Cited by 50Usability and User Interface DesignInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Designing for Appropriation: A Theoretical Account

Open access
Tchounikine, Pierre·2017·Human–Computer Interaction

Abstract

In this article, we propose a theoretical account of software appropriation as a basis for considering how to design software for appropriation. The analysis we develop is based on a holistic perspective including artifact mediation (how software acts as a mediator of users’ activities and how users develop instruments), ecologies of artifacts (taking into consideration that users use multiple artifacts), collective and work practice aspects, and technical and software engineering aspects (different forms of and approaches to software adaptation by users). It leads to an understanding that software appropriation is related to how users consider software as a mediator of their activity and turn it into an instrument for themselves based on the functional values they attribute to it. Building on this analysis, We outline a general perspective on designing for appropriation as empowering users to continue software design in use, review some principles and means, and introduce research questions for future work.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07370024.2016.1203263

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bertelsen, O., & Bødker, S. (2002). Interaction through clusters of artifacts. Proceedings of the ECCE 2002 Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics.
  2. Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Mehandjiev, N. (2004). Meta-design: A manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM , 47(9), 33-37. doi:10.1145/1015864 · DOI
  3. Kuutti, K., & Syrjänen, A. L. (2011). Beyond user studies and appropriation: Developmental work research. Proceedings of the CHI 2011 Conference Workshop on Appropriation and Creative Use: Linking User Studies and Design. New York, NY: ACM.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tchounikine, P.
Affiliations
Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble (FR)
Corresponding author
Tchounikine, Pierre
Venue
Human–Computer Interaction
Published
2016-07-08
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
155-195
ISSN
  • 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7051
OpenAlex
W2465660393
Cited by
48
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
functional value, user empowerment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review