David (Rondeau), That's precisely the difference between "Design 'for' user experience" against "Designing User experience". There is stream of thought which says as a designer you can only design 'for' an intended experience as you have no control over the 'actual experience' the user might have interacting with the product due the various factors beyond control.
One can certainly critique the first part ( the intended experience) but it would be interesting to see how the second part (actual user experience) can be critiqued unless there is a certain level of generalization ( personas?) otherwise it's a matter of great subjectivity for individual users. Regards, Shrikant Ekbote http://shrikant123.wordpress.com On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:22 PM, David Rondeau < [email protected]> wrote: > It seems to me that if we are going to have a true critique of the > user experience, we actually have to step back and consider that > there are 2 parts to the actual experience. > > First is the design%u2014the system, product, service, or whatever, > that we create. Ostensibly, if we are user experience designers, then > we have designed some kind of user experience into the design. In > other words, we are expecting users to have a specific "kind" of > experience when they interact with a design, whatever that design > might be. > > The other part is the real experience users have when they actually > use any or all of the things that were designed. This is very much > driven by forces that are external to the design > itself%u2014different contexts as Jared mentioned, changing intents, > and evolving perceptions can result in very different experiences. > > I think both parts are important when critiquing a user experience > design. We need to understand the forms, structures, and styles of > the experience design itself and critique how they affected the > actual experience of our users. > > This should result in a more holistic critique. Was the intended > experience appropriate or misguided? Did the Design (the larger > design, not the little details) provide the intended experience or > did it go beyond expectations? What theories can we provide about how > and why the forms, structure, and style impacted the experience? How > do changing tastes and attitudes affect perceptions of an experience > design? How do we build a theory that can be "proven" and > discussed, much like the disciplines of drama, philosophy, or ethics? > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=43338 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [email protected] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
