Methods&Tools p27-39
 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 27 V. KAPTELININ, B. NARDI AND C. MACAULAY methods & tools David Wasserman ©1997 Artville, LLC The Activity Checklist: A Tool for Representing the “Space” of Context Introduction IIn recent years, specialists in human–computer interaction (HCI) have come to appreciate the importance of understanding the context in which computer-supported activities take place [1]. Such understanding directly affects design and evaluation by revealing what users are up to and how they might most effectively use a technology. The idea is to gain this understanding before the design process has progressed too far, or during evaluation, when openings for modifications and improvements to the technology exist . i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 27 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 28 There have been several attempts to come tual system of activity theory for the specific up with tools and techniques to support tasks of design and evaluation. taking context into account in the design and The Activity Checklist is intended to elu- evaluation of computer technologies. These cidate the most important contextual factors approaches include task analysis [6], participa- of human–computer interaction. It is a guide tory design [3], and contextual design [7], to the specific areas to which a researcher or Victor Kaptelinin among others. However, contextual factors are practitioner should be paying attention when Department of notoriously elusive and difficult to pin down trying to understand the context in which a Informatics [5], so there is still a need for conceptual tools tool will be or is used. The Checklist lays out Umeå University to deal with context at a practical level. a kind of “contextual design space” by repre- S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden The existing approaches to context are for senting the key areas of context specified by Victor.Kaptelinin@ the most part “bottom up” ones. They start activity theory. informatik.umu.se with an empirical analysis of contextual fac- In the rest of this paper we discuss activity tors and gradually develop concepts such as theory, present the Checklist, and show its use Bonnie A. Nardi “task decomposition” [6], “future workshops” by giving an example of a specific technology. Department of [3], or “flow models” [7], which later can be The Checklist is an adjunct to the basic prin- Human–Computer put in an appropriate theoretical framework. ciples of activity theory—not a tool to be used Interaction From our point of view, this “bottom up” or in isolation. An overview of activity theory AT&T Labs–Research empirically-driven strategy can be comple- with empirical applications can be found in Menlo Park, California mented with a “top down” one, that is, [13]. 94040, USA starting with an abstract theoretical represen- nardi@research.att.com tation of context and then situating this repre- Basic Principles of Activity Theory: sentation in the reality of design and An Overview Catriona Macaulay evaluation. Borrowing Brown and Duguid’s Activity theory is a general conceptual Napier University well-known metaphor [5], we can say that if it approach, rather than a highly predictive Department of is difficult to grapple with the “whale” of con- theory. The unit of analysis in activity theory Computing text by trying to get a firm grip on its specific is the activity, consisting of a subject (an indi- Edinburgh, EH14 1DJ, parts, let’s try a large net instead. vidual or group), an object or motive, arti- United Kingdom In this paper we present a tool that is facts, and sociocultural rules. Leont’ev [10] c.macaulay@dcs.napier. directly shaped by a general theoretical made the point that we cannot pull these ac.uk approach—activity theory [10, 11, 18]. pieces apart without violating the very essence Activity theory provides a broad theoretical of human activity, just as we cannot pull apart framework for describing the structure, devel- sodium and chloride if we want to understand opment, and context of human activity. In the salt. Understanding human activity requires a 1990s, activity theory has been applied to commitment to a complex unit of analysis. problems of human–computer interaction by Two basic ideas animate activity theory: (1) an international community of scholars and the human mind emerges, exists, and can only practitioners [1–4, 8, 9, 12]. be understood within the context of human Activity theory is framed by several basic interaction with the world; and (2) this inter- principles (explained in the next section): action, that is, activity, is socially and cultur- hierarchical structure of activity, object-ori- ally determined. These ideas are elaborated in entedness, internalization and–externaliza- activity theory into a set of five principles as tion, tool mediation, and development. These follows. general principles help orient thought and research, but they are somewhat abstract when Object-Orientedness it comes to the actual business of working on The principle of object-orientedness states a design or performing an evaluation. To that every activity is directed toward some- make activity theory more useful, we have thing that objectively exists in the world, that developed an artifact—the Activity is, an object. For example, a computer pro- Checklist—that makes concrete the concep- gram is an object of a programmer’s activity. 