Review for Questioning the Technological Panacea: Three Reflective Questions for Designers

The paper offers a critique on the use of technology to solve normal everyday problems. The beauty of the paper is that it does not offer any design or evaluation but simply questions existing paradigm.

What apt questions to ask at the 25th anniversary of CHI! The whole paradigm needs to be evaluated and as we "reach beyond", papers such as this will help us to critique ourselves.

Having said that it is also important also to understand that this field - that of technology/computer - human interaction is a nascent field. A proper technical construct must evolve before a theoretical framework can be established. HCI has evolved - researchers are now looking beyond the methodical construction of systems to the theory behind such constructions…questioning why something should be the way it is. It does not mean that HCI researchers should stop designing and evaluating systems; it only means that others will question what, how and why. CHI must learn to accommodate that, or it will implode into itself. Which is why I appreciate this submission. A key statement in Roger's work is her question - [is technology] daring to intervene, clumsily , in situations that already work reasonably well? Your paper takes this question to the next step...

The paper is written well. The flow is appropriate and it reads well. As a critique, it is structured well - citing existing work and referring to other commentaries on the same subject. Two particularly interesting references that might help the authors are - Technology as Experience by John McCarthy and Peter Wright. and At Home with Ubiquitous Computing: Seven Challenges by Edwards, W. K; Grinter, R. E..

Some criticisms/comments:
* you created a new word - "problematization"???
* one does have to question - is this "problematization" happening BECAUSE this is such a nascent field.
One of the things that Edwards and Grinter describes about electricity is when it came into prevalent use is how at the turn of the century, the homes of the wealthy were often outfitted with electrically-conducting rails in the floors; “electricity girls” equipped with metal shoes and wearable light fixtures, would entertain party guests by moving from room to room, carrying their own illumination.
Is it then appropriate to claim that what we see are merely reflections of these "electricity girls" with respect to computing?
Architecture, for example, has for thousands of years designed for experience. Backed by several thousand arguments and discourses, design theory in architecture has evolved not because of the profession but in spite of it. Design theory does not simply support what is happening, it questions what is happening by evolving new theoretical constructs. But it does take time to evolve!

Overall, a great paper - highly recommended for alt.chi! I recommend that the authors continue this work and convert it into a mainstream publication at later conferences.