[Sigia-l] Human-Centered Design 99% bad

[Boniface Lau]

> From: Alexander Johannesen
>  
> On 7/30/05, Boniface Lau <boniface_lau at compuserve.com> wrote:
> > > > When a design is based on the understanding of activities, the
> > > > specifics of individual users are no longer that important.
> 
> Then me:
> > > No, I don't agree with that one bit. Most people were happy with
> > > the viola until someone figured out that placing it on your
> > > shoulder as to compared to between your legs would improve
> > > things.
> 
> Boniface:
> > The shoulder-realization applies to users in general, not the
> > specifics of individual users. Thus, I am not sure of what you are
> > trying to say.
> 
> Huh? What now? 

Well, you brought up the shoulder-realization in the context of
disagreeing with my assertion. Can you explain how the realization
supports your disagreement?


> The "shoulder-realization" was not an activity when the violin was
> made; it *became* an activity as the violin became popular; design
> driving activity, not the other way around.

Design drives activity? Do you really believe in such extremist view?
Acknowledging that activity and design influence each other tends to
produce better design.

BTW, even though it was not your intention, your violin example turns
out to be a case for ACD, not against it.

First, ACD emphasizes a deep understanding on activity. Thus, ACD is
more likely than HCD to discover ways of improving existing
activities, e.g. playing a string instrument that is placed in between
legs. That means ACD is more likely to consider the violin-equivalence
of tool.

Second, ACD believes that user should adapt to tool. Thus, even when
both ACD and HCD designers have considered violin while looking into
the way users play viola, the ACD designers are more likely to
actually produce a violin and expect users to adapt. Since HCD
believes that tool should adapt to user, the HCD designers are more
likely to drop the conceptual violin (for it requires users to adapt)
and produce an improved viola (which allows users to continue their
habit of placing the instrument between their legs).

HCD is more likely to give you an improved viola; 
ACD is more likely to give you a violin.


[...]
> > Your example is about users using their knowledge to improve what
> > they use. But what does that has to do with ACD's down playing of
> > the importance of adapting to individual user differences?
> 
> You tell me. 

Me?! You disagreed with my assertion and then brought up the violin
example. But even you yourself cannot explain how your example relates
to the assertion. That means your disagreement has no support.


Boniface