4 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. er. Each of these choices reflect power dynamics and conflicting tensions. Desires for ‘presence’ or singular focus often conflict with obligations to be responsive and integrate ‘work’ and ‘life

      Are these power dynamics/tensions: actor or agent-based? individual or technical? situational or contextual? deliberate or autonomous?

    2. How do we understand such mosaictime in terms of striving for balance? Temporal units are rarely single-purpose and their boundaries and dependencies are often implicit. What sociotemporal values should we be honoring? How can we account for time that fits on neither side of a scale? How might scholarship rethink balance or efficiency with different forms of accounting, with attention to institutions as well as individuals?

      Design implication: What heuristics are involved in the lived experience and conflicts between temporal logic and porous time?

    3. rid. The apparent equivalency of thesetime chunksmask the affective experiences and emotional intensities of lived temporality

      Lived experience spotlights the tension/stress between managing chunkable time vs accepting spectral time.

      How to accommodate unequal units of time? Or units that have different contextual meanings?

    4. What would it look like to more explicitly acknowledge power dynamics in information and communication technologies? In the tradition of critical and reflective design [50], how might CSCW scholarship think about designing technologies that ‘protect’ users from temporal obligations and render messiness and disorganization a possible way of engaging with time?

      Design implication: What if porous time was considered a feature not a bug?

      How to better integrate personal agency/autonomy and values into a temporal experience?

      How could a temporal artifact better support a user flexibly shifting/adapting temporal logic to a lived experience?