From PhotoWork to PhotoUse: exploring personal digital photo activities From PhotoWork to PhotoUse: exploring personal digital photo activities Citation for published version (APA): Broekhuijsen, M. J., van den Hoven, E. A. W. H., & Markopoulos, P. (2017). From PhotoWork to PhotoUse: exploring personal digital photo activities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(7), 754-767. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 Document status and date: Published: 03/07/2017 Document Version: Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers) Please check the document version of this publication: • A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement: www.tue.nl/taverne Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at: openaccess@tue.nl providing details and we will investigate your claim. Download date: 06. Apr. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/from-photowork-to-photouse-exploring-personal-digital-photo-activities(86802bb6-33f9-4c52-9899-a34e4f22f32c).html Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20 Download by: [Eindhoven University of Technology] Date: 18 July 2017, At: 03:22 Behaviour & Information Technology ISSN: 0144-929X (Print) 1362-3001 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20 From PhotoWork to PhotoUse: exploring personal digital photo activities Mendel Broekhuijsen , Elise van den Hoven & Panos Markopoulos To cite this article: Mendel Broekhuijsen , Elise van den Hoven & Panos Markopoulos (2017) From PhotoWork to PhotoUse: exploring personal digital photo activities, Behaviour & Information Technology, 36:7, 754-767, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 15 Feb 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 350 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20 http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20 http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tbit20&show=instructions http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tbit20&show=instructions http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-02-15 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-02-15 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266#tabModule http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266#tabModule From PhotoWork to PhotoUse: exploring personal digital photo activities Mendel Broekhuijsen a,b, Elise van den Hoven a,b,*,** and Panos Markopoulos a,b aDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands; bFaculty of Design, Architecture and Building, School of Design, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia ABSTRACT People accumulate large collections of digital photos, which they use for individual, social, and utilitarian purposes. In order to provide suitable technologies for enjoying our expanding photo collections, it is essential to understand how and to what purpose these collections are used. Contextual interviews with 12 participants in their homes explored the use of digital photos, incorporating new photo activities that are offered by new technologies. Based on the qualitative analysis of the collected data, we give an overview of current photo activities, which we term PhotoUse. We introduce a model of PhotoUse, which emphasises the purpose of photo activities rather than the tools to support them. We argue for the use of our model to design tools to support the user’s individual and social goals pertaining to PhotoUse. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 10 August 2015 Accepted 25 January 2017 KEYWORDS Digital photography; PhotoUse; contextual interviews; design research; interaction design 1. Introduction Nowadays most of us deal with unprecedented quantities of personal media, such as photographs, messages, status updates, and e-mails. Some of these media we create our- selves, and some we receive from others or result from our use of new technologies. The study presented in this paper describes the use of personal digital photos, one of the most prevalent records people keep of auto- biographical content. Photos can be considered digital objects as long as they exist in digital form (Kirk et al. 2009), for example, on camera SD cards, computer hard drives, or cloud storage. Before the introduction of digital photography, the size of an individual’s photo collection was in the order of hundreds, and now it is in the order of tens of thou- sands. This changes not only the nature of the tools needed for using them, but also the significance and the way in which such collections may support autobio- graphical memory processes. People use their personal digital photo collections regularly, for example, to browse them, organise them, or share them. Our work builds on the seminal PhotoWork paper by Kirk et al. (2006) in which the activities that lead towards sharing of digital photos are described in a model. In our research, we are looking at activities that involve the per- sonal use of digital photos, to identify opportunities for the design of novel supportive tools. The majority of domestic photo collections contain photos related to holidays, birthdays, and other personal events. But other kind of photos end up in our collection as well, such as saved Internet images, screenshots, snapshots of receipts, and boarding passes. In the remainder of this paper, we refer to all the activities that involve the use of any of these digital photos as photo activities, cov- ering the moment that a photo is captured or collected, to the moment it is used for, for example, formative, communicative, experiential, or remembering purposes (van Dijck 2008). In our research, we are interested in the relation between media and remembering, so the remembering purpose is of special interest to us. The photos that we capture or collect for our personal collec- tions often acquire personal value as external represen- tations that can cue autobiographical remembering (Hoven and Eggen 2014). The autobiographical value of photos can support our interactions with others, for example, telling the story of one’s holiday while viewing a slideshow of preselected photos. Great leaps have been made in capturing moments and experiences and creating digital records (e.g. see Frohlich and Tallyn 1999; Hodges et al. 2006). As a result, we have too many photos, and people lack the time, the tools, and the patience to organise them effec- tively (Bergman et al. 2009; Kirk et al. 2006), which hin- ders them from fully enjoying their photo collection. The © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc-nd/ 4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Mendel Broekhuijsen m.j.broekhuijsen@tue.nl *Present address: DJCAD, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. **Present address: ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Sydney, Australia. BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 2017 VOL. 36, NO. 7, 754–767 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/0144929X.2017.1288266&domain=pdf http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0517-0039 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0888-1426 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2001-7251 http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ mailto:m.j.broekhuijsen@tue.nl http://www.tandfonline.com challenge emerging pertains to how to help people to bet- ter curate their collections of digital photos. Curation in the context of digital media involves deciding on what to keep and in what format and structure to preserve it, how the information can be retrieved, and deciding on the methods of capturing, (re)presentation, and reproduc- tion (Van House and Churchill 2008). This paper describes an interview study involving 12 participants that examined how people use photo collec- tions at home, with the aim to identify opportunities for better supporting photo activities for remembering pur- poses, through interactive technology. In the next section, we review related work, then we present the aims and methods of the study, and summarise its results. We intro- duce the term PhotoUse to make a distinction between the purposive useof photographicmaterial,andtheworkthat is associated with, for example, managing, organising, and retrieving photos. We present our model of PhotoUse, with the aim to illustrate our holistic view on the personal and social use of digital photos, and discuss the impli- cations for design and research in this field. 2. Related work In this section we discuss related work within the fields of Human–Computer Interaction, information science, and psychology, surrounding digital photo activities. 