A Tale of Two Designs: Human-Centered Vs. Activity-Centred
Note: Some readers may be more used to the term User Centred Design (UCD) instead of Human Centred Design (HCD). I consider User Centred Design as a specific application, in some cases more extreme, of Human Centred Design. Therefore, all the points I discuss in this article apply the same way to UCD as they do to HCD, if not more critically.
These days, I’m reading my copy of “The Design of Everyday Things” by Don Norman. I like to revisit those foundational pieces of literature from time to time.
While I was on the chapter about Human-Centred Design (HCD) and Activity-Centred Design (ACD), I remembered a conversation I had with my colleague back in 2015 when I was working for the UK government about using scenarios over personas to make design decisions. Today I’d like to put my two cents about using scenarios over personas to make design decisions.
In this article, I would like to explore the differences between Human-Centered Design and Activity-Centred Design and how they extend to 2 deliverables widely used for decision-making: personas and scenarios.
Both approaches are considered parallel tracks guiding the train of design thought. Each has its merits, but subtle differences could make one more appropriate for certain situations than the other.
Unravelling the Designs: Human-Centered & Activity-Centred
Human-Centered Design:
At the core of HCD is the quintessential ‘persona,’ a vivid representation of our target user imbued with specific characteristics, behaviours, and needs.
HCD puts the user at the centre of the design process, with solutions carefully crafted to accommodate these personas’ needs, capabilities, and behaviours.
While the method endeavours to craft solutions resonating with users on a deeply personal level, it may inadvertently lead to designs that are overly tailored, often misleading, and might alienate segments of the user base not reflected in the created personas.
The resulting products, while bespoke, might be overly complex, less understandable, and might not genuinely reflect the diverse and dynamic needs of the actual user base.
Activity-Centred Design:
In contrast, Activity-Centred Design focuses not on individuals but on their activities.
This methodology champions ‘scenarios’ over personas. The emphasis subtly shifts from the users themselves to the myriad tasks and actions they perform, which, as argued in the previous text, creates designs that are intuitive, versatile, and universally appealing.
The aim here is to optimise these activities for efficiency and effectiveness, often resulting in intuitively easy-to-navigate solutions that are universal in their appeal.
By supporting the dynamic sequence of activities, ACD offers a harmonious balance between user needs and activity requirements, resulting in a design approach that is both efficient and inclusive.
A great example of this shift is the Jobs-to-be-done framework proposed in 1990 by Tony Ulwick, which has become more popular in recent years.
The Art of Choice: Kettle’s Tale
Consider the humble kettle, a staple in many households. When viewed through the lens of HCD, designers may tweak the kettle’s features to cater to the specific preferences and habits of distinct user personas. This approach, while user-centric, risks falling into the pitfall of bias and stereotype, designing for imaginary individuals rather than actual users, which might not reflect the true diversity and complexity of the user base.
However, the narrative shifts when we approach the kettle with an ACD mindset. The activity of boiling water becomes the protagonist of our design story. Designed this way, the kettle is versatile and adaptable, catering to the myriad ways people across cultures use boiling water. It embraces and anticipates the universality of the activity, creating a product that is more inclusive and accessible.
As a Spanish person who has been living in the UK for the last 12 years, I have seen how this universal design has allowed the kettle to find its space in households outside English-speaking cultures where it didn’t exist before.
Why Activity-Centred Over Human-Centered? Scenarios Over Personas
Here’s where the comparison of personas versus scenarios comes into play. Personas, while helpful, might inadvertently box designers into creating solutions for specific, sometimes idealised users, leading to biased or stereotypical designs. Scenarios, with their focus on the activity, offer a broader canvas, allowing for the crafting of adaptable solutions relevant to a diverse user base.
Take the act of storyboarding, for instance. As we sketch users’ journeys, with each stroke, revelations and insights unfold before our eyes. The emphasis on activity unveils facets of user interaction and behaviour often overlooked when concentrating on personas alone. The activity canvas brings forth nuances, making the design process a discovery of ‘why, how, where, when’ our users need support and guidance. These insights are invaluable, providing a more precise roadmap to crafting genuinely user-centric experiences in their inclusivity and accessibility.
Conclusion:
While Human-Centered Design has its undeniable allure, the subtle yet powerful shift to Activity-Centred Design offers a fresh perspective, allowing designers to break free from the confines of persona-based thinking. It is an invitation to embrace the diversity and dynamism of user activities, crafting solutions that are user-friendly and user-empowering.
In the symphony of design, while personas hit the emotional notes, scenarios compose the melody of functionality and inclusivity. As designers, we must tune our ears to both but let the melody of Activity-Centred Design lead the orchestra.