28 i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 29 Human activity can be oriented toward two rent situations. Actions transform into types of objects: things and people [10]. The operations when they become routinized notion of an object is not limited in activity and unconscious with practice. When theory to the physical, chemical, and biolog- learning to drive a car, the shifting of the ical properties of entities. Socially and cultur- gears is an action with an explicit goal that ally determined properties are also objective must be consciously attended to. Later, properties that can be studied with objective shifting gears becomes operational and methods. For example, the intended purposes “can no longer be picked out as a special and ways of using artifacts can be objectively goal-directed process: its goal is not picked studied. out and discerned by the driver” [10]. Conversely, an operation can become an Hierarchical Structure of Activity action when “conditions impede an According to Leont’ev [11], interaction action’s execution through previously METHODS & TOOLS between human beings and the world is orga- formed operations” [10]. For example, if COLUMN EDITORS nized into functionally subordinated hierar- one’s mail program ceases to work, one Michael Muller chical levels. Leont’ev differentiated among continues to send mail by substituting Lotus Development Corp. three levels: activities, actions, and operations. another mailer, but it is now necessary to 55 Cambridge Parkway Activities are undertaken in order to fulfill pay conscious attention to using an unfa- Cambridge, MA 02142 USA motives. Motives can be considered top-level miliar set of commands. This dynamic +1-617-693-4235 objectives that are not subordinated to any movement up and down the hierarchy dis- fax: +1-617-693-1407 other objectives. Behind a motive “… there tinguishes the activity theory hierarchy mullerm@acm.org always stands a need or a desire, to which [the from static models such as GOMS. activity] always answers” [10]. People may or Finn Kensing may not be consciously aware of their motives. Internalization and Externalization Computer Science Actions are goal-directed processes that Activity theory differentiates between Roskilde University must be carried out to fulfill a motive. For internal and external activities. The tradi- P.O. Box 260 instance, a programmer may write a utility tional notion of mental processes (such as DK-4000 Roskilde program needed to make his larger program in cognitive science) corresponds to Denmark work efficiently. The larger program itself internal activities. Activity theory empha- +45-4675-7781-2548 might be an action with respect to a motive sizes that internal activities cannot be fax: +45-4674-3072 such as getting ahead at work. Actions are con- understood if they are analyzed separately, kensing@dat.ruc.dk scious; people are aware of their goals. in isolation from external activities, because Goals can be broken into lower level goals, it is the constant transformation between which, in turn, can have lower level goals, external and internal that is the very basis much like the concept of goals and subgoals in of human cognition and activity. artificial intelligence (AI) and other traditions. Internalization is the trans- For example, writing a utility program might formation of external activi- involve talking to another programmer about ties into internal ones. how she solved a similar problem, which Activity theory empha- might involve scheduling a time to talk, sizes that not only do opening an electronic calendar, and so forth. mental representations get Actions are similar to what are often referred placed in someone’s head, to in the human–computer interaction litera- but the holistic activity, ture as tasks [e.g., 15]. including motor activity and Moving down the hierarchy of actions we the use of artifacts, is crucial cross the border between conscious and auto- for internalization. For example, matic processes. Functional subunits of learning to calculate may involve actions, which are carried out automatically, counting on the fingers in the are operations. Operations do not have their early stages of learning simple own goals; rather they adjust actions to cur- arithmetic. Once the arith- i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 29 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 30 metic is internalized, the calculations can be tion can make an action more efficient performed in the head without external aids. because external components, such as per- Internalization provides a means for people to forming calculations in the head, are omitted. try potential interactions with reality without Externalization transforms internal activi- performing actual manipulation with real ties into external ones. Externalization is often objects (mental simulations, imaginings, con- necessary when an internalized action needs to sidering alternative plans, and so forth). be repaired, or scaled, such as when a calcula- Therefore, internalization can help identify tion is not coming out right when done men- optimal actions before actually performing an tally or is too large to perform without pencil action externally. In some cases, internaliza- and paper or calculator (or some external arti- T h e C h e c k l i s t i n t h e F i e l d Catriona Macaulay As a tool for thinking, the Checklist lends itself to many situations and uses. In this section I illustrate one such situation—the domain investigation—with a personal account of my experiences using the Checklist. For some time now, the need to “contextualize” the design of computer systems has been recognized [1]. Context is of course a notoriously slippery term, and contextualizing design can mean anything from simply taking into account the physical environment in which a system is to be used to developing richly detailed accounts of how people do the things we design new artifacts to support. Ethnographic techniques (see [3] for an introduction) have become firmly established as one way of gathering contextual information. The uses of ethnography within design settings have been described as a continuum, ranging from requirements gathering tied to a particular development project, to opening up a broad domain such as information gath- ering in order to contribute to our currently limited understanding about fundamental tasks. [4] My field site was a UK