2.1. Photo technology In 1998, Frohlich et al. provided an inventory of activities that are related to the use of digital photos for sharing. The hardware and software tools that are required to facilitate these activities were described as PhotoWare (Frohlich et al. 2002). There are many examples reported in the related literature of devices designed to enable people to display and share their photographs; for example, PhotoBox, a wooden box that slowly prints digital photos to display them (Odom et al. 2012), and Shoebox, a combination of storage and display (Banks and Sellen 2009). Sharing and commenting on digital photos used to be a complicated task (Frohlich et al. 2002), but many opportunities have been addressed by commercial tech- nologies that enable us to share and comment on photo- graphs instantly (e.g. Flickr, Instagram, Dropbox, Facebook, and Whatsapp). Recent example tools for sharing and storytelling (e.g. Cueb (Golsteijn and Hoven 2013) and 4 Photos (O’Hara et al. 2012)) demon- strate the influence of such technologies on our com- munication, with the new possibilities to share experiences and activities. Notable examples of research works that deliberately support autobiographical remembering include Living Memory Box (Stevens et al. 2003) and The Family Archive device (Kirk et al. 2010). These designs incorporate the contextual and chronological information to display a family archive. They also address multiple users, opportunities for story- telling, and the need for curation, which is important when designing for media-supported remembering (Van House and Churchill 2008). Research into browsing, sharing, or viewing photo- graphs is usually not concerned with curation, although selecting the required subset of the photo collection is a crucial prerequisite for successful viewing and sharing (Whittaker, Bergman, and Clough 2010). Moreover, research into photo browsing typically approaches photo collections as databases rather than cues for remembering, thereby ignoring important activities such as reminiscing and storytelling, and instead focusing on media retrieval tasks. However, from the perspective of photos as memory cues, the experience of remember- ing is more important than the accuracy of retrieval. Most applications have made use of new interaction techniques that are supported by smartphones or multi- touch surfaces, to make pleasurable and efficient manipulation and access to photo collections. However, this does not suffice to address the difficulties of organ- ising or retrieving of photos in its totality. 2.2. Photo activities Studies that describe how people use their collection have focussed on managing collections (e.g. see Rodden and Wood 2003), tools for efficient search, and retrieval (e.g. see Whittaker, Bergman, and Clough 2010). They identify design opportunities to support these activities with new tools. Kirk and colleagues (Kirk et al. 2006) introduced a descriptive flow-chart model covering the most common interactions with digital photographs between capturing and sharing, which they termed PhotoWork. This model can be used to develop and assess new digital photo management tools. It identifies three stages between capturing and sharing photos: . Pre-download stage: just after capturing a photo includes triaging on the capturing device; . At-download stage: when transferring photos to the computer; includes triaging on computer, editing, organising, filing, and backup; . Pre-share stage: work that is necessary before being able to share the photo includes sorting, selecting a subset, simple editing, copying, printing, and sending. The PhotoWork model provides a linear, waterfall- like description of the life cycle of a digital photo file, BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 755 with a clear progression and separation between captur- ing, organising and sharing of photos. Figure 1 shows the PhotoWork life cycle by Kirk et al. as it appeared in Banks et al. (2012). Kirk et al. (2006) suggested that the activities listed in the PhotoWork model consume all the time that people are prepared to spend on their growing media collection. Several designs (e.g. Hilliges, Baur, and Butz 2007) have been based on the PhotoWork model, exploring technological solutions within the stage-based framework it provides. However, the steps described appear to be those that photo technology necessitates rather than how people want to do things. As a model it also draws attention to user tasks, such as curation, and designing for their efficient performance rather than opportunities to design for an enhanced user experience. 2.3. Photo purpose To further underline the importance of research into digital photo use, let us consider the value of photos for different purposes. In the analogue era, personal photos mainly served autobiographical remembering, and archiving the family history (e.g. van Dijck 2008; Sarvas and Frohlich 2011). Photos can serve as cues for the memories of the events in our own lives: our autobio- graphical memory (AM) (see e.g. Conway and Pleydell- Pearce 2000; Hoven and Eggen 2014; Tulving 2007). Memories themselves cannot be stored as a digital or other record, but are reconstructed every time they are recalled (Guenther 1998). What can be stored are the external items that can cue the reconstruction of mem- ories (Hoven and Eggen 2009; Sellen and Whittaker 2010). This implies that curation of memory cues is an important aspect of media-supported autobiographical remembering. In the last two decades, the purposes of photos have changed along with the advancements of digital photography and camera phone use. Especially in the younger generations, the use of photos for com- munication and identity formation is more prevalent than using photos for remembering purposes (van Dijck 2008). But in line with the arguments of van Dijck, we believe that the remembering purpose of digital photos is still very important, and helps determining the value of the photos. Petrelli and Whittaker (2010) argue that digital items are valuable, though compared to phys- ical items they are not very frequently accessed, because they are hidden away in our computers. However, digital photo collections are increasingly more valuable for cue- ing our memory. 2.4. Photo curation Although we are putting a lot of deliberate effort into building photo collections that portray our lives, poor organisation makes it harder to find the photos (Whit- taker, Bergman, and Clough 2010). Whittaker, Bergman, and Clough (2010) reported that software tools intended to support retrieval activities fail to aid the process of photo retrieval activities in families, and found that their participants were not successful in almost 40% of photo retrieval tasks (although long-term retrieval is the major motivation for families to capture the photos). Other issues concerned remembering the storage location of items, and the amount of time it took partici- pants to find items in their collection (up to 4 minutes), mainly caused by the large amount of photographs to search through. Whittaker, Bergman, and Clough (2010) concluded that there is a need for new tools to fil- ter, evaluate, maintain, and share photo collections to enjoy their value. Despite their intentions to get organised (Frohlich et al. 2002), on most occasions people lack the time and motivation to properly curate their personal photo collections. Existing studies emphasise that ‘work needs to be done’ when it comes to organising photos, thus illustrating the understanding that curation is considered unsatisfying work, despite the promise of a well-organ- ised collection (Frohlich et al. 2002). An example of the efforts in research to specifically address the curation issue of digital photos is Pearl Figure 1. Model of PhotoWork by Kirk et al. (2006), as appeared in Banks et al. (2012). Re-used with permission from ACM. 756 M. BROEKHUIJSEN ET AL. (Jansen, Hoven, and Frohlich 2014), which projects mul- tiple photos on the wall, allowing participants to select, favour, and organise the content while viewing. Despite these efforts, there is as yet insufficient understanding on how to design photo retrieval solutions that reduce the workload of curation, and focus on pleasurable photo activities. 3. Field study The aim of the study was to explore photo activities in the home environment, identifying what kind of pho- tography-related activities participants engage in, and in what fashion they engage with their collection. To make this inventory, we conducted in-depth contextual interviews in the homes of the participants and analysed the results using open and selective coding (Corbin and Strauss 2008). To create an overview of digital photo activities, and the opportunities for supportive tools, we interviewed 12 participants about their use of personal digital pho- tography. The study described in this paper focused pri- marily on the home environment, because at their homes, people typically have the possibility to access their entire personal collection and have the opportunity to demonstrate their usual practices to the researchers. We explored all possible photo activities of our partici- pants in this context, including all existing technologies used as retrieving devices – such as the use of smart- phones, laptops, smart televisions, and tablets. 