Most of the specific decisions that must be made for an organizing system are strongly shaped by the initial decisions about its domain, scope, and scale.
Because these decisions are so important, it is better to be overly analytic / specific/ formal about them than to do the opposite. You can more easily "dial down" the rigor than to impose it on an under-organized collection of resources.
The design of interactions is driven by user requirements and their impact on the choices made in the implementation process. It is constrained by resource and technical system properties and by social and legal requirements.
It would have been better if we'd talked about interactions with a broader notion of "stakeholder" instead of just "user" because the latter term tends to be conflated with customer, end user, consumer types and is too narrow. Many of the interactions in organizing systems are designed to support its operators or managers or other "non-user" stakeholders
The digitization of museum resources also allows visitors to experience them from a perspective that might not be possible in a physical museum
good example of technology mediation that improves on an interaction that would have been an inherent one enabled by the affordances of the resources
while it is crucial to understand all interactions that are possible within an organizing system context, this chapter will concentrate on interactions that are purposefully designed into them rather than those that arise naturally from the affordances of the resources (§2.4.1,
Don't forget though that "taskonomic' or "activity-based" organizing is very much based on resource affordances, and you might want to set aside some specific location for the resources that go together in this way