national daily newspaper. I had gone there to explore what ‘information gathering’ meant in the context of journalism. And I was doing this for a very explicit purpose, that of informing the design of future technologies to support such activities. Like many ethnographers, having made the decision to go into the field I was unsure about what to do when I got there. To complicate matters, I came from a background in computing and human-computer interaction studies and therefore was taking a particular information technology-biased set of preconceptions and inclinations into the field with me. These issues, my natural inclinations towards theory, and my inexperience as a fieldworker all led me to look for some kind of theoretical scaffolding. Activity Theory (AT) seemed a good choice. AT, I reasoned, had been investigated within HCI and CSCW circles for some time. [2] It seemed to offer hope for bridging the field-design gap by providing a set of concepts relevant to both AT researchers and designers. And activity theory provided a particularly rich set of insights into the relationship between artifacts and practice. The adoption of theoretical frameworks is, of course, not without its dangers. Prior to conducting my main study, I undertook a short pilot study at a small community organization. Very quickly during this period I felt overwhelmed by my attempts to orient my field experiences around activity theory issues, and I eventually abandoned the attempt. It was at this point that I fortuitously discovered the Checklist. Now I had something tangible I could use. It gave me a quick way of relating experiences in the field to AT con- cepts. It helped me think about the kinds of data I wanted to gather, and the kinds of questions I wanted to ask. As time went on, field driven concerns came to dominate my efforts and the Checklist took more of a back seat. When I was out of the field and reviewing my notes and transcripts, the Checklist once again gave me an additional viewpoint on it all. But how did I actually use it? Well, one of the Checklist’s benefits is its informality. Key concepts are illus- trated with sample questions which suggest avenues for thought and exploration rather than formal direc- tions. The Checklist orients without prescribing. I reduced the main section of the Checklist to A5 and kept a copy in my fieldnotes books as an aide memoir. This proved particularly handy for the nervous neophyte fieldworker I was. It gave me something to look at and think about in those awful moments sitting around in the field feeling completely lost! I also had a copy stuck on my office wall which I could refer to when I was preparing for interviews or observation sessions. During data analysis, the Checklist provided a i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 30 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 31 fact). Externalization is also important when tools shape the way human beings interact collaboration between several people requires with reality. Shaping external activities results their activities to be performed externally in in shaping internal ones. Second, tools usually order to be coordinated. reflect the experience of other people who tried to solve similar problems before and Mediation invented or modified the tool to make it more Activity theory’s emphasis on social factors efficient and useful. This experience is accu- and on the interaction between people and mulated in (1) the structural properties of their environments explains why the principle tools (shape, size, material) and (2) the knowl- of tool mediation plays a central role. First, edge of how the tool should be used. Point 2 resource for deriving additional codewords for my data analysis work. Just having a copy visible when I was working that I could occasionally look up at was helpful. The sample questions were particularly useful. For example, one day I caught sight of one of the sample questions under the Environment column: Are concepts and vocabulary of the system consistent with the concepts and vocabulary of the domain? I suddenly realized that whilst in computing people talk about “information” all the time, in journalism people talk about “sources.” Computing people design systems primarily to help people find information, but “information” is often treated by designers simplistically. Journalists, on the other hand, are more inter- ested in the sources of information than in the information itself. The challenge is finding a source for infor- mation about something within an extremely limited timeframe. Subjective judgements about the relevance of a piece of information, then, are made largely in relation to judgements about the source. This led me to the realization that sources can be seen as a very particular kind of artifact within journalistic information gathering, and that they have largely been overlooked by designers of information gathering systems. During the early stages of my study, the sample questions helped me understand the specific issues the Checklist deals with. Later, as my understanding grew, I turned more to the issues in the Checklist rather than the sample questions. Later still, I found myself developing my own sample questions, questions I now carry with me into my next study. Activity theory and the Checklist also proved a useful counter to my natural inclination to cling to the familiar—to obvious technological artifacts. Entering the world of ethnographic fieldwork from a computing background, one can easily become over-focussed on high-tech devices, or on “information” in a simplistic sense. During my first forays into the field, I was so focussed on what I thought the obvious constituents of information gathering activity would be, that I completely failed to recognize the importance of sources. It was this kind of benefit from the Checklist that I most valued. The Checklist was a tool for reflexivity, helping me in my attempts to