3.1. Participants Twelve participants, 6 male and 6 female, were recruited based on their photo use and social situation. The par- ticipants differed in age, profession, demographics, social situation, and interest in digital photography, to provide a broad overview of personal photo usage. Participants were selected based on whether they are well acquainted with digital photography, whether they own a digital camera and/or a smartphone, whether they live with a partner (and/or children), and whether they own a col- lection of at least 2000 digital photos. The latter require- ment was formulated to make sure that the participants would have experience with curating digital media. The selected participants were mentally healthy, well-edu- cated Dutch people between the age of 18 and 69 years (mean = 39.7). They owned minimum 2000 and maxi- mum 300,000 photographs (mean = 42,083). The partici- pants were socially active, both online (social media) and ‘off-line’ (friends, sports clubs, societies, etc). Three par- ticipants were not living with a partner at the time, but shared an apartment with friends; eight of the participants lived with their partner, from which four had children. The youngest participant still lived with his parents. 3.2. Procedure Participants took part in a semi-structured interview, lasting 1–1.5 hours. The interviews were held in the homes of the participants, to give us a clear understand- ing of the context, the practices and tools, and the issues that were encountered by the participants. In the first part, the interview focused on understanding how par- ticipants use photos. The participants were asked to talk about their photo activities, how often they use their photo collection, and how much time they spend on it. The explorative nature of this research required an open interview approach, in which the participants were asked to explain as many photo activities as possible in detail. When usual practices of the participants were mentioned, the participants were invited to demonstrate a typical photo activity by showing a few digital photo- graphs, using the tools and procedures they would nor- mally use to browse and view their photos. After the demonstration, participants were asked to talk about the purpose of their photo activities, with questions such as ‘Why do you want to make a printed photo album?’ By elaborating on the purpose of using photos, participants were invited to reflect on whether current activities facilitated the purpose adequately, and to think about possible improvements. All the interviews were audio recorded and transcribed in full. The photo activities that participants demonstrated were captured on video, for later reference. At the end, the participants received instructions to estimate the size of their entire digital photo collection, across devices (external hard drive, laptop, PC, Mac, smartphone, and tablet). The estimation was based on the file counters in the software they used (Picasa (for web), Aperture, iPhoto, and native photo applications on smartphones and tablets), or the file count property for the appropriate folders in Win- dows Explorer. The estimation was made based on the total count, rounded to the nearest thousand. 3.3. Analysis The interview transcripts were analysed with a focus on identifying the detailed activities described by the partici- pants, and, where possible, identifying the purpose. This inductive analysis was done based on the method of open coding, as described in Corbin and Strauss (2008). The qualitative data analysis was aimed at identifying inter- esting patterns in the use of photo collections and pro- blems that participants experience with their photo BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 757 activities. To find the codes for the categories, the open coding procedure followed the operational approach dis- cussed in Corbin and Strauss (2008). We were interested in generating theory and hypotheses about what motiv- ates people to engage in photo activities, by relating behaviours to needs and motives, rather than describing activities at a phenomenological level. After analysis, the important quotes were translated from Dutch to English. 4. Results In this section we will share the most important obser- vations that emerged from the analysis. 4.1. Photo activities The participants provided descriptions of 171 photo activities. In this section we will describe the activities, by giving a description and examples from the partici- pants. Of importance when trying to describe the photo activities are the differences between activities. For example: the difference between the activities mana- ging and organising is very subtle, and the distinction for labelling was made on a technical level: managing in our definition includes everything that is done with the digi- tal files; we see that organising is done using the meta- data of the files. Another example is browsing vs. sharing, which in many cases occur simultaneously; shar- ing a story with friends usually involves browsing, and so these labels were often applied together. The distinction was made whether the focus of the activity was on the social aspects (labelled sharing) or on memory retrieval (labelled browsing). Based on the characteristics, the comments of the par- ticipants regarding their photo activities were divided into 13 activity categories (see Table 1 for the two-level classification) and then divided into four activity types: accumulating, curating, retrieving, and appropriating. The accumulating type contains all the activities that are responsible for expanding the photo collection; cur- ating is done in order to manage and edit the existing collection; the retrieving type is the largest and contains all the activities that are done in order to find, browse, or view photos in an existing collection, which is needed for most other activities; appropriating consists of all the activities that are done in order to share or show photos, either digital or physical. An overview of the activity cat- egories and types can be found in Table 1. 4.1.1. Accumulating People engage in activities that are part of the process of expanding a personal photo collection, starting with cap- turing the photos. The activities that are part of accumu- lating photos are the following: . Capturing: taking pictures; on-device quality triage to determine retaking the picture . Collecting: adding pictures to your collection, which you did not capture yourself On-device triaging is done as part of the capturing: camera phones and digital cameras have the feature to immediately assess the picture quality, and discard and retake in case the quality is not good enough: Sometimes [I do the selection] on the camera […] if it is clear that the picture is not usable. – P10 (female; age 34; 3000 photos) The other accumulative activity is collecting. It involves getting images from friends or family members, images from the Internet, scans from newspapers, etc. P09 explained the trouble she had with getting images in her collection that other people took: My brother, my father and my husband all make pic- tures which need to be added. I curse them for throwing away the EXIF data […] [because] I have to add this manually […] and that takes way more time. – P09 (female; age 38; 28000 photos) The collecting activity is important when broadening the scope of ‘media’ beyond photographs, which poses an additional challenge: every type of memory cue that we need to curate, but is not created by ourselves, may at some point in time include media that we do not yet consider as autobiographical digital media, for example, public transport timestamps or electronic shopping receipts. These media need to be considered in future curation solutions (see Whittaker 2013). Table 1. Two-level classification of photo activities, based on the descriptions of the participants. Photo activity type Photo activity category Accumulating Capturing Collecting Curating Triaging Organising Managing Editing Retrieving Browsing Viewing Searching Appropriating Sharing Printing Tinkering Collaging Notes: Based on their characteristics the 171 activities from 12 participants were divided into 13 categories, and the categories were then divided into 4 activity types: Accumulating, curating, retrieving, and appropriating. The columns are divided into Photo activity category and Photo activity type. 758 M. BROEKHUIJSEN ET AL. 4.1.2. Curating There are many different activities that people engage in to curate their collection. The participants engaged in file managing, organising, triaging, and editing pictures in their collection. The activities are listed below: . Organising: tagging, moving, categorising, naming, captioning, archiving, and deleting . Triaging: assessing, selecting for a specific purpose (e.g. sharing, decorating, and presenting) . Managing: filing, backup, downloading, and uploading . Editing: retouching, cropping, combining, correcting, and changing Some of the participants took organising of photos really serious: I have several scripts [on the computer] that rename the photos based on year, month, day, minute, second. And then they are automatically moved to a folder, which is imported into Aperture, per year. And recently I some- times create a smart folder with a specific start and end date. – P09 (female; age 38; 28000 photos) Triaging is reported to be one of the most burdening parts of curating, unless it is done when the participants require a specific subset of their collection: Only if I want to start a new project or a photo album or a collage […] but otherwise I would not browse through [my photos]. – P03 (female; age 30; 18000 photos) It depends […] especially after traveling, everything goes onto the computer, and then there will be a round of selection, and a selection round for the photos that I want to be able to see more often, which I put into a Dropbox folder to be able to view them on another com- puter. And [some go] into the shared folder with my boyfriend. So then I am actually selecting three times. – P10 (female; age 34; 3000 photos) Editing occurs when multiple copies are being gener- ated for editing, and thus the collection is expanding. For example, P01 and P09 had many copies of pictures that they had retouched or had changed into black/white, but of which they had kept the originals. Some participants really enjoyed editing: [after the holiday] I will do some editing, yeah, for a couple of days. – P02 (male; age 29; 25000 photos) I love making the picture […] creating a good end result […] is very satisfying. – P08 (male; age 40; 300000 photos) Curating is important, because it is key to the success of the rest of the activities. The variety of activities in our study revealed that for different occasions a different subset of the collection is needed: These [Picasa] folders are to show to other people […] And I sent these photos to the manager of a museum shop, for inspiration. – P07 (female; age 66; 40000 photos) After my children were born I made folders for sharing and especially the grandmothers liked that. In Picasa I had a shared folder with a few people […] in which I put the most beautiful photos. I did that until 2012, and after that I did not have time for it anymore. Which is a shame because those are the folders that I actually look at. – P09 (female; age 38; 28000 photos) This is also in line with the findings of, for example, Odom, Zimmerman, and Forlizzi (2011) that people experience the need to express themselves differently in different situations. The variety of activities that we found seemed to depend on the audience and the con- text. This form of identity display in different social con- texts, established using digital photographs, was also reported by Frohlich et al. (2002). 4.1.3. Retrieving The retrieving type consists of all the activities that are done in order to interact with the file system: . Browsing: for example, browsing (casual viewing of pictures while interacting with them) . Viewing: passive viewing of slideshows . Searching: for example, goal-directed retrieving, searching The participants enjoy browsing, and especially browsing on mobile devices is often done to pass the time: I guess just on the couch, being bored. Or during boring moments, in the train or something. When you have nothing to do, and are sitting alone. […] I really forget […] many situations you know, and when you see the photos you start to think about it, which brings back the memory. And that is of course nice when you are bored, because then you think about pleasant moments. – P02 (male; age 29; 25000 photos) [Browsing happens] on my phone sometimes. When I am thinking ‘I am going to browse through my photos, that’ll be fun’ … actually when I am bored. – P12 (male; age 18; 2000 photos) The only moment I look at my photos is when I connect my iPhone to my computer, because then iPhoto opens and then I look at the photos for a while. […] if it is just in front of me, that is more likely to happen than that I think of a specific moment and start to search for that specific photo. – P03 (female; age 30; 18000 photos) BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 759 Searching was reported to be cumbersome, especially when the participants own large collections and do not access them very often. Many of the activities of other types start with accessing the file system. 4.1.4. Appropriating With appropriating we mean to cluster the activities that are part of modifying and/or sharing (physical) instances of the digital collection: . Sharing: remote sharing (online, on social media, or sending postcards), collocated sharing . Printing: printing photos, a poster, or family albums . Collaging: making a collage from (printed) photos, making (digital) booklets . Tinkering: tinkering with printed photos, cutting and pasting printed photos Printing includes printing selected photographs, and using online services to layout and print photo albums. P03 explained why she makes printed albums: You frame the memory; the album is always about a specific moment […] and in an album you can recre- ate the atmosphere […]. And it has to look nice of course […]. It is also about just ‘owning’, because a beautiful small album will still be the same small album in 100 years’ time […]. – P03 (female; age 30; 18000 photos) Most of the participants engage in some form of shar- ing. Some of the remote sharing included social media, others used e-mail, while others engaged in collocated sharing. [after the holiday] I sent some photos to my parents [via email], saying ‘I am home again, here are already ten photos; the rest will follow soon’ – which never happens. – P04 (male; 28; 2000 photos) When we were rebuilding our house, I would often open Aperture […] that was nice, many people were inter- ested to see what [the house] used to look like. – P09 (female; age 38; 28000 photos) I brought the booklet that my parents made for my 18th birthday. […] The first few days I went through it once every day. […] I also show it to other people; everyone who comes here. – P12 (male; age 18; 2000 photos) The appropriation activities that were reported by the participants are in many occasions linked to activities in the curation category, which illustrates that the partici- pants spend a lot of time selecting and editing the subset in order to share, or otherwise use, the result of their work. 4.2. New technologies: new behaviour Although most of the activities that we found could be mapped onto the previously mentioned PhotoWork model (Kirk et al. 2006), the temporal sequence appears to be more varied, without a distinct start and finish. Figure 2 illustrates an example of the multithreaded and iterative process of the photo activities that we found: the case where browsing through your photos reminds you of a set of photos of you and your friend, which you decide to retrieve, select (triaging), crop (edit), print, and send (share). A single activity has then moved rapidly through several activity categories. The dotted line in Figure 2 illustrates that the Photo- Work process is one of the possible sequences of use, and that the activities from the PhotoWork model are still present in current practices, but not necessarily as a temporal bounding process. As illustrated by Figure 2, the constraints of technol- ogies and resulting practices have slightly changed since the work of Kirk et al. (2006). The specific stages and the strict linear workflow of early digital photo activities seem to arise from the lack of, for example, network con- nectivity for cameras, and the fact that people use per- sonal computers to store and manage collections. New activities that come with the use of new technologies Figure 2. Overview of all photo activity categories and activity types. In the figure, all the photo activity categories and photo activity types are displayed in a continuous model. The outer cir- cle displays the 4 photo activity types; the inner circle displays the 13 photo activity categories. The solid line, starting from browsing and leading to sharing, illustrates one of the many possible photo activities that can take place. The dotted line describes the workflow of the PhotoWork process (Kirk et al. 2006), which is just one of the