<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>In this statement, I draw upon the need of Participatory Design to engage with new utopias. I point to contemporary critical theories and to concurrent social conditions that make possible to identify the construction of the common as a possible utopia. In conclusion, I suggest that forms of community-based participatory design could be actual practices supporting such utopia. </span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Contemporary information ecosystems evolve at lightening speed. Last year’s cutting edge innovations are this year’s standard fare and next year’s relics. An information innovation can be implemented, made available through the Internet, and appropriated within 24 hours. Yet, significant societal problems engage much longer timeframes. In 2010 Friedman and Nathan pointed to a fundamental disconnect between mainstream design thinking and these longer-term problems. To address this disconnect, they proposed a multi-lifespan information system design framing. </span></p><p><span>This workshop builds on previous work by the organizers and others to: (1) elaborate and identify new opportunities and challenges in taking up multi-lifespan information system design problems, and (2) generate critical and constructive discussions for further development of multi- lifespan information system design thinking. </span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>To explain the uncanny holding power that some technologies seem to have, this paper presents a theory of </span><span>charisma </span><span>as attached to technology. It uses the One Laptop per Child project as a case study for exploring the features, benefits, and pitfalls of charisma. It then contextualizes OLPC’s charismatic power in the historical arc of other charismatic technologies, highlighting the enduring nature of charisma and the common themes on which the charisma of a century of technological progress rests. In closing, it discusses how scholars and practitioners in human-computer interaction might use the concept of charismatic technology in their own work. </span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>The aim of the Unfolding Participation workshop is to outline an agenda for the next 10 years of participatory design (PD) and participatory human computer interaction (HCI) research. We will do that through a double strategy: 1) by critically interrogating the concept of participation (</span><span>unfolding the concept itself</span><span>), while at the same time, 2) reflecting on the way that </span><span>participation unfolds </span><span>across different participatory configurations. We invite researchers and practitioners from PD and HCI and fields in which information technology mediated participation is embedded (e.g. in political studies, urban planning, participatory arts, business, science and technology studies) to bring a plurality of perspectives and expertise related to participation. </span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>This paper presents and discusses an initiative aimed at creating direct and long lasting influence on the use and development of telemedicine and telehealth by healthcare professionals, patients and citizens. The initiative draws on ideas, insights, and lessons learned from Participatory Design (PD) as well as from innovation theory and software ecosystems. Last, but not least, the ongoing debate on public finances/economy versus tax evasion by major private companies has been an important element in shaping the vision and creating support for the initiative. This vision is about democratic control, about structures for sustaining such control beyond initial design and imple- mentation and about continued development through Participatory Design projects. We see the “middle element”, the structures for sustaining democratic control beyond initial design and implementation as the most important and novel contribution of the paper.</span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>This paper introduces the theoretical lens of the everyday to intersect and extend the emerging bodies of research on contestational design and infrastructures of civic engagement. Our analysis of social theories of everyday life suggests a design space that distinguishes ‘privileged moments’ of civic engagement from a more holistic understanding of the everyday as ‘product-residue.’ We analyze various efforts that researchers have undertaken to design infrastructures of civic engagement along two axes: the everyday-ness of the engagement fostered (from ‘privileged moments’ to ‘product-residue’) and the underlying paradigm of political participation (from consensus to contestation). Our analysis reveals the dearth and promise of infrastructures that create </span><span>friction</span><span>— provoking contestation through use that is embedded in the everyday life of citizens. Ultimately, this paper is a call to action for designers to create friction. </span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Criticism is a reflection on the dialectical relation between content and technology, a relation that is often political, tied to Marxist dialectics or to other concepts of criticism from aesthetic and literary theory. This workshop will ask how we can bridge between criticism of technology and design. If we are to envision and design critical alternatives, how can critical approaches to technology help? What do we need to take from criticism, which concepts of criticism and how can they be applied? </span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Since the publication of Phil Agre’s [1] seminal work on critical technical practice, the sites of intersection between computation and society have multiplied, and so too have the sociotechnical borderlands we inhabit. Critical methodologies such as “critical design” [8,6,5], “reflective design” [3,4,7,9,15,12], “critical making” [11,6,7], “located accountability” [13, 14], “feminist HCI” [2], and “postcolonial computing” [10] have proliferated and are being taken up in increasingly diverse political, cultural and social contexts. As the sites of critical praxis have multiplied, new regimes like big data and social computing pose new challenges. Given the fluidity of the landscape it is important for us to articulate the specificities of our scholarly borderlands. By bringing together junior and senior scholars we aim to provide a forum for researchers in this area to learn from each other how to navigate changing terrains of technology research and design. To maximize in- depth collaboration between junior and senior scholars, we propose a format that includes in-depth mentoring sessions, panel presentations from junior and senior participants, group activities, and working sessions for steps forward. The goal of the proposed workshop is to foster cohesion and build mentoring relationships within the community by creating a space for open and honest dialogue about the challenges of conducting critical research and design practice. Outcomes from this workshop will be a shared knowledge base about praxis, tracing the trajectories, continuities, traversals and inheritances of critical sociotechnical research over the past decade, as well as strengthening of the critical technical practice community by way of establishing lasting mentorship relations. </span></p></div></div></div>

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Critically oriented researchers within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) have fruitfully intersected design and critical analysis to engage users and designers in reflection on underlying values, assumptions and dominant practices in technology. To successfully integrate this work within the HCI community, critically oriented researchers have tactically engaged with dominant practices within HCI in the design and evaluation of their work. This paper draws attention to the ways that tactical engagement with aspects of HCI evaluation methodology shapes and bears consequences for critically oriented research. We reflect on three of our own experiences evaluating critically oriented designs and trace challenges that we faced to the ways that sensibilities about generalizable knowledge are manifested in HCI evaluation methodology. Drawing from our own experiences, as well as other influential critically oriented design projects in HCI, we articulate some of the trade-offs involved in consciously adopting or not adopting certain normative aspects of HCI evaluation. We argue that some forms of this engagement can hamstring researchers from pursuing their intended research goals and have consequences beyond specific research projects to affect the normative discourse in the field as a whole.</span></p></div></div></div>

<p>Legere is a work of critical technology-art that examines the intersection between novels and visual media as two different forms of entertainment. It is set to mimic television -- the program, displayed on an old television set, has a set number of channels that the user can flip through with a remote. Each channel concurrently plays a long-running audiobook, and using speech-recognition, the program flashes the book's text at the user in sync with the narration. The exhibit is meant to mock a living room atmosphere by adding a couch, coffee table, and other peripherals like a rug, to the project space.</p>