maintain an awareness of where my own instinctive concerns and interests were closing me off from those of the people I was studying. In summary then, the Checklist became a valuable aide memoir and a tool for reflexivity. Although the Checklist as presented here does not explicitly draw attention to its reflexive uses, this was clearly some- thing of particular benefit to more broadly scoped fieldwork such as mine. For the theoretically-oriented fieldworker, the Checklist provides a flexible and non-prescriptive way of maintaining an awareness of potentially relevant aspects of AT to design concerns. Of course it does not do away with the need to engage with the ideas behind activity theory more broadly, but it certainly helps kick-start the process. References 1. Clarke, S. (1997). Encouraging the Effective Use of Contextual Information in Design. Unpublished PhD, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 2. Draper, S. (1992). Activity Theory: The New Direction for HCI? International Journal for Man-Machine Studies, 37. 3. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. 4. Whittaker, S., Terveen, L. and Nardi, B. Let’s stop pushing the envelope and start addressing it. Submitted to TOCHI. i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 31 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 32 is critical for activity theory. Many theories aspects of the whole activity. A systematic discuss Point 1 (such as the idea of affor- application of any of these principles makes it dances, Latourian notions of tool prescrip- eventually necessary to involve all the others. tions, and so forth). Activity theory For instance, understanding the hierarchical emphasizes that a tool comes fully into being structure of an activity requires an analysis of when it is used and that knowing how to use it its object or motive, as well as developmental is a crucial part of the tool. So, the use of tools transformations between actions and opera- is an evolutionary accumulation and transmis- tions and between internal and external com- sion of social knowledge, which influences the ponents. The latter, in turn, can critically nature of not only external behavior but also depend on the tools used in the activity. the mental functioning of individuals. The concept of tool in activity theory is Activity Checklist broad and embraces both technical tools, As mentioned earlier, activity theory does not which are intended to manipulate physical provide ready-made solutions that can be objects (e.g., a hammer), and psychological directly applied to specific problems. We see tools, which are used by human beings to its main potential in supporting researchers influence other people or themselves (e.g., the and designers in their own search for solu- multiplication table or a calendar). tions, in particular, by helping them to ask meaningful questions. To make such an appli- Development cation of activity theory more practical, we Finally, activity theory requires that human introduce an analytical tool, the Activity interaction with reality be analyzed in the con- Checklist. text of development. Activity theory sees all The Activity Checklist is intended to be practice as being reformed and shaped by his- used at early phases of system design or for torical development. It is important to under- evaluating existing systems. Accordingly, there stand how tools are used not in a are two slightly different versions of the single instant of trying Checklist, the “evaluation version” and the them out in a labora- “design version.” Both versions are used as tory (for example) but organized sets of items covering the contex- as usage unfolds over tual factors that can potentially influence the time. In that time, devel- use of a computer technology in real-life set- opment may occur tings. It is assumed that the Checklist can making the tool more help to identify the most important issues, for useful and efficient than instance, potential trouble spots, that might be seen in a single designers can address. observation. In activity Having two versions of the Checklist theory, development is implies a commitment to the study of actual thus not only an object of use as a critical part of design. Researchers study, it is also a general such as Bannon [1] have made the useful research methodology. That is point that design and use are two sides of the why a basic research method in activity same coin. Still, a design must begin some- theory is the formative experiment which where, and it is helpful to have guidance in combines active participation with moni- the earliest stages of brainstorming and cre- toring of the developmental changes in the ative imagining of how a technology might object of study. come into being. The Checklist covers a large space. It is Integration of the Principles intended to be used first by examining the These basic principles of activity theory whole space for areas of interest, then focusing should be considered an integrated system, on the identified areas of interest in as much because they are associated with various depth as possible. The general strategy, then, 32 i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 33 is breadth-first consideration of the relevant the Checklist seems to be more effective appli- areas of context enumerated in the Checklist, cation of a number of already established followed by a “drilling down” into specific methods and techniques. For instance, the areas that should yield rich results given the Checklist can help identify the most relevant tools and problems at hand. issues to be covered in an interview or to The structure of the Checklist reflects the make sure important problems are not five basic principles of activity theory. Since overlooked in a discussion of empir- the Checklist is intended to be applied in ana- ical data collected in an observa- lyzing how people use (or will use) a computer tional study. technology, the