possible sequences of use. 760 M. BROEKHUIJSEN ET AL. have had an impact on available photo activities: social media platforms have innovated photo sharing, and smart camera phones have changed the way we think about photography, the frequency and the context in which we capture and share photos. I have grandchildren in Italy, and one of them recently got an iPad, and I got a new washing machine. He […] is crazy about washing machines. So I have a maid […] who makes a photo with her smartphone, and then sends it to me via email, so I can forward the photo to my grandson. – P06 (female; age 69; 7000 photos) 4.3. Composite photo activities Our data strongly indicate that the boundary between different photo activities is not clearly defined. We found that participants engaged in multiple photo activi- ties that follow one another, or between which they alter- nate. As a consequence, it was difficult to determine what participants consider as a singular photo activity. For example, the activity sharing was reported as being a single activity, but in fact the actual sharing of a photo appeared to be part of a chain of activities. In these examples, sharing a photo starts with capturing: In certain weather conditions, for example snow, I also take a photo to share on Facebook, like ‘this is how it was’. – P04 (male; 28; 2000 photos) I take, for example, many photos, which are for What- sapp – then I send a photo of where I am, what I am looking at or what I am doing. My mother, for example, likes that very much. – P02 (male; age 29; 25.000 photos) In many occasions, the participants did not even realise that sharing is part of a chain, as camera phones with Internet enable faster ways of sharing, compared to the previous workflow that involved getting images from the camera to the computer, and sharing it over the Inter- net using a desktop computer. Examples from the partici- pants include the activity of ‘selecting a photo on a camera phone for sharingon Facebook’ (asdemonstrated byP01); ‘sharing a photo directly from the camera phone with Whatsapp Messenger’ (P05); ‘making a postcard for a friend, using the in-app printing service from Instagram on a smartphone’ (P03). Figure 3 illustrates all the actual activities that were explained by the participants as a single activity, but in reality consist of multiple activities. 4.4. Purpose of photo activities The purposes of the activities could be identified in 163 of the 171 activities. We identified the purposes by ana- lysing the complete description of each photo activity. Eight activities were described in general terms or without context, so the purpose of these activities was not clear. The findings show that people engage with their photos with the aim to serve a personal, social, or utilitarian purpose. The social purpose was the main purpose of using photos, but also individual use of photos, for example, reminiscing, was reported as an important motivator for photo activities. We make here a distinction between individual and utilitarian pur- poses based on the data: many photo libraries contain a combination of leisure photos as well as practical photos, for example, photographed receipts and screenshots of online purchases. All purposes resulting in infor- mation-driven retrieval, as well as content-independent file management, are labelled as having a utilitarian pur- pose instead of individual, although these purposes are usually individual. The purposes of photo activities, according to the participant data, include the following: . Social purpose: for example, storytelling, viewing together with others, and shared reminiscing . Individual purpose: for example, individual reminis- cing, thinking about past events; browsing for enjoy- ment; viewing slideshows; and creating collages for decoration . Utilitarian purpose: for example, optimising the organisation as part of hobby or technical interest; searching for specific information Figure 3. Illustration of all the photo activity categories that are linked to each other, derived from the description of 171 photo activities. The outer circle displays the 4 photo activity types; the inner circle displays the 13 photo activity categories. Each line describes connected activities, from the examples given by the participants. Sequences depend on the context, and so there is no predetermined order, starting point, or end. BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 761 Some examples revealed several photo activities with the motivation to reminisce. For example, P07 described a combination of editing, triaging, collecting, organising, and viewing: I browse through [my] digital dairy often, to see what I did a few years ago. Sometimes I delete something […]. In there is [described] what I have done […] and how I liked it. – P07 (female; age 66; 40000 photos) The following example not only describes individual activities to reach a social goal, but also illustrates efforts of self-presentation: I put every now and then something on Facebook […] when I went somewhere together with other people […]. I like […] tagging people, and the com- ments that follow. But also my background and pro- file pictures are from my holidays, to show […] that I have been to a nice place. – P04 (male; 28; 2000 photos) As an example of storytelling, P01 described the use of photos to complement a story he shared with friends: It can complement the conversation, for example the picture of a ring, when I just proposed to my girlfriend and I was talking about it. – P01 (male; age 33; 50000 photos) Another participant triaged his collection specifically to support telling a story about his holiday: I thought it would be nice to have a selection with me all the time. So I would be able to show it my grandma or my friends. Because I forget many things, I can tell a bet- ter story if I have the photos in front of me. – P02 (male; age 29; 25000 photos) In an example of reminiscing, one participant indi- cated that the location information on his camera phone supported his memory: Sometime I just browse though them […] and review what I have been doing […]. I like the GPS tracker, because now I have all these pins [showing] the places I visit. – P02 (male; age 29; 25.000 photos) People are oriented towards the purpose of engaging with their photo collection, and many activities were described by the participants that illustrated purposes such as ‘sharing an experience’, ‘revitalise friendships’, and ‘browsing to fight boredom’. 4.5. PhotoUse To make a distinction between the purposive use of photographic material and the work of photo accumulat- ing, curating, retrieving, and appropriating, we suggest the term PhotoUse. In line with the suggestion of Kirk et al. (2006) that searching and browsing tools should perhaps be part of other activities within PhotoWork, we believe that designers can benefit if they focus on finding design opportunities to enhance the experience of burdening photo work, by focussing their designs on contributing to one of the purposes of the photo activities. To be able to use the activities that we found in a con- structive way for the design and assessment of tools to support purposive PhotoUse and to emphasise the user experience, we propose an alternative way of visualising the photo activities. By analysing the activities and dem- onstrations of the 12 participants in our study, we were able to conceptualise a model to overview PhotoUse. The model shifts the focus away from the tasks and work involved, and their temporal ordering, to the instrumental purpose such work serves, identifying different ways in which subordinate activities relate to each other to serve different needs. The PhotoUse model can be found in Figure 4. The PhotoUse model contains all the activities that together describe PhotoUse. To illustrate our focus on the purposes that motivate behaviour, the purposes are placed around the photo activities. As an example, one can think of capturing a photo with the motivation of future reminiscing, or capturing a photo to simply share an activity via social media. Figure 4. Model of PhotoUse. The outer circle displays the social, individual, and utilitarian purposes that motivate the photo activities. The middle circle displays the 4 photo activity types; the inner circle displays the 13 photo activity categories. All the activity categories join in the centre of the model, together form- ing the whole of PhotoUse. 762 M. BROEKHUIJSEN ET AL. We believe that the abstracted model can cater for a holistic approach towards photo activities because it illustrates a process without a clear beginning or end. Furthermore, it illustrates the importance of user needs that motivate behaviour. The model might serve designers who are developing solutions for purposive PhotoUse, and researchers who focus on media-sup- ported social activities, such as storytelling and reminis- cing. More detailed implications of the PhotoUse model can be found in the next section. 