On 11 Nov 2008, at 14:30, Jared Spool wrote:
On Nov 11, 2008, at 3:01 AM, Adrian Howard 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.
I don't see that. You can't design with a focus on user goals
without thinking about activity. So, in my mind, they are not
different ends of the spectrum. ACD ignores goals, needs, and
context, whereas UCD does not. It's a superset / subset relationship.
[snip]
I guess this leads back to my question of not really getting how ACD
can ignore goals/needs/context - coz I don't see how you can think
about activities without having some concept, however minimal, of the
end users goals, needs and context.
It briefly made sense to me as:
* ACD = uses activity as the driver for design (supported by user
models when necessary)
* UCD = uses the user as the driver for design (supported by activity
models when necessary)
But you're right - it's subset/superset.
So... I still don't get ACD... can somebody point me to some
background reading that might clarify it for me?
Cheers,
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
