Hi Andy, sorry to hear that.
We talked a number of times on the bird site back in the ‘good old days’. Happy you’re here.

I haven’t really rebuilt nor been active. Maybe skim my (albeit short) follow list to see if you recognize anyone?

Be well.

I recall felling like I was going to die before I caught my breath. Worse still, probably embarrassed, and already covered in dirt 😜

I still have a visible “dent” in the right side of my rib cage from a bad landing back in the day. Strangely enough, the thought of seeking medical attention never crossed anyone’s mind.

Ooo, your course. I’m interested!

An interesting analog might be to consider efforts to ‘design out crime’ in an urban context.
Can we design away crime (control behavior)?
What might be the unintended consequences (liberty v security)? Parallels with regard to social media discourse?

I don’t either! My solace is that there’s often too much to absorb in one go anyway.

Rabbit trails lead me to dive into these waters recently. Designs’ action orientation often neglects contemplation of the theoretical underpinnings.

Davis renders the concepts in a more approachable light.

For a related deep cut see writings around post-phenomenology (as from Heidegger and Don Ihde). The notions of “ready-to-hand” & “present-at-hand” are useful.

Technology isn’t neutral. It mediates experience through interaction. Rings true with McLuhan’s “the medium is the message.”

Nice! Davis’ text is a good ref.

Consider design intent an embodiment of desired action, rooted in shared mental models, so that appropriate use is perceivable. Humans seek cues, meaning, encoded & decoded.

Best to guide appropriate use & support mistake recovery. Fences are made for jumping.