5. Implications for design There are plenty of technological offerings aiming to support capturing, retrieving, and sharing. Many techno- logical solutions enable people to reminisce and browse photos, but since those solutions are not specifically designed for mnemonic purposes, they are in many cases less suitable than the participants would like. Most tools are often developed with a focus on pro- ductivity, and not on the user experience. We believe, based on the findings, that people want to move freely between different photo activities, in different order. The tools that they use should support and facilitate such freedom. The PhotoUse model can be used in the design process to keep an overview of all the photo activities, thus making sure that challenges (such as retrieving, triaging, and searching) are not addressed in isolation, but are considered within the context of a com- plex chain of activities. In other words, we see opportu- nities for interactive tools that support the purposes of PhotoUse while engaging in photo activities, such as photo curating. The following recommendations are intended to contribute to the design and assessment of such tools, with specific focus on the autobiographical purposes of PhotoUse, either individually (reminiscing) or shared (storytelling). 5.1. Purposive PhotoUse We encourage designers of especially photo curation tools to emphasise that less enjoyable activities can be part of the PhotoUse activities that people can enjoy, and do not have to be designed and perceived as tasks that have to be done. From the interviews, we got the notion that the participants were overall satisfied with the way they view and browse their collection, as well as the technologies that they use for capturing, sharing, viewing, and browsing their media. But especially cura- tion does not seem to be intrinsically motivating: all the participants reported that they had curation-related activities in mind that they wanted to do, but that they were postponing, such as organising, printing, sorting, and sharing printed images. One participant explained that she had been determined to do the curation at the start of her retirement 8 years ago, but she still had not done it: My only consolation is that I know hardly anyone who has everything in flawless order. – P06 (female; age 69; 7000 photos) Another participant felt the need to organise her photos on the computer every time she saw an organised collection from someone else: A friend of us […] makes printed albums from every event […] one for herself and one for her child. […] And then I am thinking ‘Wow!’ but I will never have the patience for that; there will always be other things that need to be done … – P05 (female; age 31; 14000 photos) Other participants also expressed their discontent with the way their collection was organised. We believe that we need to ensure that enjoyment becomes a part of curation work, or simply eliminate curation work by automating it. One opportunity for encouraging curation is our observation that triaging in the final step before sharing is being done frequently, because participants do not consider this as ‘work’, but instead they consider it as gratifying. Especially social activities such as wed- dings and anniversaries inspire the curation and careful triaging of photos. This implies that it is possible to make curation more enjoyable if the purpose of the activity is clear. Since curation seems to be inevitable and impor- tant, tools can pay attention to emphasise for the user what the purpose of the curation activity is, seamlessly integrating into and contributing to other pleasurable photo activities people engage in such as browsing and reminiscing. The PhotoUse model can be used to find the most promising combinations of burdening activi- ties, enjoyable activities, and purpose. A possible design could motivate people to engage in burdening photo tasks when it contributes to their well-being. People gen- erally enjoy the fact that they are building up a life story, and photos can be very empowering for this narrative identity (McAdams 2011). 5.2. System-mediated curation Supporting curation is important for the successful use of the whole photo collection. To help participants think about their curation issues, we asked how they thought about delegating the curation of the collection to an intelligent system that could do the triaging for them. Almost all participants were hesitant, and reported that they would like to keep having influence on their own collection: BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 763 But […] how would they know what structure I want? Perhaps you need an intake. […]. Some simple things might be nice to have done […] but they can only do that with the items that I have not yet organized […] but they should do it the same way as the rest. – P10 (female; age 34; 3000 photos) It is dangerous to let a program manage your data- base, as it went wrong when I used iPhoto, and that is not what you want. Because you don’t know any- more what is going on. – P02 (male; age 29; 25000 photos) This provides designers with an interesting challenge, since we found that the participants do not automatically accept the support from automated curation systems to do the curation for them, but are also unwilling to do the curation themselves. The balance between auto- mation and control is not a new challenge (see e.g. Para- suraman, Sheridan, and Wickens 2000). Even in systems that appear to have been successfully automated – for example, online shops, helpdesks, and computer-aided learning – people prefer to have control over their actions. In these cases, technology has re-established opportunities for human contact via chat windows, tea- cher contact, community networks, etc. But human con- tact is not the only argument for avoiding complete automation: findings from the work of, for example, Ste- vens et al. (2003) show that the activity of curating and annotating can also increase the value of the objects. In line with their findings, P03 explained the process of making an album as a way to ‘frame the memory’, which was clearly an enjoyable process that should not be automated. So curation can be aided by a semi-auto- mated solution, one in which the user is helped by the system but remains in control. Such systems might be more helpful to the user if they act more in line with the purposes that motivate the curation activities. The PhotoUse model can provide the designer with insight into those purposes. 5.3. Context-dependent PhotoUse The finding that the participants want a different sub- set of their photos for different social situations is in line with the literature on storytelling, which occurs when the conversation has been adapted and tailored to a specific listener. Selection of words, topic, and ordering sequences are adapted to the recipient of the story (for more elaboration on recipient design, see Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). Current tools do not incorporate the flexibility that is needed to support different contexts. In short, people do not have the right picture at hand when they need it, as illustrated by P01: When I […] go to my parents with the goal to view my holiday pictures, I again have to make a selection. That means extra effort because I need to make that selec- tion prior to the visit. – P01 (male; age 33; 50000 photos) Another comment from several participants illus- trates the need for adaptable intelligent systems: I browse for 10 minutes, and then I am distracted by something on the Internet, and then I think of some- thing funny for which I switch back to my photo library, […] and so it goes back and forth. – P10 (female; age 34; 3000 photos) Due to technological advancement, the life cycle of photos is becoming more complex, and more unpredict- able, and users are getting more demanding. Tools that support storytelling need to adapt to the different con- texts and demands of the user. We therefore see oppor- tunities for context-dependent selections, to serve as a valuable contribution to storytelling. 