pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.13138 · v1 · pith:7SFUPNELnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · 💻 cs.OH

The Limits of Time

B. Biira , Amelia Lee Do\u{g}an This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 05:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.OH
keywords LIMITStimetemporalitysustainable computingliterature reviewtemporal engagementlong-term well-being
0
0 comments X

The pith

A systematic review of LIMITS scholarship identifies five recurring types of engagement with time and temporality.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper begins from the premise that the LIMITS community's focus on long-term well-being necessarily raises questions of time. It conducts a systematic literature review of the last decade of LIMITS papers and isolates the subset that addresses time explicitly. Within that subset the authors locate five recurring patterns: computing time, methodological and design time, politics and ethics of time, biological and ecological time, and afterlife and waste time. These patterns, the authors argue, reveal how implicit assumptions about time already shape research practices, design choices, and accounts of technological impact. The review concludes that more explicit, plural, and situated attention to time would strengthen the community's stated commitments.

Core claim

Through a systematic literature review of the last decade of LIMITS scholarship, five recurring types of temporal engagement are identified in the work that does address time: computing time, methodological and design time, politics and ethics of time, biological and ecological time, and afterlife and waste time. These types show how implicit assumptions about time are embedded across research practices, design approaches, and accounts of technological impact, pointing to the need for more explicit, plural, and situated engagements with time.

What carries the argument

The systematic literature review that extracts and groups the five recurring types of temporal engagement from the last decade of LIMITS papers.

If this is right

  • Implicit assumptions about time already shape which futures are imagined and which problems are prioritized in LIMITS work.
  • Design approaches and research practices carry specific temporal frameworks that affect how technological impact is described.
  • Cross-disciplinary scholarship on time as an analytic concern can be brought into conversation with existing LIMITS patterns.
  • Making temporal assumptions explicit would support the community's orientation toward long-term well-being.
  • Plural and situated engagements with time would alter accounts of technological impact within the field.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same five-type classification might surface in other computing subfields that claim long-term orientations.
  • Different temporal frames could reorder which solutions appear viable once they are examined side by side.
  • Treating the five types as an analytic checklist could change how future LIMITS papers are written and reviewed.
  • Extending the review beyond the LIMITS venue itself would test whether the patterns are community-specific or wider.

Load-bearing premise

The papers published in the LIMITS venue over the last decade form a representative sample from which the main patterns of temporal engagement can be identified.

What would settle it

A re-review of the same corpus that finds the majority of time-related passages fall outside the five listed types or that additional types appear with comparable frequency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13138 by Amelia Lee Do\u{g}an, B. Biira.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Phone lock screen showing Gregorian calendar date [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ) Contributions that did not meet the expanded inclusion criteria, mostly papers whose contribution did not hinge on or substan￾tially discuss any temporal concept, assumption, or metaphor, were excluded. 5.3 Reflexive Annotation For the 51 included papers, the first author annotated each paper for explicit temporal frameworks, temporal assumptions, absences, and metaphors. Reflexive notes were taken askin… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The LIMITS community was founded to foster conversations that move away from growth-oriented visions and values in computing toward a focus on long-term well-being. This orientation, we argue, inherently engages questions of time and temporality. Prior work has shown that temporal frameworks shape how futures are imagined, which problems are understood to be worth attending to, and which solutions or alternatives are pursued. We begin this paper with author observations of time in their lived experience, and then extend these observations to the LIMITS community. Through a systematic literature review of the last decade of LIMITS scholarship, we identify ways that explicit attention to how concepts of time and temporality are understood would enrich Limits scholarship. Within the LIMITS scholarship that does engage with time, we identify five recurring types of temporal engagement: computing time, methodological and design time, politics and ethics of time, biological and ecological time, and afterlife and waste time. Together, these engagement types highlight how implicit assumptions about time are embedded across research practices, design approaches, and accounts of technological impact within LIMITS work. We discuss these findings in relation to cross-disciplinary scholarship that takes time as an analytic concern and consider how these patterns point to a broader need for more explicit, plural, and situated engagements with time in the LIMITS community, and why this matters for the community's commitments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the LIMITS community inherently engages questions of time and temporality. It begins with author observations of lived experience with time and extends these via a systematic literature review of the last decade of LIMITS scholarship. Within the subset of work that engages time, the authors identify five recurring types of temporal engagement: computing time, methodological and design time, politics and ethics of time, biological and ecological time, and afterlife and waste time. The paper argues that these types reveal embedded implicit assumptions about time and calls for more explicit, plural, and situated engagements with time to enrich the community's commitments to long-term well-being.

