Quilt INC./Boundary Objects: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
Boundary objects are only boundary objects if they are acknowledged as boundary objects, when various communities of practice collaborate/intersect. If this doesn't happen, we might actually be dealing with a [[Quilt INC./Monster|monster]].  
Boundary objects are only boundary objects if they are acknowledged as boundary objects, when various communities of practice collaborate/intersect. If this doesn't happen, we might actually be dealing with a [[Quilt INC./Monster|monster]].  


Coming from a programmers community of practice, the idea of a thing having various meanings has it's difficulties, as explained in the text as well. In the community of practice, we assign variables all day long, but they can only have one value. How can these various meanings be "handled" and can they even? Maybe this is the spot to show the seam, instead of trying to achieve the "seamless" experience. Are boundary objects created by showing seams, acknowledging the various interpretations and that they are open to change (use `let` not `const`)
Coming from a programmers community of practice, the idea of a thing having various meanings has it's difficulties, as explained in the text as well. In the community of practice, we assign variables all day long, but they can only have one value. How can these various meanings be "handled" and can they even? Maybe this is the spot to show the seam, instead of trying to achieve the "seamless" experience. Are boundary objects created by showing seams, acknowledging the various interpretations and that they are open to change (use <code>let</code> not <code>const</code>)


[[Category:Wordquilt]]
[[Category:Wordquilt]]
[[Category:Quilt Inc.]]
[[Category:Quilt Inc.]]

Revision as of 16:16, 31 January 2024

Boundary objects are, as described in the Misplaced Concretism and Concrete Situations: Feminism, Method, and Information Technology, 'things' that are part of multiple Communities of Practice, but have a different meaning for each community. The thing itself does not change when being passed around communities, but the way the 'thing' is interacted with or approached, (so the relationship with the thing) changes, or the reason why the thing is used changes.

Boundary objects are only boundary objects if they are acknowledged as boundary objects, when various communities of practice collaborate/intersect. If this doesn't happen, we might actually be dealing with a monster.

Coming from a programmers community of practice, the idea of a thing having various meanings has it's difficulties, as explained in the text as well. In the community of practice, we assign variables all day long, but they can only have one value. How can these various meanings be "handled" and can they even? Maybe this is the spot to show the seam, instead of trying to achieve the "seamless" experience. Are boundary objects created by showing seams, acknowledging the various interpretations and that they are open to change (use let not const)