principle of tool mediation is Second, the linear struc- strongly emphasized. This principle has been ture of the Checklist does applied throughout the Checklist and system- not imply that it should be atically combined with the other four princi- used linearly, by focusing ples. It results in four sections corresponding on isolated items one by to four main perspectives on the use of the one and ignoring the rest “target technology” to be evaluated or of the Checklist. designed: Instead, practitioners 1. Means and ends—the extent to which using the tool should the technology facilitates and constrains look for patterns of related the attainment of users’ goals and the items, even if these items impact of the technology on provoking or belong to different sections. resolving conflicts between different goals. Third, in order to use the tool 2. Social and physical aspects of the envi- effectively, practitioners should familiarize ronment—integration of target tech- themselves with the Checklist and even try to nology with requirements, tools, internalize it. We recommend that practi- resources, and social rules of the environ- tioners follow the items in the Checklist ment. repeatedly at various phases of design or eval- 3. Learning, cognition, and articulation — uation. A quick initial run should identify the internal versus external components of most important potential trouble spots and activity and support of their mutual trans- filter out the rest. Further runs may result in formations with target technology. finding patterns, revising previously made 4. Development—developmental transfor- judgments about the importance or unimpor- mation of the foregoing components as a tance of certain issues, and formulating whole. requests for more information, if necessary. Taken together, these sections cover various Fourth, it should be noted that every tool aspects of how the target technology supports, is used for some purpose, and the Checklist is or is intended to support, human actions no exception. Therefore, potential users of the (“target actions”). See the Checklist in the Checklist should clearly understand why they Appendix to this paper. are using the tool. Such understanding can help focus on relevant items and ignore irrele- Using the Checklist vant ones. Also, such understanding is neces- According to our experience of using the sary for successful incorporation of Checklist and teaching other people how to conclusions, judgments, and ideas related to use it, there are several points to remember individual items into more general notions when trying to apply the tool in a specific pro- relevant to design or evaluation of the system ject. as a whole. First, the Checklist is supposed to be used not as the only basis for system design or eval- Apple Data Detectors: An Example of uation, but in combination with other tech- Using the Checklist niques. One of the main advantages of using The design of Apple Data Detectors, a multi- i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 33 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 34 purpose intelligent agent technology for ana- ferent because the emphasis was not the users’ lyzing and taking action on structured data wider context as it was in Apple Data [14], is an example of using the Checklist to Detectors. Apple Data Detectors allows for go beyond the narrow scope of many design end-user development of structures, scripting projects. Apple Data Detectors recognizes of actions, mixing and matching recognizers structured data such as URLs, e-mail and actions, and composite structures (see addresses, postal addresses, ISBN numbers, Table 1). It provides flexibility and a growth and stock symbols. Using “structure detec- path for users. tion” technology [17], a detector is written to Most designers will have to be concerned analyze structured data. The detector is then with the Means/ends column of the Checklist. paired with an action such as “Open URL” or In Apple Data Detectors we studied potential “Create e-mail message.” Apple Data uses of Data Detectors and found that for the Detectors works in any text; applications do technology to be useful, users need composite not need to be modified to use it. structures such as postal addresses. It is con- In the design of Apple Data Detectors, we siderably more difficult to write a parser that were concerned with the Learning/develop- handles composite structures (e.g., an address ment areas of the Checklist. We devoted many is composed of a name, street, city, etc., each resources to considering how end users would of which is an atomic structure). But our users go from simple use of the tool involving only can select an address (with the mouse), and accessing structures supplied by Apple or Apple Data Detectors will recognize it and third-party developers to programming their take a prespecified action such as adding the own new agents. As we considered the prin- address to the user’s address book, putting ciple of development from the beginning of our each field of the address in the appropriate research, we were able to create an architecture place in the address book. that supports end-user programming [12]. We We also gave careful thought at the outset paid special attention to the first four areas in of the project to our criteria for success and the Development column. To reiterate the failure (the Design section of the Means/ends point made earlier, the Checklist can be used column). Our criteria were that the tech- to scope out a large possible space of potential nology be useful for Apple customers and that areas of interest and then narrow down to spe- developers be able to use it painlessly. (Third- cific areas to actively pursue. The Checklist is party developers are developing the structures useful in reminding developers of a larger and actions that work with their applications.) space that gets beyond the details of user We thus decided not to