Significance. If the typology is shown to be robustly derived from a representative corpus, the work could help the LIMITS community surface how temporal frameworks shape problem selection, solution design, and accounts of impact. Linking these patterns to cross-disciplinary scholarship on time would strengthen the paper's bridge-building value without requiring new empirical data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / SLR description] The systematic literature review section provides no details on search strategy, databases, search terms, screening numbers, inclusion/exclusion criteria, total papers reviewed, or the inductive or deductive process used to derive the five types. This absence directly undermines the claim that the types represent the main recurring patterns, as the representativeness and reproducibility of the synthesis cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Results / Typology presentation] No quantitative indicators (e.g., number or proportion of papers per type, frequency thresholds, or inter-coder agreement) accompany the five-type classification. Without such grounding, the assertion that these are the 'recurring' types rests on uninspectable qualitative synthesis.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The opening author observations of lived experience with time are not explicitly linked to the subsequent typology; a short paragraph clarifying their role (e.g., as sensitizing concepts) would improve transparency.
  2. A summary table listing the five types alongside one or two illustrative citations or short excerpts from the reviewed corpus would aid readability and allow readers to assess the mapping.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which highlights important opportunities to strengthen the transparency and rigor of our systematic literature review. We agree that the current manuscript would benefit from expanded methodological details and quantitative indicators to support the typology. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / SLR description] The systematic literature review section provides no details on search strategy, databases, search terms, screening numbers, inclusion/exclusion criteria, total papers reviewed, or the inductive or deductive process used to derive the five types. This absence directly undermines the claim that the types represent the main recurring patterns, as the representativeness and reproducibility of the synthesis cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current draft omits these details, which limits evaluability. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated Methods subsection that specifies: the search strategy and terms (including keywords such as time, temporality, future, long-term, and related variants), databases searched (e.g., ACM Digital Library and others relevant to LIMITS proceedings), screening and inclusion/exclusion criteria, total papers reviewed and retained, and the inductive process by which the five types were derived from the corpus. This addition will directly address concerns about representativeness and reproducibility. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / Typology presentation] No quantitative indicators (e.g., number or proportion of papers per type, frequency thresholds, or inter-coder agreement) accompany the five-type classification. Without such grounding, the assertion that these are the 'recurring' types rests on uninspectable qualitative synthesis.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative grounding would strengthen the presentation. In the revision, we will include a summary table reporting the number and proportion of papers assigned to each of the five types. We will also clarify the inductive nature of the analysis and describe steps taken to ensure consistency in type assignment. While strict frequency thresholds were not applied (as the typology emerged from patterns rather than predefined criteria), the distribution data will make the claim of 'recurring' types more inspectable and transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: observational typology from external corpus review

full rationale

The paper performs a systematic literature review of LIMITS scholarship and reports five recurring types of temporal engagement as observations drawn from the reviewed papers. These types are not defined in terms of each other, fitted to the authors' own prior equations, or justified via self-citation chains that reduce the central claim to unverified inputs. No mathematical derivations, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear; the work is self-contained as an empirical mapping from an external corpus to a descriptive typology, with no load-bearing step that collapses by construction to the paper's own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative literature-review paper. No numerical parameters are fitted, no new physical or mathematical entities are postulated, and the central claim rests on standard assumptions of qualitative synthesis rather than ad-hoc inventions.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Explicit attention to time and temporality would enrich LIMITS scholarship
    Stated directly in the abstract as the motivation for the review.
  • domain assumption A systematic literature review of the last decade captures the relevant temporal engagements in the field
    Implicit in the method described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5759 in / 1316 out tokens · 19366 ms · 2026-06-27T05:15:46.007921+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Roel Roscam Abbing. 2021. ‘This is a solar-powered website, which means it sometimes goes offline’: a design inquiry into degrowth and ICT. InLIMITS Workshop on Computing within Limits. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.e78d19f6

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.e78d19f6 2021

  2. [2]

    Anishinaabe time

    Sakihitowin Awasis. 2020. "Anishinaabe time": temporalities and impact as- sessment in pipeline reviews.Journal of Political Ecology27, 1 (Jan. 2020). doi:10.2458/v27i1.23236

    work page doi:10.2458/v27i1.23236 2020

  3. [3]

    Laura Bear. 2016. Time as Technique.Annual Review of Anthropology45, 1 (Oct. 2016), 487–502. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030159

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030159 2016

  4. [4]

