GESTIÓN DE COBRO DE LOS PRÉSTAMOS HIPOTECARIOS. INGRESOS DE

For this task, a majority of participants’ captured images around their homes of areas where they socialise with other householders and guests when entertaining [Maria, Eva, Pauline, Walter, Kevin, Mike, Rachael, Lewis, Jessica, Olivia]. The layout of the home, the dimensions and behavioural affordance of the room, the person(s) to interact with and the type of social activity desired were intertwined characteristics which allowed participants to create positive social interactions in their homes. Various qualities from seating, food and entertainment were desired for engagement in social activities, some rooms could be arranged for use with different types of social groups and different interactions (e.g. family visits or parties). Some participants listed these varying components which were experienced for social comfort [Maria, Pauline, Walter, Jessica, and Olivia]; Pauline

Lewis: “The bedroom is the only place where I can just shut my door and have true privacy, even then though I can still hear the neighbours or anything else

going on in the house.”

Kevin: “I can close the door and put ear muffs on to indicate I am busy. It is small, the laptop is up there, out

161 described social comfort in her living room, she also noted the physical comfort elements (seating and warmth) as significant to this experience:

Figure 23: Pauline, Living Room, Interactive Comfort

Social activities surrounding food were prominent amongst participant responses; shared dining and shared cooking, such as family dinners or barbequing, were ways people socialised with both householders and guests [shared dining Eva, Pauline, Walter, Mike, Rachael, and Jessica; cooking Lewis, Jessica and Olivia]. Eva noted how food encouraged social interactions:

Figure 24: Eva, Dining Area, Interactive Comfort

Shared cooking was discussed in a similar way to shared dining, food acting as an aid for positive social interactions, Jessica described the ease in which social interactions occurred:

Pauline: “We have a sofa & two armchairs, a warm fire and TV, so all

you need to be social. We also have a music system so you can play your

own music, but is also large enough to have toys down to play with the

grandchildren when they wish.”

Eva: “I can be sociable here because there is a dining table where food can be served.

Food always enables people to be sociable. There are 6 seats around the table which provides a comfortable area for people to have something to eat. I use

this area to be sociable because it is near the kitchen. People can have my meals/drinks and can eat at ease in a

162

Figure 25: Jessica, Kitchen, Interactive Comfort

The social interactions afforded by consumer electronics were also captured; participants described how watching television together, shared gaming or music were social activities they conducted [Maria, Pauline, Walter, Kevin, Rachael, Lewis, Jessica, Olivia]. The use of these devices appeared to bring families together regardless of age. A majority of the time participants stated one area in which all of these functions were possible, as Walter describes:

Figure 26: Walter, Living Room, Interactive Comfort

Whilst Kevin’s back room appears to be used purely for his children to play computer games (and sometimes himself):

Jessica: “We often end up chatting or cooking together or drinking coffee here. There is both comfy seating and a table and chairs to eat

at.

It's often warm from cooking. I often bump into housemates in the kitchen as it's the central room in

the house.”

Walter: “This room is used to watch TV, listen to music and play games with family and friends. This room is

very spacious and good for entertaining people.”

163

Figure 27: Kevin, Back Room, Interactive Comfort

A majority of images captured were of communal spaces: kitchens, dining rooms, living rooms and conservatories; these rooms afforded different social behaviours depending on the prominent functions of the room. Both the ease of social interactions and the fluidity of social movement from room to room were described by participants [Eva, Pauline, Walter, Kevin, Rachael and Jessica]. Kevin describes the ease of social interaction between him and his family in the kitchen:

Figure 28: Kevin, Kitchen, Interactive Comfort

The fluidity of social movement between rooms seemed particularly important when socialising with guests. Walter described how he expected all three communal areas to be used when entertaining:

Walter: “It depends what you want to do if you want to do, want to watch TV you go into the front room, if your cooking you stay in the kitchen, dining

room when you’re eating.” Kevin: “Back room (messy), sofas

and XBox (opposite the sofa) I can go in there with my boys and

play computer games (not v often though!)”

Kevin: “We spend a lot of time in there.

It is used for cooking, eating and listening to music, so we can be

social without really trying... because we just tend to be in here quite a lot, so if I’m washing up or someone’s eating there tea… we just tend to spend a lot of time in

164 The subjective judgement of dimensions of rooms for social comfort were frequently referred to as being ‘big’ and ‘spacious’, in contrast Pauline compared how her smaller dining room felt cosier than the conservatory, providing variation in atmosphere:

Figure 29: Pauline, Dining Room, Interactive Comfort