> That's the thing that's always confused me about the UCD vs ACD discussions > - I can't understand how you can separate activities/tasks from the > understanding of the user context/goals. > > There always seems to be a little loop that I go around. Looking at the > activities/tasks helps get deeper into the user/context. Understanding the > users/context helps me get deeper into the activities/tasks.
This is a great question," I can't understand how you can separate activities/tasks from the understanding of the user context/goals." By it's nature, there's no so called UCD without activity analyze, and no ACD without taking into account user's goal, context and experience. Because the activity is a sequence of action by people for archiving some goal ( consciously or subconsciously ) in a specific context. User experience is not designed but enabled by a (interaction and related) design (we can say design for good user experience, logic "for"), while activity lay at foundation components of interaction design (we can say design based on people's related activity analyze,, logic "by" ). UCD and ACD has no conflicts or at different level, but they are just facets of one cube. For self design and genius design, I really find it's funny, it could be called a design method, cause they just describe the designer and end user's role relationship, in both case, you cant avoid the points 1) design for better experience (logic "for") 2) based on activity analyze ( logic "by" ) Thanks for the great question again. Regards, Jarod ( not Jared :) ) -- http://designforuse.blogspot.com/ ________________________________________________________________ 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
