Saturday, July 30, 2005
Activity vs. user-centered design
User-centered, human-centered, activity-centered design. Why have "centered" design at all?
When we argue for a style of designing, I wonder whether we are focusing too much on naming a method and not on the problems presented in the problem space of design.
In reading Don Norman's essay on Activity-Centered Design, my first response is "welcome to the party." Activity theory was being developed from Vygotsky (1926) to Leontev's work in the mid-70's. This golden age of activity-oriented cognitive psychology flourished when Lindsay and Norman published their well-known Human Information Processing text, one or two versions of which were used in my undergraduate human factors program. How different our HCI studies in the 1980's might have been had we taken the Soviet approach to cognitive science earlier.
My second response is "why debunk what came before?" I find the central tenet of activity theory is not necessarily the focus on activity as the unit of analysis. It is the notion that human activity arises from social-cultural-historical forces that bring context and meaning to the activity. These forces almost necessitate a certain style or culture of activities. In other words, our HCI culture, by social and cultural means, could not have grown from the Marxist worldview of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). Our field has reached our current position by developing the theories of human information processing, user-centered system design, GOMS, ontological design (Winograd), situated action, and so on. And throwing them out. These were our cultural-historical references for our development. Now perhaps we're ready for activity theory.
Because when Don Norman declares a trend in the field, it is here for real! Don helps us identify when an academic stream of thought is ready for prime-time. Even though others have written about activity-centered design, the trend is now official. We can talk about activity to clients without being considered too academic or far out.
But I caution turning this into a design method. Bonnie Nardi has always reserved caution in making activity theory into a methodology, which is something I could not resist doing myself, as a part-time methodologist. CHAT resists being a methodology, and it is much larger and looser than something you can design to. Althjough in 2001, Bonnie presages Don in this interview blurb:
And yet, my previous posts argue against the use of the word "user!" Yes, these are different constructs though. I can still perform UCD while identifying the users by their job titles, e.g. principal investigators or graduate students, which is a matter of understanding the "users" for whom I'm designing. But not every design space has a clear activity, at least not within researchable means. ACD may not always be the preferred approach to design - it is a specific appellation, it implies the understanding of activity as central to the design problem.
UCD or UX are much more general, and they do not disallow activity as a unit of analysis. But to conclude, my point comes back to the opening question: Why have "centered design" at all? It implies the design work is driven by a central commitment to the subject. Could we have activity-oriented design? Design for practice? Our naming of approach should help us communicate value to our clients and organizational customers.
We should open up our design frameworks, determine our commitments (information work in science), select the unit of analysis (e.g., activity) and methods (e.g., ethnography). Now what do I call that?
When we argue for a style of designing, I wonder whether we are focusing too much on naming a method and not on the problems presented in the problem space of design.
In reading Don Norman's essay on Activity-Centered Design, my first response is "welcome to the party." Activity theory was being developed from Vygotsky (1926) to Leontev's work in the mid-70's. This golden age of activity-oriented cognitive psychology flourished when Lindsay and Norman published their well-known Human Information Processing text, one or two versions of which were used in my undergraduate human factors program. How different our HCI studies in the 1980's might have been had we taken the Soviet approach to cognitive science earlier.
My second response is "why debunk what came before?" I find the central tenet of activity theory is not necessarily the focus on activity as the unit of analysis. It is the notion that human activity arises from social-cultural-historical forces that bring context and meaning to the activity. These forces almost necessitate a certain style or culture of activities. In other words, our HCI culture, by social and cultural means, could not have grown from the Marxist worldview of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). Our field has reached our current position by developing the theories of human information processing, user-centered system design, GOMS, ontological design (Winograd), situated action, and so on. And throwing them out. These were our cultural-historical references for our development. Now perhaps we're ready for activity theory.
Because when Don Norman declares a trend in the field, it is here for real! Don helps us identify when an academic stream of thought is ready for prime-time. Even though others have written about activity-centered design, the trend is now official. We can talk about activity to clients without being considered too academic or far out.
But I caution turning this into a design method. Bonnie Nardi has always reserved caution in making activity theory into a methodology, which is something I could not resist doing myself, as a part-time methodologist. CHAT resists being a methodology, and it is much larger and looser than something you can design to. Althjough in 2001, Bonnie presages Don in this interview blurb:
I like to talk about activity-centered design instead of user-centered design, for exactly the reason you stated: UCD has come to be equated with usability. The essence of activity-centered design is a combination of usefulness and usability. Good applications should have both.But why should we throw out the hard-won concept of UCD when our clients and employers are just now understanding what that means? Having used activity-based research approaches since 1999, I advocate taking what we've learned from AT and working it into user-centered design. There are no hard and fast rules about what UCD or UX really mean. I agree with Bonnie's way of framing ACD, but I disagree with Don's implied notion that Human-Centered Design somehow misses activity. It depends on what we choose to study - when we study user behavior, what unit of analysis do we select? It's not like we are studying "the user" and designing to it. We study user tasks, user needs, user work practices, and user activity. To me, that can still fit within UCD - and in many cases (corporate website design, for example) there may be few clear activities in the AT sense of "series of integrated tasks." And yet, the website users have tasks, have "needs" for information use, and have goals in using the site. But to understand the activities people have when searching Google, for example - the search is not an activity, it is (usually) an operation. (Plug: See my article on this at Springer's site). How could we ever know the activity demanding the search by its terms? Only by studying the work activity people actually do (e.g., "experimental research" in my article). From their work as context, we can identify innovations and perform design for activity. In this sketch, scientists are still a type of "user" we might design for, with a primary activity of research projects.
