling

    Felicia Cordeiro;Daniel A. Epstein;Edison Thomaz;Elizabeth Bales

  • Beyond Abandonment to Next Steps: Understanding and Designing for Life after Personal Informatics Tool Use

    Daniel A. Epstein;Monica Caraway;Chuck Johnston;An Ping

  • HydroSense: infrastructure-mediated single-point sensing of whole-home water activity

    Jon E. Froehlich;Eric Larson;Tim Campbell;Conor Haggerty

  • Boundary Negotiating Artifacts in Personal Informatics: Patient-Provider Collaboration with Patient-Generated Data

    Chia-Fang Chung;Kristin Dew;Allison Cole;Jasmine Zia

  • CueFlik: interactive concept learning in image search

    James Fogarty;Desney Tan;Ashish Kapoor;Simon Winder

  • When Personal Tracking Becomes Social: Examining the Use of Instagram for Healthy Eating

    Chia-Fang Chung;Elena Agapie;Jessica Schroeder;Sonali Mishra

  • Presence versus availability: the design and evaluation of a context-aware communication client

    James Fogarty;Jennifer Lai;Jim Christensen

  • Taming data complexity in lifelogs: exploring visual cuts of personal informatics data

    Daniel Epstein;Felicia Cordeiro;Elizabeth Bales;James Fogarty

  • From Personal Informatics to Family Informatics: Understanding Family Practices around Health Monitoring

    Laura R. Pina;Sang-Wha Sien;Teresa Ward;Jason C. Yip

  • Examining the robustness of sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility

    James Fogarty;Scott E. Hudson;Jennifer Lai

  • Rethinking the Mobile Food Journal: Exploring Opportunities for Lightweight Photo-Based Capture

    Felicia Cordeiro;Elizabeth Bales;Erin Cherry;James Fogarty

  • Regroup: interactive machine learning for on-demand group creation in social networks

    Saleema Amershi;James Fogarty;Daniel Weld

  • How it works: a field study of non-technical users interacting with an intelligent system

    Joe Tullio;Anind K. Dey;Jason Chalecki;James Fogarty

  • Assieme: finding and leveraging implicit references in a web search interface for programmers

    Raphael Hoffmann;James Fogarty;Daniel S. Weld

  • Prefab: implementing advanced behaviors using pixel-based reverse engineering of interface structure

    Morgan Dixon;James Fogarty

Frequent Co-Authors

Sean A. Munson
Sean A. Munson University of Washington
Scott E. Hudson
Scott E. Hudson Carnegie Mellon University
Julie A. Kientz
Julie A. Kientz University of Washington
Jacob O. Wobbrock
Jacob O. Wobbrock University of Washington
Desney S. Tan
Desney S. Tan Microsoft (United States)
Ashish Kapoor
Ashish Kapoor Microsoft (United States)
Jon E. Froehlich
Jon E. Froehlich University of Washington
Shwetak N. Patel
Shwetak N. Patel University of Washington
James A. Landay
James A. Landay Stanford University
Daniel S. Weld
Daniel S. Weld University of Washington

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

As computer science continues to evolve rapidly, students often look to similar fields and online options for flexibility and affordability. Exploring a physics degree online can provide a strong foundation in analytical and problem-solving skills essential for tech careers. Those interested in working with big data may consider pursuing an affordable data science degree, opening doors to high-demand roles in artificial intelligence and analytics.

For students interested in hardware, networking, or telecommunications, exploring electrical engineering online tuition costs can help identify programs that fit your budget and career goals. Additionally, those looking for quicker entry into the tech workforce can benefit from easy certifications to get online, which often lead to well-paying positions in areas like cybersecurity, networking, and cloud computing.

Ultimately, the right study pathway—whether a degree or certification—will depend on your interests, career goals, and preferred learning format. With many convenient and affordable options online, you have more flexibility than ever to shape your future in technology.

Best Scientists Citing James Fogarty

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles