Franklin (2004). Chapter 5 (The Real World Of Technology).

“Thus, as more and more of daily life in the real world of technology is conducted via prescriptive technologies, the logic of technology begins to overpower and displace other types of social logic, such as the logic of compassion or the logic of obligation, the logic of ecological survival or the logic of linkages into nature.” (p 92)

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php

Stoicheff & Taylor (2004). Introduction: Architectures, Ideologies, and Materials of the Page.

“… from about the year 1000 on, scholastic or analytic reading increasingly replaced the older, slower, subvocalizing rumination of monastic reading, transforming the page ‘from a score for pious mumblers into an optically organized text for logical thinkers.'” (p 11)

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php

Bergeron & Obeid (1995). Temporal issues in the design of virtual learning environments.

“It may be advantageous to distort time, that is, to have time seem to pass more slowly, more rapidly, reverse, or jump to an earlier or later point, depending on the author’s pedagogical goals. An author’s ability to control or at least modulate a user’s perception of time within a synthetic environment is especially critical in educational settings where cause and effect relationships are being taught …” (p 128)

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php

Nielsen (1994). Chapter 9 – International User Interfaces.

“Icons and other graphic interface elements can also be classified in three categories according to the role they play when being used: signals (information sensed at the skill-based level , such as braking when you see a red traffic light), signs (information derived from rule-based behavior, such as adjusting your speed based on whatever the latest speed limit posting read), and symbols (information deduced by knowledge-based reasoning, such as puzzling out the meaning of unfamiliar icons in a foreign airport).” (p 239)

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php

Henderson (2006). Theorizing a Multiple Cultures Instructional Design Model for E Learning and E-Teaching.

“What continues to be experienced on a global scale can be identified as a culturally-blind or unintentional exclusion of issues of culture that result in exclusionary and culturally-homogenous educational e-learning resources.” (p 131-132)

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php

Abdelnour Nocera & Camara (2010). Reflecting on the usability of research on culture in designing interaction.

“… cultural models being applied to interface development and research. … Drawing on different social science theories, the authors discuss top-down and bottom-up perspectives in the study of users’ cultural differences and discuss the extent to which each provides usable design knowledge. … a sociotechnical approach …” (p 150)

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php

Rogers, Graham, & Mayes (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design.

“… the issue of culture in the field of Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) is gaining ground and an increasing audience of interest. The instructional designers, assigned to design the educational content and experiences, are not immune from the influence of their own cultural blinders.” (p 198)

See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php