Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
framework that can model, support and represent both in-game/application and
switching between apps and platform. While evaluation typically incorporates a
mixed methods approach with outcomes providing different but complementary
results, there's little in the way of an underlying theoretical model or framework to
inform, guide and connect design, development and evaluation. Activity theory is one
such approach that has long been identified as “a powerful and clarifying descriptive
tool” [17] and widely used in analysis of work-related organizations, systems, and
human-computer interactions (HCI). However, as suggested by Kaptelinin & Nardi
(2006), activity theory needs to evolve in order to move forward towards being a
more practical and theoretical approach for design and evaluation for user experience.
In order to support more than one activity, application and platform, we revisit A. N.
Leontiev's (1981) original work on activity theory to illuminate and extend important
concepts, leading to the proposal of a universal framework for the evaluation (and
inform design) of the user experience of entertainment through engagement in
interaction and gameplay. This paper is structured as follows. In the next section we
provide a brief history of activity theory, describe the activity-based
scenario/narrative approach, its extension to a universal framework, and describe its
application to interaction and gameplay with multi-platform and multi-application
use.
activity
:
A
activity: B
activity
: C
Fig. 2.
Schematic showing (left to right) analogy of sequential ordering of activities to film
frames, and through interaction, improvisation or “cut-up”, users-players can be considered
similar to editors, curators, authors, designers creating their own narratives, texts & experiences
2
Activity Theory
Originating from Soviet psychology, two versions of activity theory currently co-
exist: A. N. Leontiev's (1959/1981; 1975/1978 - Russian and English translations)
original hierarchical framework of activity and Engeström's (1987; 1990) expanded
triangle incorporating collective activity (figure 3). While essentially developing from
similar roots found in the work of Vygotsky, the two approaches are different and
even have “different views” of the same concepts (e.g. “object”) - refer to Kaptelinin
& Nardi (2006) for informed discussion. While interest has primarily been on
Engeström's (1987; 1990) version (e.g. CSCW, HCI) largely because of its expansion
to analyze social/collective activities, in this paper we focus on Leontiev's (1981)