And yet, my previous posts argue against the use of the word "user!" Yes, these are different constructs though. I can still perform UCD while identifying the users by their job titles, e.g. principal investigators or graduate students, which is a matter of understanding the "users" for whom I'm designing. But not every design space has a clear activity, at least not within researchable means. ACD may not always be the preferred approach to design - it is a specific appellation, it implies the understanding of activity as central to the design problem.
UCD or UX are much more general, and they do not disallow activity as a unit of analysis. But to conclude, my point comes back to the opening question: Why have "centered design" at all? It implies the design work is driven by a central commitment to the subject. Could we have activity-oriented design? Design for practice? Our naming of approach should help us communicate value to our clients and organizational customers.
We should open up our design frameworks, determine our commitments (information work in science), select the unit of analysis (e.g., activity) and methods (e.g., ethnography). Now what do I call that?
Comments:
<< Home
='Brand New News Fr0m The Timber Industry!!'=
========Latest Profile==========
Energy & Asset Technology, Inc. (EGTY)
Current Price $0.15
================================
Recognize this undiscovered gem which is poised to jump!!
Please read the following Announcement in its Entierty and
Consider the Possibilities�
Watch this One to Trad,e!
Because, EGTY has secured the global rights to market
genetically enhanced fast growing, hard-wood trees!
EGTY trading volume is beginning to surge with landslide Announcement.
The value of this Stoc,k appears poised for growth! This one will not
remain on the ground floor for long.
KEEP READING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
===============
"BREAKING NEWS"
===============
-Energy and Asset Technology, Inc. (EGTY) owns a global license to market
the genetically enhanced Global Cedar growth trees, with plans to
REVOLUTIONIZE the forest-timber industry.
These newly enhanced Globa| Cedar trees require only 9-12 years of growth
before they can be harvested for lumber, whereas worldwide growth time for
lumber is 30-50 years.
Other than growing at an astonishing rate, the Global Cedar has a number
of other benefits. Its natural elements make it resistant to termites, and
the lack of oils and sap found in the wood make it resistant to forest fire,
ensuring higher returns on investments.
T
he wood is very lightweight and strong, lighter than Poplar and over twice
as strong as Balsa, which makes it great for construction. It also has
the unique ability to regrow itself from the stump, minimizing the land and
time to replant and develop new root systems.
Based on current resources and agreements, EGTY projects revenues of $140
Million with an approximate profit margin of 40% for each 9-year cycle. With
anticipated growth, EGTY is expected to challenge Deltic Timber Corp. during
its initial 9-year cycle.
Deltic Timber Corp. currently trades at over $38.00 a share with about $153
Million in revenues. As the reputation and demand for the Global Cedar tree
continues to grow around the world EGTY believes additional multi-million
dollar agreements will be forthcoming. The Global Cedar nursery has produced
about 100,000 infant plants and is developing a production growth target of
250,000 infant plants per month.
Energy and Asset Technology is currently in negotiations with land and business
owners in New Zealand, Greece and Malaysia regarding the purchase of their popular
and profitable fast growing infant tree plants. Inquiries from the governments of
Brazil and Ecuador are also being evaluated.
Conclusion:
The examples above show the Awesome, Earning Potential of little
known Companies That Explode onto Investor�s Radar Screens.
This s-t0ck will not be a Secret for long. Then You May Feel the Desire to Act Right
Now! And Please Watch This One Trade!!
GO EGTY!
All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such.
We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. Any
statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions,
goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, object'ives, assumptions or
future events or perfo'rmance are not
statements of historical fact and may be
"forward,|ooking statements." forward,|ooking statements are based on expectations,
estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number
of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ
materially from those presently anticipated. This newsletter was paid $3,000 from
third party (IR Marketing). Forward,|ooking statements in this action may be identified
through the use of words such as: "pr0jects", "f0resee", "expects". in compliance with
Se'ction 17. {b), we disclose the holding of EGTY shares prior to the publication of
this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings
due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shar,es may be sold
at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company.
Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and
opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not
to place undue reliance on
forward,|ooking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations
involving various risks and uncertainties that could cause results to differ materially
from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. This is not solicitation to
buy or sell st-0cks, this text is or informational purpose only and you should seek
professional advice from registered financial advisor before you do anything related
with buying or selling st0ck-s, penny st'0cks are very high risk and you can lose your
entire inves,tment.
