25 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2018
    1. Surveillance studies have tracked a shift from discipline to control (Deleuze 1992; Haggerty and Ericson 2000; Lyon 2014) exemplified by the shift from monitoring confined populations (through technologies such as the panopticon) to using new technologies to keep track of mobile populations.

      Design implication for ICT4D and ICT for humanitarian response -- moving beyond controlled environment surveillance to ubiquitous and omnipresent.

    1. A promising approach that addresses some worker output issues examines the way that workers do their work rather than the output itself, using machine learning and/or visualization to predict the quality of a worker’s output from their behavior [119,120]

      This process improvement idea has some interesting design implications for improving temporal qualities of SBTF data: • How is the volunteer thinking about time? • Where does temporality enter into the data collection workflow? • What metadata do they rely on? • What is their temporal sensemaking approach?

    1. There is also a need for mechanisms to support transformations and processesover time, both for scientific data and scientific ideas. These mechanisms should not only help the user visualize but also express time and change.

      This is still true today. Is the problem truly a technical one or an opportunity to re-imagine the human process of representing time as an attribute and time as a function of evolving data?

  2. Jul 2018
    1. 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?

    2. . When creating tools for schedulingandcoordination, it is crucial to provide ways for people to take into account not just the multiplicity of (potentially dissonant) rhythms [22, 46], but also the differential affective experiencesof time rendered by such rhythms.

      Design implication: How to accommodate rhythms and obligation with social coordination work?

      ".. one 'chunk' of time is not equivalent to any other 'chunk'"

    3. Our rendering of porous time imagines a newperspective on time, in whichthe dominant temporal logic expandsbeyond ideals of control and mastery to include navigation(with or without conscious attention) of that which cannot be gridded or managed: the temporal trails, multiple interests, misaligned rhythms and expectations of others.

      Design implication: How to mesh temporal logic with porous time realities?

    4. Yet, thepromise of social control affordedby information and communication technologies belies the inadequacy ofthe dominant temporal logic.

      Design implication: Re-aligning real time needs/pressures/representations with temporal logic.

    5. A close look at the ways that people continually navigate the expectations and rhythms of those around them reveals how much the rhetoric of time management and control, built on the assumption that one is a solo temporal agent,is a fiction.To be considered a success in various social arenas (either via internal assessment or external validation) means that individualsoften cannot choose whether or not to attend to certain temporal obligations.

      Design implication: Empowering people to navigate time more effectively or at least balance obligated time pressures.

      Critique of time management industrial complex.

    6. Thinking abouttime as mosaic raises numerous questionsabout:when the mosaic is and is not obvious; what forms of interaction (or tiles) are given priority in any one moment; what skillsareneeded to engage in mosaic time with more or less effort; and what the effects of mosaic timeareon concentration, stress, and affect. Mosaic time appears mostsuccessful when people engage in attention switching in order to enact multiple social roles at once.

      Design implication: How to accommodate mosaic time needs?

      How to even prompt users to more effectively switch to mosaic time when appropriate?

    7. . Notably, this lack of predictability had large social, rather than individual, implications—a finding that strongly echoes prior CSCW research [1, 4, 13, 15, 20, 22, 34, 35, 36, 38, 45, 46, 59]

      Design implication: This is the nut to crack.

    8. Aligned with chunk-able time is the assumption that each chunk of time, or its particular gridded arrangement, is allocated to a single purpose.

      Definition of single purpose time.

      Design implication: How does single-purpose time align or conflict with multitasking and/or blurred task types that overlap home vs office, personal vs professional.

    9. The expectation that time is chunk-able is conditioned by an understanding that time exists in units (a second, a minute, a year) and that temporal units are equal–that can be swapped and exchanged with relative ease.

      Definition of chunkable time.

      Design implication: Time is experienced in consistent, measurable, and incremental units.

      Ex: 60 minutes is always 60 minutes no matter what part of the day it occurs or in any social context, such as calendaring/scheduling an event.

      Using a chunkable time perspective, we conform our activities/appointments to clock-time increments rather than making the calendar conform. Per Mazmanian, et al., this perspective "perpetuates a sense that time is malleable and responsive" with little concern about how changing an appointment time can affect the rest of the calendar.