5.4. Collaborative PhotoUse In agreement with Kirk et al. (2006) and Frohlich et al. (2002), we see opportunities to better deal with shared collections, for example, opportunities for curation sol- utions when multiple users own a photo collection, which remain relevant and yet unresolved to date. The described activities presented in this research were in many cases done by the participants alone, while at the same time many of the activities were done with a social purpose. Although our research set-up was geared towards individual photo use, the amount of individual activities with a social purpose provides opportunities to improve the experience of media-supported remote sharing. Sharing more than a single photo with friends and relatives complicates photo use. Especially the partici- pants who are parents (3 of 12) or grandparents (1 of 12) reported the difficulty of shared responsibility over a family collection. A similar complexity was seen where people depend on the curation skills of others, for example, children depending on parents for the cura- tion of their childhood: [The children] are sloppier. […] It wouldn’t surprise me if [the pictures] are vanished at some point, so that’s why I ask them to send them to me. – P11 (male; age 55; 16000 photos) I try to capture the nice events […]. I got [an album] from my parents from my own childhood as well […] so it is nice to have and it is after all a testimonial of your childhood, I want to have that for my daughter as well – P08 (male; age 40; 300000 photos) 764 M. BROEKHUIJSEN ET AL. Designing for collaborative PhotoUse provides opportunities for reducing the workload of collection management and is a promising direction for aiding the perceived burden of photo curation, and also pro- vides opportunities for shared remembering. 6. Discussion We have argued in favour of a broader consideration of PhotoUse that relates the activities that users engage in with the purpose that motivates them. This perspective arose out of interviews with users that focused on the needs, experiential goals, and purposes motivating PhotoUse rather than just the operation of the technol- ogy involved. The method of contextual interviews in the homes allowed us to explore the whole collections, but also may have biased our study skewed towards homebound media, missing out on nomadic aspects of photo activi- ties, which is upcoming with the use of camera phones (e.g. Kindberg et al. 2005; Sarvas and Frohlich 2011). Perhaps due to the set-up of the study, some of the activities were less represented in the results than one would expect: for example, capturing is very important, but the activities were focussed on the moment after cap- turing, and therefore only some of the 171 activities were tagged with capturing. Instead participants mentioned using their photos very actively for sharing, browsing, and retrieving. Also, sharing was less often mentioned as an activity than one would expect. Sharing is a very important aspect of (mobile) digital photography, and the emphasis on the other aspects might be caused by the individual set-up of the interview in the home. We did not include the frequency of occurrence of the differ- ent activities in the findings, nor did we add the occur- rence percentages to the purposes. The goal of our study was to reveal which activities occur, and how they relate to each other. We did not want to emphasise certain activities, even though they occur more often in this par- ticular group of participants. Despite the small sample size, we believe that the differences in age, demographics, and life stages of the participants provided sufficient var- iety to consider these results for designing tools to support photo activities. It would be useful to extend our research to include extreme cases in terms of, for example, collec- tion size, age, or familiarisation with technology. Not all the photo activities are serving a higher pur- pose, since some photo activities are intended to be entertaining in themselves. The selected participants in this study were photo enthusiasts, and therefore the enjoyment of photography, editing, and organising was present. The model that we presented in this paper centres around the purpose of user behaviour. We want to stress the difficulty of asking participants about their motiv- ation for behaviour, as they are generally unaware of the underlining motivation for their behaviour. By look- ing at the motivations and purposes of domestic pho- tography that are described in the related literature (e.g. van Dijck 2008; Sarvas and Frohlich 2011), we can relate our findings to the purposes that they found. They made a distinction between the purposes related to (a) com- munication, social bonding, and demonstration of cul- tural membership; (b) self-presentation and identity formation; and (c) preservation and retention of (family) memories (van Dijck 2008; Sarvas and Frohlich 2011). The purposes that we defined based on our data include the same array of purposes, although we made a division between individual and social purposes. In reality the line between a social and an individual purpose is not so well defined, because, for example, self-presentation to a social group is also part of identity formation. Most of the motivations for photo activities were related to a social endeavour (e.g. sharing and storytell- ing), using the photos as cues for our AM. Bluck et al. (2005) summarised some important functions of AM in our lives, including a social function, a self-preser- vation function, and a directive function. In addition to these functions, an adaptive function has been described by, for example, Bluck (2003) and Cohen (1996). In an effort to generalise the purposes that motivate engage- ment with memory-inducing photos, we related the pur- pose of photo activities to the earlier mentioned functions of AM. The result can be found in Table 2. Our proposal that the purposes of PhotoUse relate to the functions of AM supports our finding that people are generally motivated to engage with digital photos to support autobiographical remembering. We are aware that curation tools and applications might exist that are successful, but do not fit our vision. We suggest that the PhotoUse model can be used to model and illustrate the dynamic and flexible set of photo activities that people engage in, inspiring the design of novel Table 2. Purposes of PhotoUse related to the functions of AM (Bluck 2003). Columns are divided in PhotoUse purposes and Functions of AM. PhotoUse purpose Functions of AM (Bluck 2003) Social purposes Social function (e.g. bonding, maintaining relationships) Individual purposes Adaptive function (mood regulation) Self-function (construction and maintenance of self- concept and self history) Utilitarian purposes Directive function (making plans for the future based on past experiences) BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 765 technologies, and stimulating research into the use of photographic material to support AM reconstruction. 7. Conclusions This paper has contributed an investigation into the use of photos for autobiographical purposes. Based on con- textual interview data that were analysed qualitatively, we have argued for an alternative perspective concerning photo activities: from the life cycle of a single photo to the interplay of different photo-related activities and the purposes that motivate them. Our presented Photo- Use model can be used to emphasise the complexity and flexibility that are required when designing tools for photo use for individual and shared autobiographical remembering. Acknowledgements The UTS Human Research Ethics Committee approved this study, reference number 2013000681. We would like to thank all the participants who made this study possible. We would also like to thank S. Jumisko-Pyykkö for her advice on the paper, and lastly we would like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This research was funded by Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen (STW) VIDI [grant number 016.128.303] of The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), awarded to Elise van den Hoven. ORCID Mendel Broekhuijsen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0517-0039 Elise van den Hoven http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0888-1426 Panos Markopoulos http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2001-7251 References Banks, R., N. Duffield, A. Sellen, and A. S. Taylor. 2012, July 4. “Things We’ve Learnt about Memory.” Insights Magazine (2): 1–72. Banks, R., and A. Sellen. 2009. “Shoebox: Mixing Storage and Display of Digital Images in the Home.” Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, 35–40. New York: ACM. Bergman, O., S. Tucker, R. Beyth-Marom, E. Cutrell, and S. Whittaker. 2009. “It’s Not That Important: Demoting Personal Information of Low Subjective Importance Using GrayArea.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 269–278. New York: ACM. Bluck, S. 2003. “Autobiographical Memory: Exploring its Functions in Everyday Life.” Memory (Hove, England) 11 (2): 113–123. doi:10.1080/741938206. Bluck, S., N. Alea, T. Habermas, and D. C. Rubin. 2005. “A TALE of Three Functions: The Self–Reported Uses of Autobiographical Memory.” Social Cognition 23 (1): 91– 117. doi:10.1521/soco.23.1.91.59198. Cohen, G. 1996. Memory in the Real World. 