Lately things have gotten a bit out of hand. As much as I thought I was on top of things, then along comes some people who's supposed to be the mentors and great thinkers of certain paradigms (and hey! there's even an ISO standard! *shiver* ) These people I find myself not to agree with. Yes, shocker, horror, but I don't swallow their stuff blindly.

What's going on? Well, the dispute above is Human-centred Design vs. Activity-based design. I think Activity-based design is an important part of Human-centred design, so why the separation? No one has yet explained it in reasonable terms, but I think their gist is;

• If you focus on all aspects of human-centred design, you might fail
• If you only focus on the activity part of it, you most likely will succeed

Doesn't this again comes down to; with good people you get good stuff, and with bad people you can get crap? I don't know, I tend to agree with Ziya from the SIGI-A mailing-list: "Best-practice is a set of guidelines you follow if you haven't got a clue what to do." And this is exactly what Human vs. activity design sounds to me.

I'm sure I'm missing something. Until then, I appoligse for the lack of postings here; life is more than busy.