    10. A temporal logicoperatesat multiple levels. It is perpetuated insocialand cultural discourse; is embedded in institutional expectations and policies; drivesthe design and implementation of technologies;establishes resilient social norms; and provides a cache of normative, rational examples to draw on when individuals needtomake sense of their everyday engagements with time. When a tool like Microsoft Outlook is designed, presented, and justified in a marketing campaign it is both reflecting and perpetuating atemporal logic.

      Design implication: How temporal logic informs and influences other behaviors.

    11. 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?

    1. Notably, a practice-oriented treatment of digital time does open up avenues for research and design, one that resonates with Kuutti and Bannon’s [23] recent account of a practice perspective forming a new paradigm for HCI. They propose that a central issue in a practice-based research agenda is the need to develop the capability to transform practices through technology. Essential to this is understanding the role of computer artefacts in the emergence and transfor-mation of practices, and the possibilities for influencing these by changing the artefacts themselves.

      How can artifacts be incorporated into a revised SBTF data collection practices? What would that look like as a product of social coordination?

    2. Consequently, efforts to design for temporal experience must do more than simply build desirable temporal models into technologies.

      Quote this for CHI paper.

    3. How can we design for time as collective and interdependent, rather than individualised on the one hand, or explicitly scheduled on the other? What does it mean to position collective time not as something that is achieved when people come together, but as a set of relationships through which they are connected? Both Sharma and Mazmanian and Erickson raise this challenge while highlighting the difficulty in addressing it; neither offer a solution.

      The big question!

      Design implication: One advantage that SBTF has is that its work is very relationship-oriented.

    4. A shared context is im-plicit here, but the ways in which rhythms that bind people are shaped has been pulled into sharper focus by Jackson et al. [21]. Picking up on Orlikowski and Yates’ position, theyargue that “distributed collective practices not only have rhythms, but in some fundamental sense are rhythms” [p. 247]. Rhythms shape collective action but are also shaped by it, and efforts to build them and to bring them into alignment are an essential part of collaborative work.

      Lookup Jackson et al paper.

      Design implication: Similar to Wilk paper. How to adopt/adapt these findings to smooth the transition for SBTF to develop new routines/rhythms around temporal data collection.

    5. Wilk [57] has considered how routines come to be cultivated, observing that every day we are presented with opportuni-ties to “naturalize something new”, and turn events into the “precedents” of new routines [p. 151]. He argues that the decisions that surround the adoption of these routines are part of the process of their cultivation, in which uncon-scious habits are brought forward into consciousness, re-flection and discourse. Cultivation can be active or passive (routines may be actively initiated, or forced upon us), and is governed by “tacit rules” that reveal “how often things must be discussed before they can be done without discus-sion, how often things have to be repeated by agreement or with supervision before they can become an accepted part of shared daily routine” [p. 151].

      Design implication: Look up Wilk paper on recommendations for creating precedents of new routines. This will be important in encouraging new/different practices for incorporating time/temporality into SBTF data collection practices.

    6. 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.

    7. As noted by Zerubavel, “[t]ime is definitely one of the principles that can best allow us to establish and organ-ise priority in our lives as well as to symbolically display it” [59, p. 53].

      Design implication: Heuristic of control for user

    8. The temporal experience is as much a product of the ways in which the technologies are used as it is a feature of their design. This points to how, just as has been argued for the case of clocks, digital technologies and practices have coevolved to underpin particular experiences of time.

      Design implication for digital sociotemporal experiences

  3. May 2018
    1. Bypresenting information in a temporal context – in terms of, for example,trajectories, rhythms, and horizons, although potentially too according toother metaphors such as timelines – we can provide tools for more effectivelymaking sense of information and its consequences (Reddy et al., 2001)

      Effective information sensemaking tools integrate temporal contexts, such as trajectories, rhythms, horizons and metaphors.

  4. Sep 2017
    1. Whatever the details of molecular basis of theguidance process is, there are two ways by which the femalegametophyte may accomplish this. (1) The gametophyte maydirectly change the surface characteristics of the epidermalcells lining the ovule stalk and the outer integument byproducing a surface-localized signal (Fig. 6B). (2) An alter-native mechanism would be, a signal from the gametophyteindirectly causing changes in the surface properties of thesporophytic cells along which the pollen tube tracks (Fig. 6C).This latter model demands that the primary gametophyticsignal is passed from the adjacent sporophytic cells to furtherneighboring sporophytic cells by the same or a differentsignaling mechanism.