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

[Alexander Johannesen]

Hi Anne,

Umm, since we're on the topic of usability (well, I think that's what
it is), could you please not top-post? It makes it so hard to tell who
and what you're replying to.

Anne Miller <amiller at humanfactors.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Have you ever observed people with disabilities using the limited range of
> input devices available?

I've watched them throw things and swear a lot, to put it that way. :)

> How many purposes does a telephone directory serve? I use one to jack up the
> height of my PC monitor. This is a function of characteristics of the
> technology (phone book), my desktop environment (desk/chair/monitor heights)
> and my need for a higher monitor (my physical capacities) and my ability to
> 'see' the phone book as a solution to my problem.
> 
> Activity = the interaction between environment + the capacities of people

As I said to Boniface; by this formulae you can come to *any* design.
What I don't understand is *why* people want to say activity-centred
as opposed to human-centred design. As a subgroup of HCD, yes indeed,
it is part of it, but stated as a better way than HCD just don't make
sense. Why calling it ACD? What are you gaining by this?


Alex
-- 
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________