Talk:User experience design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why the H*** is there a criticism section!?[edit]

As if designers being underpaid wasn't bad enough they're forced to have their profession uniquely be subjected to a criticism section? Is there a criticism section for pilots, doctors, developers, executives, etc!? No there is not. If some developer thinks he/she can remotely produce a better product without a designer by just following 'best practices' they're sorely ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User experience design vs Experience design[edit]

Isn't it is a bit headhatching to differenciate thoose terms ? When you speak about "experience design", who else than the user's experience would it be ?

Maybe that they are they used both with not the same approach, so that they does not deserve the same page. Anyway can we really say that the "User Experience Design" is a part of the "Experience Design" ?!?

I'm feeling like if that UX Design is a more popular word to describe this design and is used more widely. I guess there is no source on that because researchers are maybe not really interested into making studies on terminology, wich belongs more to political views. However I open the debate about keeping this line "is part of" or not.

--Thirow (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A user is a little more specific than anyone who may share in an experience. "User" mostly pertains to interactivity. Whereas, potential customer, member of an audience, citizen, resident, tenant, spectator, victim, or witness may not necessarily interact with whatever it is they are experiencing.
Not everyone who experiences (meaning effected by) something necessarily "uses" it, chooses it, or was even meant to have any contact with it. That's what makes it a design consideration. A user experience designer only considers the person using the tool. An experience designer may consider everyone who is potentially effected by that tool. For example: a user experience designer may consider the driver or passenger of a car. An experience designer may consider any pedestrians, other drivers, or onlookers who may notice the aesthetic appearance of the car or external safety features such as visibility of signals or physical hazards. Pedestrian safety through vehicle design is experience design, but not user experience design. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I understand better what you mean. It seems I'd just should better take more information on english terminology before posting. It is really funny that it seems that we do not really pay attention to this in France. I feel like if dfferenciation between user and non-user experience was something natural. In my product/service design formation we used "user" as a general term, even if in reallity we took also in account none-users. Another thing is that "design" is also a french word wich is restrictive to, well, lets say experience design if it is the largest english name. We translate the english "design" by "conception", wich includes engineering and all the design fields. I guess that then there where no reason to think about a filiation exp. design -> UX design. As well I really feel like if we prefere terms that have a physical proof like "product design", "webdesign", "graphic design", "space design", "communication"... We have also a strong use of "interaction design", and the new comming "service design" and "strategic design", but evryone seems to have a different definition of thoose new terms. We do not have UX design as professional speciality, well, I guess it would be an horrible syntaxe in french "design d'experience utilisateur" but make a strong use of "User experience" alone. We also have an "Experiencal design" term but it is not very trendy exept for some specific aeras of design (I guess it is in space design). Well, sometimes I feel like if design vocabulary was a batlefield beetween many many visions. On some days I'm not sure yet if it is really "in consruction". It sometimes seems to me to be in "perpetual RE-construction"... Well, it is on "saddy" days. --Thirow (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they do have different meaning and as mentioned below, UXD is a subset of Experience Design. Experience design is a way more generic term and posses different challenges than the user experience design. An experience design problem is typically more generic for example it could be about customer experience at a shop, or event experience in a concert. Whereas, User experience design is more focussed on finding issues with what people face while "using" a product or service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi9av (talkcontribs) 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the User Experience Design and the Experience Design pages should be merged as they are creating confusion among the readers, more clarity needed--Varshauxwiki (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Major edits needed[edit]

I have several concerns about how user experience (UX) is presented in Wikipedia. I share some of them below, and would like to hear others' opinions.

1. User experience deserves a page of its own, and should be separated from User experience design. UX is a vague term and requires a lot of explanations and examples. UX design is about the process and about things to consider, but not everyone is a UX designer. UX evaluation may require its own page as well. I know there has been a merge some years ago, but this field has developed since.

2. Although it is hard to come to a conclusion on how to define user experience, the current circular definition "overarching experience" does not help readers to understand what UX is about. I propose a simple explanation "User experience is about how a person feels about using a system".

3. Explaining UX is easier if we explain its difference to related terms such as

    • Experience (general term that is not about using a system, UX is one category of experience)
    • Usability (how easy and efficient it is to execute a task with the system)
    • User interface (the components of the system that are used for input and output)
    • Brand engagement (person's attachment to a brand)
    • ...

