In the presentation I focussed on how users can be enabled to develop their computer use during use. Within human activity theory, it can be argued that development in use can be supported by designing for a zone of proximal development and that initial familiarity is central in creating this zone.  Creating initial familiarity can be done by basing interaction on existing experience and competence, but when that is not possible the aesthetic aspects of the interface can be used to provoke the user, make the user feel safe, and to communicate to the user what is possible to do with the system. This was exemplified with a recent study of the relation between first impression and perceived usability, and by an example of how constellations of software, appeared to have materiality and how interface metaphors were systematically broken when used by techno composers. In the later case the important insight was that interface tropes that are more open to continued development than was the metaphor is needed. Thus, isolated visual aesthetics does make sense as communicative devise in the interface, but in order to support development in use a dedicated aesthetic theory of interactive everyday artefacts is needed.  I argued an aesthetic perspective on HCI should integrated and non-parametrized .