JISC talks about two dimensions of digital well-being - an individual perspective considering the individual's personal and work context. Each person is different and each needs different ways of working with technology. What is already burdensome or addictive for one may be perfectly fine for another.

The second level is the social framing of digital wellbeing; the pressure to be online all the time can be unhealthy and overwhelming for many people, leading to stress, distraction or bad feelings. The idea that we should always be connected, or that it is okay to work regularly after hours, is highly problematic regarding work psychology and burnout syndrome.

There is no enduring structure of habits for working with technology; it will likely evolve over situations, contexts and life stories. It will depend on whether we are studying or working, whether it is exam period or holiday time.

Everyday life is a key aspect of digital well-being. It's not about managing exceptional situations but about systematically arranging our surroundings so that we feel good about them. Balance is not a fixed state but a process that changes according to our current life needs. People at different times require different strategies and methods to achieve this balance.

There are a large number of definitions of Digital Welebing; from our perspective, we can use the one coming from the European Research Centre, which relates it to the learning process (which is what we are primarily interested in!):

"'Well-being in digital education' is understood as a feeling of physical, cognitive, social and emotional contentment that enables all individuals to engage positively in all digital learning environments, including through digital education and training tools and methods, maximise their potential and self-realisation and helps them to act safely online and supports their empowerment in online environments."

Let us add two more perspectives to this definition. UNESCO says it is: "The enhancement and improvement of human well-being, in the intermediate and long term, through digital media." And Google previously stated that it is "A state of satisfaction that people achieve when digital technology supports their intentions

What do these three definitions mean together? From the first definition, we can say that digital well-being empowers us to maximise our potential in the long term. It is not about burning out quickly, giving our best, but using technology sustainably, enabling each individual to achieve their humanity. We can say that the goal is to find a form of technology that allows people to be creative in the long term and to use technology to improve their ability to create.

This is followed by the aforementioned definition from Google, which can be read in two ways. Firstly, we must acquire sufficient digital competence to be productive with technology. Creativity will increasingly be concentrated in technology-related areas, so we need to develop the skills to work with technology so that the actual handling of it is not a source of a particular burden.

The second view of this definition is a systems view - we need to design and integrate technology into our processes to control it and do what we want it to do so that it becomes a tool we can work with, not something that will prevent us. Bridle mentions that technology is influencing our behaviour, becoming an active ethical actor and we need to look for ways to set some boundaries for it. At the same time, it seems clear that the idea that we can decide and influence everything at the level of the individual is not possible.

The UNESCO definition then reminds us of two essential things. Technology is important and can improve our lives, learning processes, and creativity. We use them in all areas of human life because they improve it, benefit it, and make us more productive, creative, efficient, and educated. Technology cannot be dismissed as something a priori nasty - texts such as Digital Dementia, authored by Manfred Spitzer or, in the Czech environment, Martin Jan Stránský, who point out what we cannot do compared to the past or how we are becoming stupid because of technology, are a desinterpretation of reality. The fact that people have a more challenging time reading paper maps shows the decline of their intelligence in the same way their parents' generation can't turn a pot. Paper maps and atlases, like tinkers, belong to a world that no longer exists; they may be an interesting historical reminder or hobby, but they cannot be used as competencies for the 21st century, for the contemporary world.

The second important point in the UNESCO definition is emphasising the medium and long-term goal of health and well-being. Here again, we can see two moments. The first has to do with the fact that, in the short term, people can quickly become energised and manage many problems or discomforts. But the key to long-term health, learning and creativity is to look for strategies that are sustainable in the long term - it's not just about feeling good now, but also in five or ten years, giving technology a place so that we don't burn out, lose focus, or let stress destroy us. Long-term planning in this area is not easy for humans, and learning how to create it is essential. The second important point is that technology enables us to be part of a changing society; to reject technology is not a way of meeting people's needs, but of isolating them, of feeling that they can do nothing and understand nothing. We must learn to work with technology to live as active people - world citizens - long-term.