    Esta Bhardwaj, Han Qiao, and Christoph Becker. 2023. Pathways to urban sustainability: Design perspectives on a data curation and visualization platform. InNinth Computing within Limits 2023. LIMITS, Virtual. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269. 541455de

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269 2023

  5. [5]

    Eshta Bhardwaj, Han Qiao, and Christoph Becker. 2024. Limits at a Distance: De- sign Directions to Address Psychological Distance in Policy Decisions Affecting Planetary Boundaries

    2024

  6. [6]

    Eli Blevis, Chris Preist, Daniel Schien, and Priscilla Ho. 2017. Further Connecting Sustainable Interaction Design with Sustainable Digital Infrastructure Design. InProceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Computing Within Limits. ACM, Santa Barbara California USA, 71–83. doi:10.1145/3080556.3080568

    work page doi:10.1145/3080556.3080568 2017

  7. [7]

    Tega Brain, Alex Nathanson, and Benedetta Piantella. 2022. Solar Protocol: Exploring Energy-Centered Design

    2022

  8. [8]

    Chris Caseldine. 2012. Conceptions of time in (paleo)climate science and some implications.WIREs Climate Change3, 4 (July 2012), 329–338. doi:10.1002/wcc.178

    work page doi:10.1002/wcc.178 2012

  9. [9]

    Xue Chen, Yanan Liao, and Yuanrong Li. 2023. Following the Rhythm of Nature: Wisdom in the 24 Solar Terms and the 12 Constellations. InScience Education and International Cross-Cultural Reciprocal Learning, George Zhou, Yuanrong Li, and Jian Luo (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 11–26. doi:10.1007/978- 3-031-17157-4_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2023

  10. [10]

    David Colliaux, Jonathan Minchin, Sebastien Goelzer, and Peter Hanappe. 2022. Computational Agroecology: Should we bet the microfarm on it?. InEighth Workshop on Computing within Limits 2022. LIMITS. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.5b85 20b2

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.5b85 2022

  11. [11]

    Rob Comber and Elina Eriksson. 2023. Computing as Ecocide. InNinth Computing within Limits 2023. LIMITS, Virtual. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.9fcdd0c0

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.9fcdd0c0 2023

  12. [12]

    Tim Edensor, Lesley Head, and Uma Kothari. 2020. Time, temporality and envi- ronmental change.Geoforum108 (2020), 255–258. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019. 11.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2019 2020

  13. [13]

    Elina Eriksson and Daniel Pargman. 2018. Meeting the future in the past - using counterfactual history to imagine computing futures. InProceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Computing within Limits. ACM, Toronto Ontario Canada, 1–8. doi:10.1145/3232617.3232621

    work page doi:10.1145/3232617.3232621 2018

  14. [14]

    Ashley Fent and Erik Kojola. 2020. Political ecologies of time and temporality in resource extraction.Journal of Political Ecology27, 1 (Nov. 2020), 819–829. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/JPE/article/view/23252

    2020

  15. [15]

    Birgan Gokmenoglu. 2022. Temporality in the social sciences: New directions for a political sociology of time.The British Journal of Sociology73, 3 (June 2022), 643–653. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12938

    work page doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12938 2022

  16. [16]

    Rupert Griffiths. 2023. Time and the Anthropocene: Making more-than-human temporalities legible through environmental observations and creative methods. Time & Society32, 4 (Nov. 2023), 461–487. doi:10.1177/0961463X231202928

    work page doi:10.1177/0961463x231202928 2023

  17. [17]

    Maren Hartmann. 2019. The Normative Framework of (Mobile) Time: Chrononor- mativity, Power-Chronography, and Mobilities. InMediated Time, Maren Hart- mann, Elizabeth Prommer, Karin Deckner, and Stephan O. Görland (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 45–65. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24950-2_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24950-2_3 2019

  18. [18]

    David G. Hendry. 2021. Transition Discourse, Food, and Computing within Limits. InLIMITS Workshop on Computing within Limits. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.244d268b

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.244d268b 2021

  19. [19]

    Lorenz M Hilty. [n. d.]. Computing Efficiency, Sufficiency, and Self-sufficiency: A Model for Sustainability?

