Modular or Integrated?—An Activity Perspective for Designing and Evaluating Computer-Based Systems

Abstract

A basic problem for human-computer interaction (HCI) design is to make products that contribute something valuable to existing practices. This article pursues the assumption that this goal will be better realized if one uses an integrated perspective to analyze the practice in which a computer-based system is used. The main intention of this article is to clarify some assumptions involved in different approaches to thinking about the relation between computer-based systems and practices and to discuss some aspects of the theory of activity that could assist in thinking about these problems. The first part of the article introduces the problem that all design and evaluation efforts in relation to computer-based systems must necessarily have a perspective about the relation between the system and the practice in which it is used. Two general perspectives—modular and integrated—about this relation are introduced and discussed. The second part of the article discusses the theory of activity as an example of an integrated perspective, emphasizing some aspects of the theory that can be useful for conceptualizing relations between a computer-based system and practice and commenting on some misunderstandings in the current HCI literature on the theory of activity. The article concludes that the main problem is not to establish the value of working with an integrated perspective but to have productive theoretical concepts that can support this approach to design and evaluation.

Notes

¹It is interesting and important to consider whether there is any justification for implementing a system for which there is no apparent reason to believe in its potential for improving an existing practice or societal objective, but this issue would require a discussion of the morals and sociology of technology implementation that go beyond the focus of this article.

²There are already prima facie reasons to consider the theory of activity, in that as Leontiev (1975/1978, p. 62) noted, many of the ideas are developed further from Vygotsky, with whom Leontiev wasa colleague for almost 10 years, so it is reasonably certain that Leontiev was familiar with the discussions about analysis by elements versus units.