<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Interviews, Insights, and Paradoxes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://siriomi.com/blog/2010/02/interviews-insights-and-paradoxes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://siriomi.com/blog/2010/02/interviews-insights-and-paradoxes/</link>
	<description>Experience designer, sketchnoter for hire, author, lindy hopper.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:35:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Binaebi</title>
		<link>http://siriomi.com/blog/2010/02/interviews-insights-and-paradoxes/comment-page-1/#comment-185</link>
		<dc:creator>Binaebi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:36:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://siriomi.com/blog/?p=374#comment-185</guid>
		<description>My belief is that by changing the aesthetic, you change the interaction and use. Sometimes this is the case, and sometimes, obviously, it is not. 

That said, I&#039;m looking at appropriation as an act of personal identity, which often goes back to the aesthetics of something. We tend to choose certain objects over others because we like the look and feel of them; they relate to us and we relate to them in some way. 

I am trying to find a way in which interaction designers can design artifacts that are meant to empower the user to make the artifact their own. Which, unless the user is an expert, means changing the aesthetic rather than the function.

I realize this is a different use of appropriation than the one typically used in ACM. My working definitions are located here: http://siriomi.com/blog/capstone-definitions/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My belief is that by changing the aesthetic, you change the interaction and use. Sometimes this is the case, and sometimes, obviously, it is not. </p>
<p>That said, I&#8217;m looking at appropriation as an act of personal identity, which often goes back to the aesthetics of something. We tend to choose certain objects over others because we like the look and feel of them; they relate to us and we relate to them in some way. </p>
<p>I am trying to find a way in which interaction designers can design artifacts that are meant to empower the user to make the artifact their own. Which, unless the user is an expert, means changing the aesthetic rather than the function.</p>
<p>I realize this is a different use of appropriation than the one typically used in ACM. My working definitions are located here: <a href="http://siriomi.com/blog/capstone-definitions/" rel="nofollow">http://siriomi.com/blog/capstone-definitions/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian beck</title>
		<link>http://siriomi.com/blog/2010/02/interviews-insights-and-paradoxes/comment-page-1/#comment-184</link>
		<dc:creator>Christian beck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://siriomi.com/blog/?p=374#comment-184</guid>
		<description>Out of curiosity, why is your focus on appropriation in terms of aesthetic rather than new usage?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Out of curiosity, why is your focus on appropriation in terms of aesthetic rather than new usage?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

