I'm not sure I agree with Jared's surgical analogy. A medical or
surgical professional will always endeavour to prescribe the most
appropriate treatment for any particular condition, and those
treatments are (generally) pretty well defined by the larger surgical
community. So it's not like the surg
Hi Josh,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Josh Seiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jarod-- just to be clear, I'm not making any claims about Larry's
> work, other than to say that in his definition of ACD, he accounts
> for goals and other higher-order concepts. This seems to contradict
> what Jar
Jarod-- just to be clear, I'm not making any claims about Larry's
work, other than to say that in his definition of ACD, he accounts
for goals and other higher-order concepts. This seems to contradict
what Jared posted about at the beginning of this thread: that ACD did
not account for these things
>
> Josh,
>
It can be a good model or a bad model.
Most theories would argue that a good model needs testing. How do you test
your Persona's? Testing means that you need to measure the output of your
model, and compare it to the real world. I really do not see how you can do
this with Personas.
Hi Joshua,
> In this paper, I see at attempt to describe a rigorous system for
> modeling and understanding user activity in the context of goals,
> intentions, social context and all of the other higher-order
> constructs that we say makes "good UCD" good. To me this places ACD
> not on a contin
James,
I think that you are mis-characterizing personas. A persona is simply
a model. It can be a good model or a bad model.
When you write: "None of 5 Personas represent any of the 32 real
participants. We effectively thrown away all our data away."
This is simply an example of a bad persona se
>
> So I'm wondering why Jared framed ACD as ignoring the "goals, needs, and
> contexts of the users."
Because from what I have heard is Jared is neither Swedish, nor has
background in Marxist Theory, either of these qualifications is
really important to fully comprehend Activity Theory. :-)
I t
>
> And how is activity theory incompatible with persona creation and
> dissemination?
The challenge here is that you are using something that is fictional to
convey something that is based on real data. That is not to say that
Activity Theory is answer, and I agree that AT maybe should be part o
Dave,
The why is contained in the first article that I cited. Larry's work
is concerned with modeling systems--ways to represent the working
knowledge during design process steps--language. I read in that
article an attempt to create a robust and repeatable way to model the
problem space in a desi
In using Larry Constantine's view of ACD, I don't find any
discernible difference of value between ACD and UCD. It is neither
parallel or contained within one vs. the other.
It just seems like a specific way of reframing that which already
existed as UCD for the previous 30 years. What was previou
Right, and in that article, in the context of advocating for ACD,
Larry writes, "The first and most important thing to understand is
why people engage in activities. All human activity is purposeful."
So I'm wondering why Jared framed ACD as ignoring the "goals,
needs, and contexts of the users."
>
> I'm wondering if you've seen Larry's work on this? If so, do you
> come to a different conclusion than I did?
>
There's an article on Jared's own site from Larry.
http://www.uie.com/articles/designing_web_applications_for_use/
-r-
_
Jared,
I think that the characterization of ACD as a subset of UCD is
something that proponents of ACD would disagree with. Rather than
think of these schools of thought as existing on a continuum, it
seems to me that they exist as parallel "systems" that seek to
provide a framework with which to
allison wrote:
"Pfffttt"
I believe that's the official Calvin and Hobbes version.
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.
Some good points have been made, and they compeeled me to do some retrospective
analysis of my own design career to gain clarity on the issue. I can't pretend
that I've ever consciously done ACD; like a recent commenter said, to me this
is little more than basic SDLC design driven by functional
< Ptthh. (Is there a better online way to represent a raspberry?)
"Pfffttt"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35466
Welcome to the I
On Nov 13, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Peter Merholz wrote:
Regardless, I think my main and more important point is that activity
centered design feels soul-less to me. It's motivation as I've
heard people
describe it here and other places is discount UCD (getting to the
point
quickly).
I would a
Regardless, I think my main and more important point is that activity
centered design feels soul-less to me. It's motivation as I've heard
people
describe it here and other places is discount UCD (getting to the
point
quickly).
I would argue that UCD, as typically practiced, is soulless, t
Yes, you are right demographics by themselves is not important, but rather
the generalizations which are real around those demographics that we use.
BUT the demographics are necessary for gaining insights (and often even
creating) those generalizations.
I'm not saying that you are saying this Jare
Guys,
I created this simple diagram to illustrate my understanding of the
differences between ACD vs UCD.
http://flickr.com/photos/neuno/3027380216/sizes/o/
Please feel free to take it apart.
Regards
ShahW
Welcome to the Interact
I suspect that ACD could be considered a modular component of UCD, a
component that could be exercised on its own, but which really should be
incorporated into a larger UCD process.
ACD should be a part of the design process, closely related to
functional design, one that -might- be sufficient on
James,
This thread has brought me close to the conclusion that Activity
Theory (AT) and Activity Centered Design (ACD) have nothing to do
with each other except for a vocabulary overlap.
