| An activity is the minimal meaningful context to understand individual actions. An activity system is a logical collection of activities designed to fulfill some purpose. |  |
As explicated by Kuutti (1995), this systemic model, based on the conceptualization by Engeström (1987), contains three mutual relationships between subject, object and community. The relationship between subject and object is mediated by "tools", the relationship between subject and community is mediated by "rules" and the relationship between object and community is mediated by the "division of labour". A "tool" can be anything which is used in the transformation process, including both material tools and tools for thinking; "rules" cover both explicit and implicit norms, conventions and social relations within a community; "division of labour" refers to the explicit and implicit organization of a community as related to the transformation process of the object into the outcome.
Summarising activity theory and its potential for describing activity systems
Activity theory as a psychological meta-theory, paradigm, or framework is dynamic. It can be used by a variety of disciplines to understand the way people act. Founded by Leont'ev and Rubinshtein in the former USSR, activity theory became widely used in both theoretical and applied psychology, in areas such as education, training, ergonomics, and work psychology.
In the study of human-computer interaction and cognitive science, activity theory can be used to provide a framework for informing and evaluating design. In a framework derived from activity theory, any task, or activity, can be broken down into actions, which are further subdivided into operations. In a design context, using these categories can provide the designer with an understanding of the steps necessary for a user to carry out a task. One of the most frequently quoted books on the application of activity theory in human-computer interaction is written by Bonnie N. Nardi (1996).
Examples from computer and information studies are ample. A re-examination of information seeking behaviour in the context of activity theory, applies the key elements of activity theory to the conduct of information behaviour research, where the activity-theoretical approach provides a sound basis for the elaboration of contextual issues, for the discovering of organizational and other contradictions that affect information behaviour. Everyday inclusive Web design: an activity perspective, uses a method where the design activities of end-users and system designers are modeled using activity theory. Activity models and scenarios are used to describe and analyze design activity. From activity to learning: using cultural-historical activity theory to model school library programmes and practices, where activity theory, as a model that takes a developmental view of minds in context, is particularly well suited. The paper focuses on the activity theoretic concepts of contradictions and expansive learning as they relate to the development of best practices. Library activity is illustrated from multiple perspectives using a triangulated, qualitative approach.
Even though it might seem like another figure explaining a theoretical approach, it becomes more practical when actually applied. Real life situations always involve an intertwined and connected web of activities which can be distinguished according to their objects. Participation in connected activities having very different objects can cause tensions and distortions. The whole picture starts to make sense when filled with relevant details, such as the right subject, object and community with the mediating tools, rules and division of labour. However, Kuutti suggests that the model should be understood rather broadly. Each of the mediating terms is historically formed and open to further development. Let us take a closer look at one of the researches mentioned above.
A sample case: everyday inclusive Web design
Everyday inclusive Web design is a design perspective that promotes the creation of accessible content by everyday end-users, as website accessibility (especially with more and more content being created by non-professionals) is a problem that affects millions of people with disabilities.
As we know from our personal experience of being surrounded by an ever growing number of social applications (such as YouTube, Flickr) and networks (for example MySpace, Facebook), recent developments in Web technology have provided new opportunities for end-users to participate as designers. The study looks how professional system designers and end-users each engage in design activities within social software systems. As these activities are not independent, but rather interact with one another to produce the final site content, activity models and scenarios are used to describe and analyze the process and its possible contradictions.
I quite enjoyed how Kuutti points out that in activity theory contradictions are seen as sources of development; real activities are practically always in the process of working through some of such contradictions. It is through these contradictions (problems, ruptures, breakdowns, clashes, etc) that we improve ourselves or the systems and technologies we work with. In the case of everyday inclusive Web design, contradictions found between personal expression and publishing objectives in end-user design activity, as well as contradictions between perceived and actual number of system users with disabilities lead to inaccessible design. With the help of the activity model, these issues were clearly visualized in order to provide suggestions and solutions for improvement.
In short, the study was able conclude that accessibility of social software systems depends on the cooperative work of system designers and end-users. The underlying structure of social software systems may be altered to increase users' awareness of accessibility issues and to encourage accessible design practices. Both system designers and end-users must act with accessibility in mind in order for the end result to be accessible. End-users require access to design tools that support accessible design practices, while system designers must instruct end-users about available accessibility features.
No comments:
Post a Comment