Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
This paper uses a detailed ethnographic study of an ambulatory experience, where participants were invited to explore the perspective of two notorious terrorists, in order to discuss the nature of instruction-giving and, most particularly, the methodical ways in which such instructions are complied with. Four distinct layers of compliance are identified, as are three different kinds of accountability, all of which stand potentially at odds with one another. The paper examines the tensions created by this, tensions that are further aggravated by instructions usually being delivered down a thin channel, with considerable surrounding contextual complexity and little opportunity for repair, and uncovers some core challenges for future design in relation to providing instructions for, and orchestrating a range of possible activities. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2012 | 10.1145/2207676.2208616 | CHI |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
distinct layer,methodical way,detailed ethnographic study,notorious terrorist,contextual complexity,possible activity,different kind,future design,ambulatory experience,core challenge,ethnography | Ambulatory,Computer science,Accountability,Odds,Multimedia | Conference |
Citations | PageRank | References |
6 | 0.53 | 21 |
Authors | ||
8 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peter Tolmie | 1 | 78 | 7.31 |
| Steve Benford | 2 | 5886 | 696.64 |
| Martin Flintham | 3 | 845 | 90.56 |
| Patrick Brundell | 4 | 107 | 7.90 |
| Matt Adams | 5 | 628 | 80.24 |
| Nicholas Tandavantij | 6 | 15 | 1.06 |
| Ju Row Far | 7 | 6 | 0.53 |
| Gabriella Giannachi | 8 | 238 | 13.64 |