There have been some scientific workshops, surveys, and publications about understanding, defining, and scoping user experience, and it would be great to get Wikipedia to the level of state-of-the-art.

If you agree, how could we proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirpiRoto (talkcontribs) 10:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can just agree on using simple termes because the UX design is complicated to understand for the user. Speaking of feeling is not easy so that the user does not analyse his own feelings... and then does not understand much when we speak about UX design without an effort to make him understand.
Another tips is that Wikipedia basement on definitions is not really adapted, the user may understand better if we explained him what change UX design, waht are the contrubutions of UX design, in place of using hermetic definitions. Storytelling would be a good point too.
Anyway for a Wikipedia format I just can agree to your points 1, 2, 3. With an effort to use examples to illustrate what it is said.
--Thirow (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
-- I'm not sure how to correctly add to this, but I completely agree with Thirow -- it's very confusing that UX doesn't have a separate entry here, and that "User experience deserves a page of its own." Rosspw (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this page has a long way to go and does not do a good job of explaining what UXD is. Point 3 seems to be the best approach as those are concepts that constitute UX. Overall, I feel like the article is not well structured at all and keeps going in loops. The term 'Design' has also well evolved in the industry and we need to polish that. Ndhaijaan (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Language Edits[edit]

Grammar and sentence structure in the article seemed off at many places. I have tried to refine it to the best of my knowledge. Please let me know if anything more can be done.

“With the rise of the information age, many generalizations of the components have been based on the building blocks of the user experience design of digital systems.” – Replaced as "With the rise of the information age, the term "User Experience Design" has been generalized to mean User Experience Design of digital systems"

“In the context of information architecture, information is separate from knowledge and data, but lies indefinitely in the middle” – Rephrased as: In the context of information architecture, information is separate from both knowledge and data and lies nebulously between them.

“It is information of all shapes and sizes: websites, documents, software applications, images, and more.” - Changed to: It is information about objects. The objects can range from websites, to software applications, to images et al.

“ New introduction of software must keep in mind the dynamic pace of technology advancement and the need for change.” – Changed to: Every new software introduced must keep pace with the rapid technological advancements.

“Simplifying design documentation and customer-facing technical publications”. - Rephrased as - “Simplifying design documentation and customer-centric technical publications” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirumalavan (talkcontribs) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


Most of the references don't appear to be reliable per WP:V, WP:OR, & WP:RS. Perhaps this is an indication that the topic is not notable enough for a wiki article? --Ronz 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a new field, much of the literature for this topic originates from practitioners of the field. Because the field is so new, there is not a wealth of published materials that comprehensively cover its particulars. Like Experience_design which is listed appropriately Within wikipedia, much of the information has been gathered through practicing authors and bloggers such as Don Norman who coined the term User Experience and Mark Hurst, a noteworthy proponent of good customer experiences. Additionally, much of the formulation of this field has been through open dialogue among practitioners. That being said, I will work to find published materials that support the information on this page and make edits in this direction over the next few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


"User Experience" is to "User Experience Design" what "Web Page" is to "Web Page Design." Given that, I think that it makes sense to keep the two terms separate since they have different meanings. "User experience design" is the professional field of designing "user experiences." 06:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)SP

