3 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2018
    1. Consequently, efforts to design for temporal experience must do more than simply build desirable temporal models into technologies.

      Quote this for CHI paper.

    2. In their view, time is both independent of and dependent on behaviour: temporal structures are produced and reproduced through everyday action, and these in turn shape the rhythm and form of ongoing practices. Existing temporal structures become taken for granted and appear to be unbending, but time is also treated as malleable in that temporal structures can be changed and new ones estab-lished. The objective/subjective dichotomy is not inherent to the nature of time, but is a property of the particular tem-poral structures being enacted at a particular moment. They call for a focus on examining how temporal structures be-come established for a particular activity, and how they are sustained, reinforced or modified in practice.

      Org studies perspective on temporal structures.

      Does this have some implications for Reddy's paper on trajectories/rhythms/horizons?

    3. Designing for an alternative temporal experience means understanding the ways in which multiple temporali-ties intersect, whether these frame a person’s working day, or allow a family to spend time together. While scheduling technologies do of course have a role to play here [see e.g. 31], many of the temporal structures that frame everyday life are not so much scheduled as unfold in a way that isunremarkable [54], or are so firmly established that they are no longer seen as alterable.

      Design implication: To integrate multiple temporalities into technology we need to reconsider temporal structures -- or the patterns of social coordination that we use as rules, rhythms, habits, and practices that guide activity.