use OpenDoc, even interface mechanisms and leads systematically though there was some pressure to do so. But into many areas of the context of use that may the developers’ experience would have been provide inspiration for interesting designs. much more difficult. As it turned out, this was A research project at another lab used the right decision more than we knew at the structure detection technology much as we time, because OpenDoc was eventually put on did [16]. But the prototype looked quite dif- the corporate back burner. It was the explicit Table 1 A COMPARISON OF TWO USES OF STRUCTURE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY Intel Selection Recognition Agent Apple Data Detectors No scripting (C behind an API) AppleScript No path to end-user modification Script editor End-user modification Recognizer/action pairs bound together Separate recognizers, actions No composite structures Composite structures 34 i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 35 attention to a firm set of design criteria that multiyear study, but that is not how it is helped us weather that storm. intended to be employed. For most uses of the Checklist, users should first do a “quick-and- Conclusion dirty” perusal of the areas represented in the As mentioned earlier, the Activity Checklist is Checklist that are likely to be trouble- not the only attempt to deal with context in some or interesting (or the field of HCI, and it is not intended as a both) in a specific design substitute for other approaches. From our or evaluation. Then, point of view, the Checklist can be most suc- once those areas have cessfully used together with other tools and been identified, they techniques to efficiently address issues of con- can be explored text. more deeply. For instance, task analysis [6] places a heavy The breadth of emphasis on the Means/ends dimension of coverage in the context, whereas environment and, especially, Checklist will help to learning and development are underrepre- ensure that designers do sented. Using the terminology of activity not miss areas that might be theory, we could say that task analysis gives a important for understanding the thorough description of individual actions, tool they are working on. whereas the higher levels of activity and inter- relations between actions receive less attention. Acknowledgments Contextual design [7], conversely, provides Many thanks to Helen Hasan, an elaborated set of concepts and techniques Mark Spasser, Clay Spinuzzi, and John for describing the environment (as in the Waterworth for their helpful comments on an “Environment” section of the Checklist). It earlier version of the paper. also supports identifying users’ tasks (although, in our opinion, not to the extent to References which it addresses the structure and func- 1. Bannon, L. From human factors to human actors: tioning of the environment) but is less focused The role of psychology and human–computer interac- on learning and development. Finally, tion studies in system design. In Design at Work: Development is a major concern within par- Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, J. Greenbaum ticipatory design approaches [e.g., 3], but and M. Kyng, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, identifying task structures does not have a 1991. high priority there. 2. Bødker, S. Through the Interface: A Human Activity Therefore, each of the existing empirically Approach to User Interface Design. Lawrence Erlbaum, driven approaches to context has its strong Hillsdale, NJ, 1991. points. From our point of view, the main 3. Bødker, S., Knudsen, J., Kyng, M., Ehn, P., and advantage of the Activity Checklist is that it is Madsen, K.H. Computer Support For Cooperative a general framework that can be used to (1) Design. In Proceedings of ACM CSCW’88 Conference on provide a preliminary overview of potentially Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Portland, OR, relevant contextual factors, (2) select appro- 1988). priate tools for further exploration, and (3) 4. Bourke, I., Verenikina I., and Gould, E. Interacting evaluate limitations of those tools. In other With Proprietary Software Users: An Application for words, the Checklist can help to leverage the Activity Theory? In Proceedings East-West International various strengths of empirically based Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Moscow, approaches. August 3–7, 1993,). ICSTI, Moscow. The fact that the Checklist is comprehen- 5. Brown, J., and Duguid, P. Borderline issues: Social sive and wide-ranging should not mislead its and material aspects of design. Human-Computer potential users. It would be impossible to Interaction 9, 1 (1994). investigate all the areas it covers without a 6. Dix, A., Finlay, J. Abowd, G., and Beale, R. Human- i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 35 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 36 Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall, London, 1993. 13. Nardi, B., ed. Context and Consciousness: Activity 7. Holtzblatt, K., and Beyer, H. Making customer-cen- Theory and Human–Computer Interaction. MIT Press, tered design work for teams. Communications of the Cambridge, MA, 1996. ACM 36, 10 (1993). 14. Nardi, B., Miller, J., and Wright, D. Collaborative, 8. Kaptelinin, V. Human–Computer Interaction in Programmable Intelligent Agents. In Communications of Context: The Activity Theory Perspective. In the ACM March 1998. PERMISSION TO MAKE DIGITAL OR Proceedings of the East-West Human–Computer 15. Norman, D. Cognitive Artifacts. In Designing HARD COPIES OF ALL OR PART OF THIS WORK FOR PERSONAL OR CLASSROOM Interaction Conference (St. Petersburg, Russia, August Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, USE IS GRANTED WITHOUT FEE 4–8). ICSTI, Moscow, 1992. J. Carroll. ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, PROVIDED THAT COPIES ARE NOT 9. Kuutti, K. Activity theory and its applications in 1991. MADE OR DISTRIBUTED FOR PROFIT OR information systems research and design. In Information 16. Pandit, M., and Kalbag, S. The Selection COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGE AND THAT COPIES BEAR THIS NOTICE AND THE Systems Research Arena of the 90’s, H.-E. Nissen, H.K. Recognition Agent: Instant Access to Relevant FULL CITATION ON THE FIRST PAGE. Klein, and R. Hirschheim, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, Information and Operations. In Proceedings of TO COPY OTHERWISE, TO REPUBLISH, 1991. Intelligent User Interfaces ‘97. (1997 Orland, Fl.), TO POST ON SERVERS OR TO REDIS- TRIBUTE TO LISTS, REQUIRES PRIOR 10. Leont’ev, A.N. Activity, Consciousness, Personality. New York, ACM Press. SPECIFIC PERMISSION AND/OR A FEE. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978. 17. Rus, D. and Subramanian, D. Multi-media RISSC © ACM 1072-5220/99/0700 $5.00 11. Leont’ev, A. N. Problems of the Development of Informatics. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Mind. Progress, Moscow, 1981. Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 12. Lieberman, H., Nardi, B. and Wright, D. Training (Washington, DC, 1993.). ACM Press, New York, pp. Agents to Recognize Text by Example. In Proceedings of 283–294. the International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 18. Wertsch, J. Ed., The Concept of Activity in Soviet Seattle, April 1999. Psychology. M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, 1981. A p p e n d i x . A c t i v i t y C h e c k l i s t P R E A M B L E Means/ends Environment Learning/cognition/ Development (hierarchical structure (object-orientedness) articulation (development) of activity) (externalization/ internalization) Human beings have hier- Human beings live in Activities include both Activities undergo per- archies of goals that the social, cultural internal (mental) and manent developmental emerge from attempts to world. They achieve external components transformations. meet their needs under their motives and goals which can transform Analysis of the history current circumstances. by active transformation into each other. of target activities can Understanding the use of of objects in their envi- Computer systems help to reveal the main any technology should ronments. This section should support both factors influencing the start with identifying the of the checklist identi- internalization of new development. Analysis goals of target actions, fies the objects involved ways of action and artic- of potential changes in which are relatively in target activities and ulation of mental the environment can explicit, and then constitutes the environ- processes, when neces- help to anticipate their extending the scope of ment of the use of sary, to facilitate effect on the structure analysis both “up” (to target technology. problem solving and of target activities. higher-level actions and social coordination. activities) and “down” (to lower level actions and operations). 36 i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 37 E V A L U A T I O N V E R S I O N Means/ends Environment Learning/cognition/ Development articulation People who use the Role of target technology Components of target Use of target technology target technology in producing the out- actions that are to be at various stages of Goals and subgoals of the comes of target actions internalized target action “life target actions (target Tools, other than target Knowledge about target cycles”—from goal set- goals) technology, available to technology that resides ting to outcomes Criteria for success or users in the environment and Effect of implementation failure of achieving Integration of target the way this knowledge of target technology on target goals technology with other is distributed and the structure of target Decomposition of target tools accessed actions goals into subgoals Access to tools and mate- Time and effort necessary New higher-level goals Setting of target goals rials necessary to per- to master new opera- that became attainable and subgoals form target actions tions after the technology Potential conflicts Tools and materials Self-monitoring and had been implemented between target goals shared between several reflection through Users’ attitudes toward Potential conflicts users externalization target technology (e.g., between target goals Spatial layout and tem- Use of target technology resistance) and changes and goals associated poral organization of for simulating target over time with other technologies the working environ- actions before their Dynamics of potential and activities ment. actual implementation conflicts between Resolution of conflicts Division of labor, Support of problem articu- target actions and between various goals including synchronous lation and help request higher-level goals Integration of individual and asynchronous dis- in case of breakdowns Anticipated changes in target actions and tribution of work Strategies and procedures the environment and other actions into between different loca- of providing help to the level of activity they higher-level actions tions other users of target directly influence (oper- Constraints imposed by Rules, norms, and proce- technology ations, actions, or activi- higher-level goals on dures regulating social Coordination of individual ties) the choice and use of interactions and coordi- and group activities target technology nation related to the through externalization Alternative ways to attain use of target tech- Use of shared representa- target goals through nology tion to support collabo- lower-level goals. rative work Troubleshooting strate- Individual contributions gies and techniques to shared resources of Support of mutual trans- group or organization formations between actions and operations i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 37 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 38 D E S I G N V E R S I O