Having been immersed in Shirky, VanderWal, Young, Constantine, Porter over the past year and reading about identity/object while designing now my 7th implementation of sociality/socialmedia/networking it would seem that (and this is off the cuff):
User had Identity with a constalation of attributes (goals, context, assumptions, reputation) that engages in activities (collaboration, publishing, information seeking, connecting, sharing) mediated by the scafolding of mediated space (privacy, openness, public and private squares) over time. Think about Idenity as a 8/12/20 sides dice with facets - rotating around a nucleus which is an object so that multiple Identities can revolve around that same object, all within a closed universe - such that the only metaphor that works for me is quantum physics where conversations have gravity pulling identities back and forth around different objects, and even switching state, over time. Just thinking out loud here. This means that personas, task flows and scenarios, while valuable, don't work hard enough to create the complete picture of the ecosystem, the formalations and recursive creation of identity including the diadic and symmalian ties to other nodes (people), or the activities required to achieve goals into a rich holistic experience to inform the architecture of the space. Further - 2D graphics can't compress the complexity of this into any meaningful visualization that conveys this. We have seen enough honeycomb's at this point to realize they don't get the job done, and we need something richer. Not saying I have taken a stab at that yet, but that's what I am thinking. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Joshua Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In an attempt to discover any real difference between ACD and UCD, here's a > concrete question: > > Are there different methods/deliverables that we might label more of an ACD > practice or a UCD practice? > > To determine this, we should look at what the primary object of the method > is. That is, what is being communicated or diagrammed in the method? > > Is it the User (or types of users) or is it the Activity (or set of tasks)? > > In the previous thread Dan Saffer started doing this. > > Personas (Cooper, Adlin, etc) have a User as the primary object > > Indi Young's Mental Models have activities as the primary object > > I would also add three more that seem focused on the activity: > > Hackos/Redish task analysis > Adlin's Reality Maps (ch. 10) > Zaki-Warfel's task analysis grid > > Now, I understand that most of us do task-related methods and call it UCD. > That's fine. We can keep calling it UCD and we'll all get along just fine. I > don't really care what we call it...I'm just focused on what we're doing... > > So, what methods focus on the User and what methods focus on the Activity? > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > -- ~ will "Where you innovate, how you innovate, and what you innovate are design problems" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Will Evans | User Experience Architect tel: +1.617.281.128 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim: semanticwill | gtalk: wkevans4 twitter: semanticwill | skype: semanticwill --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
