> > 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.
Activity Theory breaks everything down into activities, actions, and operations are what then informs the design. Activity Theory very much takes the user in :- In AT, the perspective of the individual is at the center of everything. AT > focuses > on the cognitive process of an individual situated in a social, cultural, > historical, > and artifactual world. >From >http://www.research.ibm.com/<http://www.research.ibm.com/SocialComputing/Papers/CAH1.pdf> So <http://www.research.ibm.com/SocialComputing/Papers/CAH1.pdf> cialComputing/Papers/CAH1.<http://www.research.ibm.com/SocialComputing/Papers/CAH1.pdf> pdf <http://www.research.ibm.com/SocialComputing/Papers/CAH1.pdf> Hope this helps James On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Adrian Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