  20. [20]

    Gonzalo Iparraguirre. 2015. Time, temporality and cultural rhythmics: An an- thropological case study.Time & Society(April 2015). https://journals.s agepub.com/doi/f ull/10.1177/0961463X15579802?casa_token=7e56pK GzR1wAAAAA%3AcF3zz86pm1w7B56YA30McywdYOR4IN9OW4NmPV- 213GX3ieJWPr7xRyliFcvqnAOiG-ohJEGOTII

    work page doi:10.1177/0961463x15579802 2015

  21. [21]

    Richard Irvine. 2014. Deep time: an anthropological problem:.Social Anthropology 22, 2 (May 2014), 157–172. doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12067

    work page doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12067 2014

  22. [22]

    Pierre Jacquet and Adrien Luxey-Bitri. 2025. The Case for Time-Shared Comput- ing Resources

    2025

  23. [23]

    Alison Kafer. 2021. After Crip, Crip Afters.South Atlantic Quarterly120, 2 (April 2021), 415–434. doi:10.1215/00382876-8916158

    work page doi:10.1215/00382876-8916158 2021

  24. [24]

    Minna Laurell Thorslund and Ola Leifler. 2025. Exploring Assumptions about Sustainability: Towards a Constructive Framework for Action in Sustainable HCI. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714001

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714001 2025

  25. [25]

    Débora De Castro Leal, Max Krüger, Michael Ahmadi, Jason Appiah, Ricardo A. Baquero Gómez, Daniel Courtney, Ata Daee, María Belén Giménez Cici- olli, Lena Hieber, Md Shakhawat Hossain, Jeongmin Lee, Ramona Plogmann, Liliana Savage Pinto, Sasmitha Sinnathurai, Darinka Yepez, and Volker Wulf

  26. [26]

    InLIMITS Workshop on Computing within Limits

    HCI’s Role in the Capitalocene: Lessons Learned from an HCI Master Course Across the Globe. InLIMITS Workshop on Computing within Limits. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.67a8d057

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.67a8d057

  27. [27]

    Samuel Mann, Oliver Bates, Glenys Forsyth, and Phil Osborne. 2018. Regenerative computing: de-limiting hope. InProceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Computing within Limits. ACM, Toronto Ontario Canada, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3232617.3232618

    work page doi:10.1145/3232617.3232618 2018

  28. [28]

    Jens Marquardt and Laurence L. Delina. 2021. Making time, making politics: Problematizing temporality in energy and climate studies.Energy Research & Social Science76 (June 2021), 102073. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102073

    work page doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102073 2021

  29. [29]

    2003.Timespace: Geographies of Temporality

    Jon May and Nigel Thrift (Eds.). 2003.Timespace: Geographies of Temporality. Routledge, London. doi:10.4324/9780203360675

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203360675 2003

  30. [30]

    Mayhew and Elizabeth Patitsas

    Eric J. Mayhew and Elizabeth Patitsas. 2021. Materiality Matters in Comput- ing Education: A Duoethnography of Two Digital Logic Educators. InLIMITS Workshop on Computing within Limits. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.19c98f37

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.19c98f37 2021

  31. [31]

    John S. Mbiti. 1970.African religions and philosophy. Garden City, N.Y. : Anchor Books. http://archive.org/details/africanreligions00john

    1970

  32. [32]

    Samantha McDonald, Bonnie Nardi, and Bill Tomlinson. 2017. Political Realities of Digital Communication: The Limits of Value from Digital Messages to Members of the US Congress. InProceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Computing Within Limits. ACM, Santa Barbara California USA, 129–138. doi:10.1145/3080556.3080565

    work page doi:10.1145/3080556.3080565 2017

  33. [33]

    Olivier Michel and Émilie Frenkiel. 2025. ICT Within Limits Is Bound To Be Old-Fashioned By Design

    2025

  34. [34]

    Alessandro Morosin. 2020. Comunalidad, Guendaliza’a and anti-mine mobiliza- tions in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.Journal of Political Ecology27, 1 (Jan. 2020). doi:10.2458/v27i1.23237

    work page doi:10.2458/v27i1.23237 2020

  35. [35]

    Sofie Nyström, Miriam Börjesson Rivera, Björn Hedin, Cecilia Katzeff, and Ar- jun Rajendran Menon. 2021. Challenging the image of the altruistic and flexible household in the smart grid using design fiction. InLIMITS Workshop on Com- puting within Limits. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.824814be

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.824814be 2021

  36. [36]

    Kasia Paprocki. 2022. Anticipatory ruination.The Journal of Peasant Studies49, 7 (2022), 1399–1408. doi:10.1080/03066150.2022.2113068

    work page doi:10.1080/03066150.2022.2113068 2022

  37. [37]

    Daniel Pargman. [n. d.]. On the Limits of Limits. LIMITS ’26, Month xx–xx, 2026, Online Biira and Doğan

