Describe interactive systems.
"users” perception of seeing opportunities to create their own human to human interactions with personal media.
Some missing components
The list of interactive systems contains many components and the question is whether something is missing. I would first say, that "purpose", it's important to talk about the purpose while actors are using interactive system and ask why they are doing this. For me one related thing with purpose is that tasks have to be "understandable". Actors have to relate tasks with the purpose of what they are doing and where is the way going to - even if the purpose is not explained detailly, every step/task has to answer some questions and get actors closer to their purpose - even if the purpose actually changes on the way.
As it's important to measure the quality of participants tasks, it's also important to explain the exact "requirements" that is closely connected with the overall rules of the interactive system.
Irrelevant components?
I would say that it's hard to define what would be irrelevant, the idea and theory behind this list came from somewhere, and all the components where listed to fill the whole system. And it depends on where do I look from.
I would take "location" as one irrelevant component or replace it with "internet" as the location is not important in geographical point of view, but the requirements that the location gives are - it has to have internet connection and a computer that allows to use software that is necessary.
For my better understanding I made a mindmap of the list and tried to define what bigger groups I could make form the components that were originally listed. And I grouped it this way:
Purpose - Methodology - Participants - Time - Tools - Interrelatedness.
In a little longer sentence it would be translated as:
Firs tit's important to define the overall purpose of the interactive system and define the methodology used for it, before we can connect methodology and time we have to know who are the participants and what access to what tools they might have. Interrelatedness does connect different participants and also defines their roles that is already subcomponent in these groups.
Activity theory and the list of components
I starte this post with idea to add "purpose" as one of the components to the list in question. And I feel that if the purpose would be listed it would be much better to explain it also through activity theory, then we could know who or what I should list as subjects or objects.
From the list I can understand that "rules" are definitely the part that are well thought through and can be listed to activity theory, as project manager was also listed, I would assume that I can also list the division o labour, and the community behind it and main activities.
As activity theory is pretty dynamic it basically allows to fit any list into the theory - it just depends on who we list as subject and how we write down the object and outcome from that. It's like learning to ask same question in different ways and fitting it into the theory and we get the explanation that was needed.
