[Sigia-l] HCD vs ACD -- basic categories (was: Human-Centered Design 99% bad)

[Eric Scheid]

On 2/8/05 4:01 PM, "Alexander Johannesen" <alexander.johannesen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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?

Ah, an opportunity to shift this thread in another IA direction...

What we have here looks to be a difference in what Basic Categories people
have. On one side we have Alexander, who when you mention HCD thinks of a
big broad thing that includes activity centred design, task centred design,
and more. Meanwhile, I hear the term HCD and think of a narrower definition,
driven more by observation of current practice than some grand unified
theory. I see HCD here and there and elsewhere, and it is very much focussed
on efficient, effective, satisfying (etc) accomplishment of *tasks*, more
often than not. Sadly.

Two different basic categories, but sharing the same name. No wonder we're
going around in circles.

It's a bit like asking people to name various breeds of cats. Lots of people
will say things like siamese, pog, shorthair, manx, tabby, etc. Very few
people would say siamese, tabby, manx, african lion, tiger, liger, panther,
manx. Saying then that 'big cats' are a subset of [that group thought of
only containing little cats] also doesn't make much sense.

> 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?

So, why call it ACD? To differentiate it from that common definition of HCD
which is very task focussed. The broader definition of HCD just messes
things up (for the unwashed ignoramuses like me)

e.