1 – Where the Action Is – I’m very interested in his description of the design of computing machines as charting the sets of human skills that could be incorporated/emulated. I’m also interested in the evolution of computers as used by experts/coders/engineers almost exclusively (Because they needed to know the specific language or how to do electrical engineering) to this integration of human/computer interaction into everyday lives. How will this interaction continually evolve, when thinking about technology such as “wearable technology” like apple watches or fit-bits which monitor your own anatomy and lifestyle, to the point of making changes to our health or diet? how does that engage with his discussion of phenomenology?

2 – What is Interaction? Are there different types? – I was very interested in the extension of the different types of interaction from just  human/human vs human/machine or human/non-human to include different styles of interaction in which a human can be part of the system. I was interested in this distinction between a linear system and more complex cyclical systems, but how if a linear system is paired incorrectly with a cyclical system, it essentially lowers it to the use of just a linear system. He gave examples of technologies which fit the linear models (the automatic door) but didn’t go into higher examples of how computing machines would fit into the other systems as much. For example, what would a conversing system of human/computer interaction look like? Have we achieved his definition of conversing interaction yet with a human/machine combination?

3 – Interaction Anxieties – I was most interested in the section on changing agencies between technology and humanity. I was especially interested in this idea of giving up some of our passive roles to machines. What does it mean to give up not only active roles (such as manufacturing) but also passive roles (such as the example of the smart buildings which monitor energy use)? Do we risk giving up both active and passive roles to much? or does this free us up for something other than the roles of “active” and “passive” in favor of something altogether different?