Are in Pirateapad all necessary components for analyzing and describing interactive systems? What components seem irrelevant?
The list seems to be more than complete. Maybe just few components may have the same purpose like actors and participants or isn’ Project manager a participant? So I would put project manager under participants or actors dependency and add facilitators, tutors etc. The relevance and highlight of the components seem to vary depending on the tasks.
Currently we have a long list of components, which can be definitely shorten. How would you do that? do what degree the list of components is concurrent with the components of the activity theory framework?
It depends on what is the purpose of shortening of the components? When we take the example of the activity theory framework purposed in a research where we find common ground with the components in piratepad assignment. Rules are mentioned in piratepad but maybe should have been defined more specifically which aspects are considered as rules. Definitions related to time(timeframe, star, end etc.), limitations, restrictions should go under rules. So have been mentioned community consisting actors and participants, division of labour consisting project managers and tools consisting of methodology, software and modeling. Also are pointed out subject as actor and object as result with aims/goals.
Are there components which are not covered by the activity theory framework, but the activity theory framework could benefit from?
Activity theory seems to cover all the mentioned components just in a bit smaller contexts. Good points to be pointed out from piratepad are learnability of how the participants should learn from the interactive system and workmanship as a way of using creativity while doing the tasks/activities, which could be benefited in the activity theory framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment