Another way of looking at it is this: Are you looking to drive behavior or accommodate it? WIth functionality that is new you may have more liberty in directing the tasks and activities. For improving functionality that already exists, you may want to lean towards integrating that pre-existing behavior. In this later situation, user research becomes critical.
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11 Nov 2008, at 02:51, Livia Labate wrote: > [snip] >> >> How far removed from the ultimate user goal/ambition is the step/thing I >> need to design? The more layers of abstraction between the atomic tasks or >> set of tasks that represent an activity and the end goal for the user, more >> helpful a UCD approach. The less abstract/more direct, more helpful ACD. >> >> <-- ACD usefulness grows >> focus on ACTIVITY -------------------- focus on USER GOALS >> UCD usefulness grows --> > > Ah - this actually makes sense to me. ACD & UCD as different ends of a > spectrum - rather than different things. > > Thank you. > > Adrian > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