    2026

  38. [38]

    Daniel Pargman and Elina Eriksson. 2023. Exploring inner transition: Expanding computing for sustainability. InProc. Workshop Comput. Limits

    2023

  39. [39]

    Teresa Cerratto Pargman, Somya Joshi, and Uta Wehn. 2019. Experimenting with Novel Forms of Computing: The case of the Swedish Citizen Observatory for Water Quality Conservation. InProceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Computing within Limits. ACM, Lappeenranta Finland, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3338103.3338111

    work page doi:10.1145/3338103.3338111 2019

  40. [40]

    Birgit Penzenstadler. 2020. Leverage Points for Focus Flow and Communi- tas. InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S2020). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 267–274. doi:10.1145/3401335.3401826

    work page doi:10.1145/3401335.3401826 2020

  41. [41]

    Birgit Penzenstadler. 2021. The Pursuit of Essence: Realizing Expansion and Oneness by Limitation. InLIMITS Workshop on Computing within Limits. doi:10 .21428/bf6fb269.390c5acb

    2021

  42. [42]

    Thibault Pirson, Louis Golard, and David Bol. 2023. InNinth Computing within Limits 2023. LIMITS, Virtual. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.6af396ff

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.6af396ff 2023

  43. [43]

    Jörgen Rahm-Skågeby and Lina Rahm. 2022. HCI and deep time: toward deep time design thinking.Human–Computer Interaction37, 1 (Jan. 2022), 15–28. doi:10.108 0/07370024.2021.1902328 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1902328

    work page doi:10.1080/07370024.2021.1902328 2022

  44. [44]

    Amon Rapp, William Odom, Larissa Pschetz, and Daniela Petrelli. 2022. In- troduction to the special issue on time and HCI.Human–Computer Interac- tion37, 1 (Jan. 2022), 1–14. doi:10.1080/07370024.2021.1955681 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1955681

    work page doi:10.1080/07370024.2021.1955681 2022

  45. [45]

    2017.Beyond settler time: temporal sovereignty and indigenous self-determination

    Mark Rifkin. 2017.Beyond settler time: temporal sovereignty and indigenous self-determination. Duke University Press, Durham London

    2017

  46. [46]

    Ellen Samuels. 2017. Six Ways of Looking at Crip Time.Disability Studies Quarterly37, 3 (Aug. 2017). doi:10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5824

    work page doi:10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5824 2017

  47. [47]

    Sowards, and Bridie McGreavy

    Samantha Senda-Cook, Danielle Endres, Stacey K. Sowards, and Bridie McGreavy

  48. [48]

    doi:10.3389/fcomm.2023.1176887

    Engaging complex temporalities in environmental rhetoric.Frontiers in Communication8 (May 2023). doi:10.3389/fcomm.2023.1176887

    work page doi:10.3389/fcomm.2023.1176887 2023

  49. [49]

    Eric Snodgrass, Helen Pritchard, Miranda Moss, Daniel Gustafsson, and Jorge Luis Zapico. 2024. Designing grid-liberated servers for regenerative energy communi- ties. InLIMITS ’

    2024

  50. [50]

    Robert Soden, Matt Ratto, G Arno Verhoeven, and Bart Simon. 2022. Photovoltaic Imagination: Solar Strategies for Community Integrated Research and Graduate Training

    2022

  51. [51]

    Brian Sutherland. 2022. Strategies for Degrowth Computing. InEighth Workshop on Computing within Limits 2022. LIMITS, Virtual. doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.04676652

    work page doi:10.21428/bf6fb269.04676652 2022

  52. [52]

    Mikael Wiberg and Erik Stolterman. 2021. Time and Temporality in HCI Research. Interacting with Computers33, 3 (Sept. 2021), 250–270. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwab025

    work page doi:10.1093/iwc/iwab025 2021

  53. [53]

    Catherine Wieczorek, Anh-Ton Tran, Cindy Kaiying Lin, Laura Forlano, Carl DiSalvo, and Shaowen Bardzell. 2026. Whose Time Counts? Temporal Arrange- ments in Sociotechnical Infrastructures. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    2026

  54. [54]

    Hadas Zohar, Luca Simeone, Amalia de Götzen, and Nicola Morelli. 2024. When we talk about time, we mean many different things: employing visual mapping to think through more-than-human temporalities in participatory design.Frontiers in Communication9 (Aug. 2024). doi:10.3389/fcomm.2024.1440257

    work page doi:10.3389/fcomm.2024.1440257 2024