========Latest Profile==========
Energy & Asset Technology, Inc. (EGTY)
Current Price $0.15
================================
Recognize this undiscovered gem which is poised to jump!!
Please read the following Announcement in its Entierty and
Consider the Possibilities�
Watch this One to Trad,e!
Because, EGTY has secured the global rights to market
genetically enhanced fast growing, hard-wood trees!
EGTY trading volume is beginning to surge with landslide Announcement.
The value of this Stoc,k appears poised for growth! This one will not
remain on the ground floor for long.
KEEP READING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
===============
"BREAKING NEWS"
===============
-Energy and Asset Technology, Inc. (EGTY) owns a global license to market
the genetically enhanced Global Cedar growth trees, with plans to
REVOLUTIONIZE the forest-timber industry.
These newly enhanced Globa| Cedar trees require only 9-12 years of growth
before they can be harvested for lumber, whereas worldwide growth time for
lumber is 30-50 years.
Other than growing at an astonishing rate, the Global Cedar has a number
of other benefits. Its natural elements make it resistant to termites, and
the lack of oils and sap found in the wood make it resistant to forest fire,
ensuring higher returns on investments.
T
he wood is very lightweight and strong, lighter than Poplar and over twice
as strong as Balsa, which makes it great for construction. It also has
the unique ability to regrow itself from the stump, minimizing the land and
time to replant and develop new root systems.
Based on current resources and agreements, EGTY projects revenues of $140
Million with an approximate profit margin of 40% for each 9-year cycle. With
anticipated growth, EGTY is expected to challenge Deltic Timber Corp. during
its initial 9-year cycle.
Deltic Timber Corp. currently trades at over $38.00 a share with about $153
Million in revenues. As the reputation and demand for the Global Cedar tree
continues to grow around the world EGTY believes additional multi-million
dollar agreements will be forthcoming. The Global Cedar nursery has produced
about 100,000 infant plants and is developing a production growth target of
250,000 infant plants per month.
Energy and Asset Technology is currently in negotiations with land and business
owners in New Zealand, Greece and Malaysia regarding the purchase of their popular
and profitable fast growing infant tree plants. Inquiries from the governments of
Brazil and Ecuador are also being evaluated.
Conclusion:
The examples above show the Awesome, Earning Potential of little
known Companies That Explode onto Investor�s Radar Screens.
This s-t0ck will not be a Secret for long. Then You May Feel the Desire to Act Right
Now! And Please Watch This One Trade!!
GO EGTY!
All statements made are our express opinion only and should be treated as such.
We may own, take position and sell any securities mentioned at any time. Any
statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions,
goals, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, object'ives, assumptions or
future events or perfo'rmance are not
statements of historical fact and may be
"forward,|ooking statements." forward,|ooking statements are based on expectations,
estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number
of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or events to differ
materially from those presently anticipated. This newsletter was paid $3,000 from
third party (IR Marketing). Forward,|ooking statements in this action may be identified
through the use of words such as: "pr0jects", "f0resee", "expects". in compliance with
Se'ction 17. {b), we disclose the holding of EGTY shares prior to the publication of
this report. Be aware of an inherent conflict of interest resulting from such holdings
due to our intent to profit from the liquidation of these shares. Shar,es may be sold
at any time, even after positive statements have been made regarding the above company.
Since we own shares, there is an inherent conflict of interest in our statements and
opinions. Readers of this publication are cautioned not
to place undue reliance on
forward,|ooking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and expectations
involving various risks and uncertainties that could cause results to differ materially
from those set forth in the forward- looking statements. This is not solicitation to
buy or sell st-0cks, this text is or informational purpose only and you should seek
professional advice from registered financial advisor before you do anything related
with buying or selling st0ck-s, penny st'0cks are very high risk and you can lose your
entire inves,tment.
Nice analysis. But I'm not that powerful.
Actually, I was doing activity theory way before Bonnie Nardi (she used to work for me at Apple, by the way). I did it in the mid 1980s. Even went to Moscow to work with the people there. Michael Cole and Yrjö Engeström were my trainers.
Activity theory is only part of the story. And my version is quite different from that of Vygotsky and the Soviet school (and Scandinavian school). I think it time we focused on activities. Long past time. See my forthcoming November / December 2006 article in Interactions.
Post a Comment
Actually, I was doing activity theory way before Bonnie Nardi (she used to work for me at Apple, by the way). I did it in the mid 1980s. Even went to Moscow to work with the people there. Michael Cole and Yrjö Engeström were my trainers.
Activity theory is only part of the story. And my version is quite different from that of Vygotsky and the Soviet school (and Scandinavian school). I think it time we focused on activities. Long past time. See my forthcoming November / December 2006 article in Interactions.
<< Home
