A comparison between existing understanding of TACT and our implications
| Dimension | Existing understanding | Our implications |
|---|---|---|
| Application context | Predominantly employed to examine conventional IT-use settings and specific IT artifacts like enterprise systems or wearables | Extends TACT to the fluid, non-territorial context of hot-desking, broadening the theory's scope to include socio-spatial work arrangements |
| Nature of constraints | Often treated as static limitations embedded within the physical or digital features of systems and artifacts | Reveals that constraints are socially constructed outcomes of everyday enactment, emerging dynamically when social norms are violated |
| Interplay of outcomes | Recognizes the coexistence of affordances and constraints but often studies them as distinct consequences of use | Argues that affordances and constraints are dynamically co-produced and intertwined, where one group's perceived affordance can become another's debilitating constraint (i.e. inversion) |
| Role of social behavior | View social context as a background factor influencing the interaction between users and IT artifacts | Position social enactment (e.g. senior staff “claiming” desks) as a primary driver that subverts intended digital affordances and converts them into social constraints |
| Dimension | Existing understanding | Our implications |
|---|---|---|
| Application context | Predominantly employed to examine conventional IT-use settings and specific IT artifacts like enterprise systems or wearables | Extends TACT to the fluid, non-territorial context of hot-desking, broadening the theory's scope to include socio-spatial work arrangements |
| Nature of constraints | Often treated as static limitations embedded within the physical or digital features of systems and artifacts | Reveals that constraints are socially constructed outcomes of everyday enactment, emerging dynamically when social norms are violated |
| Interplay of outcomes | Recognizes the coexistence of affordances and constraints but often studies them as distinct consequences of use | Argues that affordances and constraints are dynamically co-produced and intertwined, where one group's perceived affordance can become another's debilitating constraint (i.e. inversion) |
| Role of social behavior | View social context as a background factor influencing the interaction between users and IT artifacts | Position social enactment (e.g. senior staff “claiming” desks) as a primary driver that subverts intended digital affordances and converts them into social constraints |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.