Tag Archives: computer science



week 12 of 2011
Joensuu, Finland

Writing, writing and more writing….

for that I need to review some of my basics in Activity Theory (AT). So, this is the third time I read the EXCELLENT book from Kaptelinin & Nardi, and still I am processing it. Their book, for me, is comprehensive and it has helped me to bring together my understanding of AT from the perspective of interaction design. Another author that I enjoy deeply to read regarding AT is Prof. Yrjö  Engeström. However, I am slower digesting his message, even though I learn a lot from his lines. Sometimes when I am reading, specially with “scientific” stuff,  or when I go to the library I have imagine how fantastic would be to listen to them explaining their ideas, dreams and experiences. To interact with them as friends, which ones are their personalities, how they deal with problems and how their dreams fulfills them. Each person is a whole interesting collection of volumes in different topics.  I guess all of us have experienced that great feeling when someone, who has more experience than us, offers us quality of time and narrates us something so that involves actively on the topic. So many ideas and knowledge are enclosed everywhere….


Acting with Technology

user centered vs user experience

ALARM! Another confusion on board!!!

I think it is not the same to talk about user centered than user experience.

Several papers related to computer science are highlighting that their focus is to enhance the user experience. Excuse me?, how do they measure and validate that the experience is enhanced with their intervention? (haven’t seen/read measurements and less validations of their intervention on the experience of the users)

In parallel, game studies is putting a lot of effort on the understanding of the game experience. However, on this field it is possible to observed long ethnographies (in case of virtual worlds) or the use of psychological methodologies for specific purposes.

Perhaps one can assume, due to the fact that “x” is developed using a user-centered approach, the experience will be enhanced using ex. But isn’t is a dangerous generalization?, because which experience is enhanced? (positive or negative experience), diminish frustration, increase enjoyment, inspirational, etc. And even those elements should be clearly define first.

To be direct: according to whom, which experience is enhanced, how is it enhanced, under which specific context and using what?.

Maybe I am getting picky, I am confusing myself easily, or complicating myself. :/

But clear thinking, it is not easy!