Dear Don,

Hopefully this might help you sharpen your arguments, or make your essay clearer. 

As I read your claims I get the feeling that I've heard it all before. You are basically reiterating the "form follows function" figure of thought, rephrased through as "design follows activity".
'... where the activity dictates the design.'
'It is the activity that drives the product'
'...it is the activity itself that controls how they should be designed and used.'
I'm pretty sure that there is a fair amount of questioning towards this from a post-modern and post-colonial perspective. For example, why is it that an American can claim that 'the products we design to support those activities can be (and usually are) culture free', especially referring to products manufactured under an outsourced industrial mass-production logic?

On the other hand, you are also claiming that "action follows design". At least if we assume that you distinguish between activity and action.
'Note that for many of our technologies, the artifact -- product -- defines the activity.'
This is precisely the spot for a Critical Theory proficient scholar to jump in, or maybe someone with a deconstructivist mindset.

Moreover, you claim that "operations follow design" (if we assume your previous claim that "design follows activity").
'People learn these with incredible skill, not because they fit the body, but because the designs seem quite appropriate to the activity.'
Here, I would argue that appropriation of technology, and development of operations of designs are driven by habit rather than that the design is appropriate (to a certain degree appropriate at least) to the activity. Musical instruments is a perfect example, where the operations of the instrument is directed by habits of the (in a symphony orchestra the violin is held in a specific way, whereas in folk music you see other manners of operation). And sometimes design actually is directed by operations. The Chapman stick is such an example, emanating from playing the guitar by tapping the strings at the neck, instead of striking the strings over the body.

Note that my starting point is that there is a difference between activities, actions and operations.

You also make a "universality" claim.
'I maintain that the products being used /.../ can be completely universal'
'The basic shape, appearance, and controls are universal'
I'm wondering about the source of this universality; is it based on some version of natural selection? And if so, does it depend on the fitness of designs towards activities, meaning that activities are universal? If the former is the case, Alexander might be informative. If the latter is the case, is it universal to humans, to higher primates, to tool using animals?

So, given these things, some design questions; What if we designed "cars" to suit the driving in Bali. In Bali the driver is acknowledging what happens in front of him/her and is responsible for making those in front of him/her (and those that in a near future might be in front) aware of what s/he is doing that affects them? What if we designed "cell phones" that support the Balinese figure of thought 'still learning'? What if we designed packaging in line with Balinese 'one for me, one for the gods, one for nature'?

It would be great to hear a reflection on Don's post by our anthropologists/designers colleagues. Or maybe our design research colleagues working with the concept "quality-in-use" (such as Pelle Ehn, Jonas Löwgren, Mattias Arvola).

All the best
/Stefan

--------------
Stefan Holmlid, associate prof Interaction & Service Design
E: [log in to unmask] | P: +46 13 285633
W: http://www.ida.liu.se/~ixs/ | T: @shlmld
A: IDA, Linköping University, 581 83 LINKÖPING