Reading through my Cliff’s notes for my paper has unearthed an interesting comparison:

“In each case, the artefact or situation sets the scene for meaning- making, but doesn’t prescribe the result. Instead, the work of making an ambiguous situation comprehensible belongs to the person, and this can be both inherently pleasurable and lead to a deep conceptual appropriation of the artefact.”
(from “Ambiguity as a Resource for Design” by Gaver, Beaver & Benford)

In the Lowgren reading on use qualities that we had, he specifically references this paper.  And then we get these lines:

“The ambiguous design sets the scene for meaning-making but does not prescribe the interpretation.  The task of making the ambiguous situation comprehensible befalls the human actor, which may lead to inherent pleasure as well as deeper conceptual appropriation of the design.”

Lesson?  Make sure your Cliff’s Notes document is separate from your actual paper document 🙂