AT is user-centered in that activities cannot be understood outside
of the social context in which they occur.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 5:56 PM, David Malouf wrote:
If I were designing it from a UCD perspective, I do care, or that the
person is elderly and needs large print, or any other demographic type
information.
Just for the record, properly done UCD wouldn't care about
demographics. It would care a
On Nov 13, 2008, at 5:49 AM, James Page wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that Activity Theory output is the
activity
and actions of individuals.
The Persona acts as a stereotype between real users and the designer.
There may be a problem with Activity Theory been dry. One can see fro
Jarod,
> Persona just reflects human ( human with motivation and goals in specific
> context), and activities reflects what/how they do, isnt it?
The point I am trying to make is that Activity Theory output is the activity
and actions of individuals.
The Persona acts as a stereotype between re
Hi Dave,
Your answer inspires.
Maybe, more proper is back from the result, by asking what leads to
the good design instead of UCD or ACD? I do like the IxD , in which
the design is for good user experience, and by analyzing user's
activity.
regards,
Jarod
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:56 AM, David M
Oy! I'm just going to ignore that Doc thing.
To answer Adrian,
If I were to design Flickr from an ACD POV I only care about the
activities of uploading, tagging, sharing, viewing, mapping, etc.
I really don't care whether primary persona A's goal for sharing is
to become the next Annie Leibovitch
UX designers may not be able to provide a singular definition of UCD,
but I'm not sure that 10 doctors treating cancer would be able to
come up with a singular approach to treatment, either. I think it
depends on the problem and context (patient and cancer type, stage,
funds, etc.), just as for it
Hi James,
> How do you combine Persona's and Activity Theory?
How do you separate human activity from human ? Persona just reflects
human ( human with motivation and goals in specific context), and
activities reflects what/how they do, isnt it?
As previous discussing from other thread, you can s
Richard,
How do you combine Persona's and Activity Theory?
I don't see how the two are compatible. AT looks at activities through real
behaviour.
If you add Personas you are adding a multitude of parameters in the middle.
James
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Richard Rutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED
>
> 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 u
We (my design team) do not see any separation between UCD and ACD.
They are NOT mutually exclusive in any of the products we design.
When we incorporate ACD (more specifically, Activity Theory
Framework) in our practice we introduce many opportunities to
discover new tools and features for our User
>
> ACD ignores goals, needs, and context, whereas UCD does not. It's a
> superset / subset relationship.
>
Just to clear up Activity Theory does not ignore this.
For example you start off by observing users. From this observation you
break down the groups into praxis (people doing the same thing)
Jared,
Great post.
I think one important difference of ACD vs UCD is that ACD has a strong
paradigm behind it. ACD comes out of Activity Theory. This should make ACD
more concrete than a UCD approach, which seams to have little of a core.
In your email you quote the following "Who cares what we c
I would argue that ACD is more part of the evolution of UCD. Design is
about framing problems, and ACD is more of an evolving perspective of
UCD to frame design problems.
I would agree with following view point made
On 11 Nov 2008, at 02:51, Livia Labate wrote: [snip]Dan Saffer
differentiates ACS
Jared your points reflect a conversation we often have here at
Clearleft. We say we do UCD, but ask ourselves do we really do ACD? I
reckon the answer is both. Or more particularly we do ACD with a UCD
wrapper. That is to say we do user research and personas, but only
enough to give useful context
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 ta
<-- ACD usefulness grows
focus on ACTIVITY focus on USER GOALS
UCD usefulness grows -->
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.
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 beha
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
> 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 dee
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
Outstanding post, Jared. I particularly applaud your characterization
of personas, their role in guiding UCD (and distinguishing it from
ACD), and the need to focus on qualities that actually impact design.
That for me is the key to crafting a set of personas - to create as
FEW personas as is neces
Thanks, Jared. This really helps me to understand better where you
were coming from in your IA Summit keynote.
To me, the difference between UCD and ACD is mostly about WHEN, in
the timeline of a project, you start doing your research. Let me give
an example.
Let's say my client is a financial in
While our work may not be as life and death as a surgical procedure, I
think we still want to know what we're doing. We need to have a language
that adequately describes our tools, techniques, and processes. That's
why I think defining these things are important.
Though our risks may not be li
On 10 Nov 2008, at 20:58, Jared Spool wrote:
[snip]
3) Activity-Centered Design (ACD): The design that results from
teams that only research the activities. Because research is part of
the design process, it extends beyond Genius Design (which solely is
based on the team's experience). This
Jared,
I see the choice between using ACD or UCD as being determined by whether or
not the system (product, service etc) under design substantively and
meaningfully addresses the needs of an homogeneous or heterogeneous
community of users. In the case of the former - homogeneous - collection of
us
47 matches
Mail list logo
