Captology and Technology Appropriation: Unintended Use as a Source for Designing Persuasive Technologies

详细信息    查看全文

• 关键词：Technology appropriation ; Captology ; Intentionality ; Unintended use
• 刊名：Lecture Notes in Computer Science
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：9638
• 期：1
• 页码：78-83
• 全文大小：98 KB
• 参考文献：1.Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In: Proceedings of the CHI, pp. 225–232. ACM (1998)
  2.Fogg, B.J.: Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do‬. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2003)
  3.Atkinson, B.M.: Captology: A critical review. In: IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Kort, Y.A., Midden, C., Eggen, B., van den Hoven, E. (eds.) PERSUASIVE 2006. LNCS, vol. 3962, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRef
  4.Johnson, R.R.: Book reviews: Persuasive technology. JBTC, J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 7, 251–254 (2004)CrossRef
  5.Berdichewsky, D., Neuenschwander, E.: Toward an ethics of persuasive technology’. Commun. ACM 42(5), 51–58 (1999)CrossRef
  6.Verbeek, P-P.: Persuasive Technology and Moral Responsibility: Toward an ethical framework for persuasive technologies. In: Proceedings of PERSUASIVE 2006, Springer (2006)
  7.Ihde, D.: Technology and the Lifeworld. Bloomington/Minneapolis, Cambridge (1990)
  8.Dix, A.: Designing for appropriation. In: Proceedings of the BCS-HCI 2007. UK, pp. 27–30 (2007)
  9.Carroll, J.: Completing design in use: Closing the appropriation cycle. In: Proceedings of the ECIS 2004, Turku, Finland, 11 p. Paper 44 (2004)
  10.Dourish, P.: The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. JCSCW 12(4), 465–490 (2003)
  11.Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., Beale, R.: Interaction design basics, 3rd edn. Human Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2004)MATH
  12.Klemmer, S.R., Hartmann, B., Takayama, L.: How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction design. In: Proceedings of the DIS 2006, pp. 140–149. ACM (2006)
  13.Henderson, A., Kyng, M.: There’s no place like home: Continuing design in use, pp. 219–240. Lawrence Erlbaum, USA (1991)
  14.Jones, J.C.: Continuous design and redesign. Des. Stud. 4(1), 53–60 (1983)CrossRef
  15.Ehn, P.: Participation in design things. In: Proceedings of the Participatory Design 2008, pp. 92–101 (2008)
  16.Bijker, W.E., Pinch, T.J.: The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit of Each Other. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1987)
  17.Bødker, S., Christiansen, E.: Poetry in motion: Appropriation of the world of apps. In: Proceedings of the ECCE 2012, pp. 78–84. ACM (2012)
  
• 作者单位：Alina Krischkowsky (18)
  Bernhard Maurer (18)
  Manfred Tscheligi (18)
  
  18. Center for Human-Computer Interaction, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
  
• 丛书名：Persuasive Technology
• ISBN：978-3-319-31510-2
• 刊物类别：Computer Science
• 刊物主题：Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
  Computer Communication Networks
  Software Engineering
  Data Encryption
  Database Management
  Computation by Abstract Devices
  Algorithm Analysis and Problem Complexity
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1611-3349

文摘

In this paper we theoretically reflect upon persuasive technology usage under the light of technology appropriation. The intended usage of technology often fails, meaning that the designers’ intended use is not always translated into user behavior. This is also true for persuasive technology, since technology will always be used within a context involving users’ own intentions that may not always be anticipated by designers. This clashes with Fogg’s framing of captology, which explicitly focuses on endogenous intent, i.e., a persuasive intent that is designed into a technology. With this paper we open up an initial theoretical discourse around these two concepts, highlighting how the design of persuasive technologies can be informed by existing knowledge around technology appropriation. This is done by reflecting upon three identified ‘action points’: (1) learning from appropriation, (2) designing for appropriation, and (3) designing for personal differences and ambiguity of interaction.