So it seems, but while it's clear what web pages are and what web page design is, it's not clear with user experience. More importantly, it's hard to distinguish in user experience design references between what people are actually doing versus what they want to be doing versus what they promote themselves as being able to do. It's messy. I appreciate your prespective and hope we can continue to discuss this. --Ronz 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It is a little awkward comparing (user experience) an event to (a web page) an object. Anytime the word "design" is used, it should be understood as a form of (planning) goal-oriented problem solving. User experience design is a form of event planning. When talking about a subject outside of the context of design, one should consider who would be interested in the subject. The question here is: who would be interested in the event of user experience and for what reason other than (design) event planning? Oicumayberight 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Still there's my concern about the difficulty differentiating what's done vs what some would like to do vs what is just promotion. I'm not sure how to resolve this in an encyclopedia.
Further, you're saying user experience is an event. Should we have articles for both the event and designing for such events, or just for designing them? --Ronz 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I put the question out there because I don't know the answer. If you are talking about an event, it depends on the event whether or not anyone but the event planner would be concerned enough to treat it as a subject of an encyclopedia article. For example, customer service is an event, but you wouldn't talk about customer service (in general) to the customer unless you were selling the service of a particular company. That's not an encyclopedia article, but instead, it's an advertisement. The only ones concerned about customer service (in general) are customer service professionals. So the article customer service is written for customer service event planners, not the customer. There is not an article for customer service planning or customer service design. There is an article for customer service representatives, but it is written for human resource concerns. On the other hand, there are events that do warrant encyclopedia articles separate from the designing (planning) concerns. A movie is an event, that warrants articles apart from film making. So I don't know if enough could be said about user experience outside of the context of user experience design that anyone but a designer would be concerned with.
As for your question of differentiating what's done vs what some would like to do vs what is just promotion. I don't see much difference between the latter two. They are both goals. "What is done" sounds like an article describing (present tense) reality, the dynamics of how things are or how things work. "What some would like to do" sounds like an article describing (future tense) the design of how things should work (goals) or the (past tense) history of the design specialty, what worked and what didn't work in the planning process. Oicumayberight 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. I originally suggested the merge because the articles seemed to be saying the same things. After reading my own words, I don't think much can be said about user experience outside the context of what a designer would be concerned with. I don't care if the article is titled "user experience" or "user experience design", just so long as they are merged. Oicumayberight 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree. This discussion has made it much clearer for me as well. --Ronz 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

UX as super-field containing other fields?[edit]

Should we consider UX to be a field that contains other fields, like Human-Computer Interactio, Human-Robot Interaction, etc. It seems that UX may have developed from other fields, but it is a superset, studying how users relate to products. This would mean a fair change to the writing style on this page. Aaronpowers 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are good sources verifying it, perhaps. From what I've read, UX is just a promotional label for what designers have been doing for many decades if not longer, usually used by designers that don't know better. --Ronz 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that the word emerged to distinguish what designers do from what engineers do when technology overwhelms the planning discussion. At one time, engineering and design was one in the same. As technology became more advanced, it became impossible for a person to know everything about a high-tech product. Things like customer experience would get little attention when concerns were weighted towards technological soundness. The term "User" emerged in place of "customer" from the computer science world. Engineers and programers knew how to use their own software, so it was easy for them to be blinded to just how complicated and difficult their product might be to a unfamiliar first-time users or less tech-savvy customers. It was the Nick Burns effect. User experience brings the balance back to less tech-savvy designers and (heaven-forbid) customers.
Having said that, I agree that without references, it's a bit early to pull the other fields mentioned into it. It's mainly used in software now. The wikipedia article can expand with the expanded referenced usage of the term. Oicumayberight 03:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC) This is a link from the article :) Nahrihra 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ronz> "From what I've read, UX is just a promotional label for what designers have been doing for many decades if not longer, usually used by designers that don't know better."
The term has been used since the late 70s according to this: Nahrihra 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[edit]

The link fails wiki guidelines and policies in a number of ways:

  • First, it appears to be added for promotional purposes, in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:COI.
  • Second, it is a blog written by non-notable authors, in violation of WP:EL.
  • Third, it appears to be added by someone that owns and maintains the site, in violation of WP:EL and WP:COI.
  • Fourth, it has been added with personal commentary inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV.

Before adding it again, please read the most relevant guidelines: WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, and discuss here why you think it should be added. Please note that as the editor making the contribution, the burden of evidence rests on you for justifying the link. --Ronz 01:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

UX Diagram[edit]

I found an interesting diagram on the importance of user experience. This diagram is hosted on Flickr, and many people have translated it to other languages. It is an educational poster! The non-english diagrams are available to download for free.

Take a look at the following URL:

I want to add a link to this "educational diagram in Flickr" to the "External Links" section of this article. Ok?

AmirBehzad (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too promotional for our use here per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. You can't really make out the details in the flickr version, plus it links to the site that it came from where it is offered for sale as a poster. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Materials section[edit]

I've removed it per WP:NOT and WP:OR, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTDIR. Without sources demonstrating the encyclopedic value of any list of providers, the list doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)