2nd ed. East Sussex: Psychology Press. Conway, M. A., and C. W. Pleydell-Pearce. 2000. “The Construction of Autobiographical Memories in the Self- Memory System.” Psychological Review 107 (2): 261–288. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261. Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. van Dijck, J. 2008. “Digital Photography: Communication, Identity, Memory.” Visual Communication 7 (1): 57–76. Dropbox. Accessed August 28, 2014. https://www.dropbox.com. Facebook. Accessed April 29, 2015. https://www.facebook.com. Flickr. Accessed August 28, 2014. https://www.flickr.com. Frohlich, D. M., A. Kuchinsky, C. Pering, A. Don, and S. Ariss. 2002. “Requirements for Photoware.” Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, 166–175. New York: ACM Press. Frohlich, D. M., and E. Tallyn. 1999. “Audiophotography: Practice and Prospects.” CHI EA ‘99: CHI ‘99 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, 296– 297. New York: ACM Press. Golsteijn, C., and E. van den Hoven. 2013. “Facilitating Parent- Teenager Communication Through Interactive Photo Cubes.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 17 (2): 273– 286. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0487-9. Guenther, R. K. 1998. Human Cognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hilliges, O., D. Baur, and A. Butz. 2007. “Photohelix: Browsing, Sorting and Sharing Digital Photo Collections.” Presented at the Second Annual IEEE International Workshop on horizontal interactive human-computer sys- tems, 2007. TABLETOP ‘07. IEEE, 87–94. doi:10.1109/ TABLETOP.2007.14. Hodges, S., L. Williams, E. Berry, S. Izadi, J. Srinivasan, A. Butler, G. Smyth et al. (2006). “SenseCam: A Retrospective Memory Aid.” Proceedings of the 8th inter- national conference on ubiquitous computing, 177–193. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Hoven, E. van den, and B. Eggen. 2009. “The Effect of Cue Media on Recollections.” Human Technology: An International Journal on Humans in ICT Environments 5 (1): 47–67. Hoven, E. van den, and B. Eggen. 2014. “The Cue is Key: Design for Real-Life Remembering.” Zeitschrift Für Psychologie 222 (2): 110–117. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/ a000172. Instagram. Accessed August 28, 2014. http://instagram.com/. Jansen, M., E. van den Hoven, and D. M. Frohlich. 2014. “Pearl: Living Media Enabled by Interactive Photo Projection.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18 (5): 1259–1275. doi:10.1007/s00779-013-0691-x. Kindberg, T., M. Spasojevic, R. Fleck, and A. Sellen. 2005. “The Ubiquitous Camera: An in-Depth Study of Camera Phone 766 M. BROEKHUIJSEN ET AL. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0517-0039 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0888-1426 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2001-7251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/741938206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.23.1.91.59198 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261 https://www.dropbox.com https://www.facebook.com https://www.flickr.com http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0487-9 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TABLETOP.2007.14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TABLETOP.2007.14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000172 http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000172 http://instagram.com/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0691-x Use.” Pervasive Computing, IEEE 4 (2): 42–50. doi:10.1109/ MPRV.2005.42. Kirk, D. S., S. Izadi, A. Sellen, S. Taylor, R. Banks, and O. Hilliges. 2010. “Opening up the Family Archive.” In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer sup- ported cooperative work, 261–270. New York: ACM Press. Kirk, D. S., A. Sellen, C. Rother, and K. R. Wood. 2006. “Understanding Photowork.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 761– 770. New York: ACM Press. Kirk, D. S., A. Sellen, S. Taylor, N. Villar, and S. Izadi. 2009. “Putting the Physical into the Digital: Issues in Designing Hybrid Interactive Surfaces.” Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and compu- ters: celebrating people and technology, 35–44, British Computer Society. McAdams, D. P. 2011. “Narrative Identity.” In Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, edited by S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, and V. L. Vignoles, 99–115. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_5. O’Hara, K., J. Helmes, A. Sellen, R. Harper, ten M. Bhömer, and E. van den Hoven. 2012. “Food for Talk: Phototalk in the Context of Sharing a Meal.” Human–Computer Interaction 27 (1–2): 124–150. doi:10.1080/07370024.2012. 656069. Odom, W., M. Selby, A. Sellen, D. S. Kirk, R. Banks, and T. Regan. 2012. “Photobox: On the Design of a Slow Technology.” Proceedings of the designing interactive sys- tems conference, 665–668. New York: ACM Press. Odom, W., J. Zimmerman, and J. Forlizzi. 2011. “Teenagers and Their Virtual Possessions: Design Opportunities and Issues.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 1491–1500. New York: ACM Press. Parasuraman, R., T. B. Sheridan, and C. D. Wickens. 2000. “A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation.” IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A – Systems and Humans 30 (3): 286– 297. doi:10.1109/3468.844354. Petrelli, D., and S. Whittaker. 2010. “Family Memories in the Home: Contrasting Physical and Digital Mementos.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14 (2): 153–169. doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0279-7. Rodden, K., and K. R. Wood 2003. “How do People Manage their Digital Photographs?” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 409– 416. New York: ACM Press. Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Sarvas, R., and D. M. Frohlich. 2011. From Snapshots to Social Media – The Changing Picture of Domestic Photography. London: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-0-85729-247-6. Sellen, A., and S. Whittaker. 2010. “Beyond Total Capture.” Communications of the ACM 53 (5): 70–77. doi:10.1145/ 1735223.1735243. Stevens, M. M., G.D. Abowd, K.N.Truong, andF. Vollmer. 2003. “Getting into the Living Memory Box: Family Archives & Holistic Design.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 7 (3– 4): 210–216. doi:10.1007/s00779-003-0220-4. Tulving, E. 2007. “Are there 256 Different Kinds of Memory.” In The Foundations of Remembering: Essays in Honor of Henry L. Roediger, edited by J. S. Nairne, 3 Vols, 39–52. New York: Psychology Press. http://alicekim.ca/ Roediger07_39.pdf. Van House, N. A., and E. F. Churchill. 2008. “Technologies of Memory: Key Issues and Critical Perspectives.” Memory Studies 1 (3): 295–310. doi:10.1177/1750698008093795. Whatsapp Accessed April 29, 2015. https://www.whatsapp. com. Whittaker, S. 2013. “Personal Information Management: From Information Consumption to Curation.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 45 (1): 1–62. doi:10. 1002/aris.2011.1440450108. Whittaker, S., O. Bergman, and P. Clough. 2010. “Easy on that Trigger Dad: A Study of Long Term Family Photo Retrieval.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14 (1): 31– 43. doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0218-7. BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 767 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2005.42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2005.42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.656069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2012.656069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0279-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-247-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1735223.1735243 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0220-4 http://alicekim.ca/Roediger07_39.pdf http://alicekim.ca/Roediger07_39.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1750698008093795 https://www.whatsapp.com https://www.whatsapp.com http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450108 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0218-7 Abstract 1. Introduction 2. Related work 2.1. Photo technology 2.2. Photo activities 2.3. Photo purpose 2.4. Photo curation 3. Field study 3.1. Participants 3.2. Procedure 3.3. Analysis 4. Results 4.1. Photo activities 4.1.1. Accumulating 4.1.2. Curating 4.1.3. Retrieving 4.1.4. Appropriating 4.2. New technologies: new behaviour 4.3. Composite photo activities 4.4. Purpose of photo activities 4.5. PhotoUse 5. Implications for design 5.1. Purposive PhotoUse 5.2. System-mediated curation 5.3. Context-dependent PhotoUse 5.4. Collaborative PhotoUse 6. Discussion 7. Conclusions Acknowledgements Disclosure statement ORCID References