N Means/ends Environment Learning/cognition/ Development articulation People who use the U Role of existing technology Components of target Use of tools at various target technology in producing the out- actions that are to be stages of target action S Goals and subgoals of the comes of target actions internalized “life cycles”—from goal E target actions (target Tools, available to users Time and effort necessary setting to outcomes goals) Integration of target to learn how to use Transformation of existing Criteria for success or technology with other existing technology activities into future failure of achieving tools Self-monitoring and activities supported target goals Access to tools and mate- reflection through with the system Decomposition of target rials necessary to per- externalization History of implementa- goals into subgoals form target actions Possibilities for simulating tion of new technolo- Setting of target goals Tools and materials target actions before gies to support target and subgoals shared between several their actual implemen- actions Potential conflicts users tation. Anticipated changes in between target goals Spatial layout and tem- Support of problem articu- the environment and Potential conflicts poral organization of lation and help request the level of activity they between target goals the working environ- in case of breakdowns directly influence (oper- and goals associated ment. Strategies and procedures ations, actions, or activi- with other technologies Division of labor, of providing help to ties) and activities including synchronous collegues and collabo- Anticipated changes of Resolution of conflicts and asynchronous dis- rators target actions after new between various goals tribution of work Coordination of individual technology is imple- Integration of individual between different loca- and group activities mented target actions and tions through externalization other actions into Rules, norms, and proce- Use of shared representa- higher-level actions dures regulating social tion to support collabo- Constraints imposed by interactions and coordi- rative work higher-level goals on nation related to target the choice and use of actions target technology Alternative ways to attain target goals through lower-level goals. Troubleshooting strate- gies and techniques Support of mutual trans- formations between actions and operations Goal that can be changed or modified, and goals that have to remain after new technology is implemented 38 i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 Methods&Tools p27-39 6/7/99 6:37 AM Page 39 D E S I G N V E R S I O N Means/ends Environment Learning/cognition/ Development articulation Parties involved in the Resources available to the Representations of design Anticipated changes in D process of design parties involved in that support coordina- the requirements to the E Goals of designing a new design of the system tion between the par- system system Rules, norms, and proce- ties S Criteria of success or dures regulating inter- Mutual learning of the I failure of design action between the content of the work Potential conflicts parties (designers) and possibil- G between goals of ities and limitations of N design and other goals technology (users) (e.g., stability of the organization, mini- mizing expenses) S A M P L E Q U E S T I O N S Means/ends Environment Learning/cognition/ Development articulation Are all target actions Are concepts and vocabu- Is the whole “action life- What are the conse- actually supported? lary of the system consis- cycle,” from goal setting quences of implementing tent with the concepts to the final outcome, the target technology on Is there any functionality and vocabulary of the taken into account and/or target actions? Did of the system that is not domain? supported? expected benefits actually actually used? If yes, take place? which actions were Is target technology con- Does the system help to intended to be supported sidered an important part avoid unnecessary Did users have enough with this functionality? of work activities? learning? experience with the How do users perform system at the time of these actions? Are computer resources Is externally distributed evaluation? necessary to produce a knowledge easily acces- Are there actions, other certain outcome inte- sible when necessary? Did the system require a than target actions, that grated with each other? large investment of time are not supported, but Does the system provide and effort in learning users obviously need such Is target technology inte- representations of user’s how to use it? support? grated with other tools activities that can help in and materials? goal setting and self-eval- Did the system show Are there conflicts uation? increasing or decreasing between different goals Are characteristics of benefits over the process of the user? If yes, what target technology consis- Does the system provide of its use? are the current trade-offs tent with the nature of problem representations and rules or procedures the environment (e.g., in case of breakdowns Are users’ attitudes for resolving the conflicts? central office work vs. that can be used to find a toward the system teleworking)? solution or formulate a becoming more or less What are the basic limita- request for help? positive? tions of the current tech- nology? Are there external repre- Are there negative or sentations of the user’s positive side-effects asso- Is it necessary for the user activities that can be used ciated with the use of the to constantly switch by others as clues for system? between different actions coordinating their activi- or activities? If yes, are ties within the framework there “emergency exits” of group or organization? which support painless transition between actions and activities, and, if neces- sary, returning to previous states, actions, or activities? i n t e r a c t i o n s . . . j u l y + a u g u s t 1 9 9 9 39 |