\nThis paper in five sentences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\u2019m struggling to find anything to comment on in this paper. It stood out as being the hardest paper to read. At first I thought it was because the authors were too smart for me, but I\u2019m pretty sure it was just really poorly written\u2014commas absent or in weird places, incomplete sentences, redundancies, plain weird sentence construction. Most sentences could have had half the words taken out and said the same thing. It\u2019s like a bad parody of academic writing (accessible to observation?<\/em> \u2026 Can\u2019t you just say \u201cobservable?\u201d). Perhaps the best example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The practices these practitioners engage in are characterised by a certain regularity in the sense that they follow particular agreed upon criteria of correct conduct.<\/p> p. 5<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The authors should have used Soylent<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I see that it\u2019s been cited thirteen times since it was published in 20151<\/sup>.\u00a0 Maybe Robertson and Wagner were the first to suggest that emerging IoT technologies would benefit from the kind of study\/scrutiny CSCW scholars are good at.\u00a0 They\u2019re saying it shouldn\u2019t only be seen as technology\u2014it\u2019s a social-technical network<\/em> (as paraphrased by Crabtree and co. in their 2016 paper2<\/sup>).\u00a0 If Robertson and Wagner were the first to see the potential for CSCW research on IoT, props to them.\u00a0 I believe they\u2019re right that both IoT and CSCW will be better for the cross-pollination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n