Hello Jeremy et al.

I also think this recent thread on the metaphors of Internet security is very interesting (my comments might come a bit late, since I only receive the digest version of messages - sorry for any potential dublication).

What I am missing in the debate thus far is a consideration of what Jeremy originally set out to look for: the metaphoric aspects of this 'habituation'.

Usually the metaphors change exactly at that point when use becomes more habitual and less strange or exotic. Thus what you automatically switch on every morning is not an information superhighway anymore.

But Jeremy was asking not about existing metaphors for Internet security, but about the invention or introduction of some new ones. Thus the process is reversed: think about something you are already used to doing and then add the 'appropriate' metaphor. Thus we tend to be careful and relate it to things we know rather well (someone's car - Jeremy's toaster (which however does not appear (!) as a daily threat to most of us, I would think, while Internet security is an issue we do think about)).

So what metaphors are already out there? There must be some, at least in the advertisement world. Can't think of any at the moment. Probably not easy that combines public and private aspects.

Another point was to agree with Pille on the domestication concept as a rather useful one (where the term ritual can also be added to habitual -- adds yet another quality of use, esp. in terms of media technologies). One problem here is though - as was discussed at the recent EMTEL conference in London - that the research into domestication thus far deals more with the changes use practices in the sense of everyday life than with the different versions of content. The concept itself combines both aspects of use, but research has often concentrated on the daily life aspects (where, who, how often, when,...). Thus combining the two is the challenge, it seems.

Maren

[Can I also use this to say that it is a pity that a panel, which had metaphors as its main focus, has unfortunately been rejected by the AoIR-conference organisers. This is not to say that I do not respect the procedures and all the work that has gone into them (a lot!). It's just to say that maybe we could get this together for the conference after this coming one, since it seems that it could have been a good session :-)]