Monday, May 02, 2005
Users and their Experience
What follows draws from an ongoing discussion with other Local Ambassadors from the UXnet community. I'll just link these references for now ...
The discussion goes on about whether there's real energy for development in the community of practitioners known as user experience professionals. Some were saying, maybe the practices around UX are not all that:
Anyway, I disagree like others in the UXnet discussions, but for different reasons. I find it helpful when people surprise us with counter-proposals and critiques to keep things alive and interesting. I have had my own issues with the term UX design. I don't have a problem thinking of a field called UX - practitioners have the right to call their work, especially interdisciplinary work, anything they want to, as long as they agree it means something to them. And its nice when the expression communicates to their customers and even their parents and spouses, but not necessary.
But I don't see us (technically) as designing user experience, and I agree with those that also say there are not "elements" of user experience. (This is a very nice book though, I wish I had written it with a different title).
Experience isn't a thing or a quality, as Peter Merholz suggests, it’s a subjective, conscious activity. Experience cannot be observed either (as others have suggested). (Oh man, I should not have started on this blog - My second post and I've probably alienated Adaptive Path's principals and well-read authors forever!)
Experience is found in the mind and collective perceptions of the "user", or the experiencer. User Experience should be referred to as the user's experience, and this is not to make a twist of semantics. There is no experience "out there," its "in here." You can't design an experience, unless its your own. Instead of observing experience, user research should aim to understand experience. I submit you can design for a type of experience. But the artifacts of even a well-designed, entertaining product or attraction are designed materials, not designed experiences.
And I just as invitingly insert that we might continue to find alternative names for the people (users) having experience of interest. I know "experiencer" sounds weird, but it respects the subjective experience I'm interested in, as opposed to the mere fact of use. I'll probably keep looking for an alternative to user my whole career, and I have, like Diogenes. I'll let you when I find it.
The discussion goes on about whether there's real energy for development in the community of practitioners known as user experience professionals. Some were saying, maybe the practices around UX are not all that:
User Experience is a Quality, Not A DisciplineSince I'm a little new to this discussion, I'm not jumping in with both feet. Just linking sources.One of the things that has been hard for the "usability community" to accept is that usability is not really interesting in and of itself. And that usability isn't really a goal, and it's definitely not the end-all be-all. Usability is simply a quality. It's an important quality, but just one of many. And it definitely doesn't warrant being a "discipline."
Anyway, I disagree like others in the UXnet discussions, but for different reasons. I find it helpful when people surprise us with counter-proposals and critiques to keep things alive and interesting. I have had my own issues with the term UX design. I don't have a problem thinking of a field called UX - practitioners have the right to call their work, especially interdisciplinary work, anything they want to, as long as they agree it means something to them. And its nice when the expression communicates to their customers and even their parents and spouses, but not necessary.
But I don't see us (technically) as designing user experience, and I agree with those that also say there are not "elements" of user experience. (This is a very nice book though, I wish I had written it with a different title).
Experience isn't a thing or a quality, as Peter Merholz suggests, it’s a subjective, conscious activity. Experience cannot be observed either (as others have suggested). (Oh man, I should not have started on this blog - My second post and I've probably alienated Adaptive Path's principals and well-read authors forever!)
Experience is found in the mind and collective perceptions of the "user", or the experiencer. User Experience should be referred to as the user's experience, and this is not to make a twist of semantics. There is no experience "out there," its "in here." You can't design an experience, unless its your own. Instead of observing experience, user research should aim to understand experience. I submit you can design for a type of experience. But the artifacts of even a well-designed, entertaining product or attraction are designed materials, not designed experiences.
And I just as invitingly insert that we might continue to find alternative names for the people (users) having experience of interest. I know "experiencer" sounds weird, but it respects the subjective experience I'm interested in, as opposed to the mere fact of use. I'll probably keep looking for an alternative to user my whole career, and I have, like Diogenes. I'll let you when I find it.
