Yancho

I'm really glad I finally spent some time reading the articles Dr. Gibbons suggested we read in relation to the Thanksgiving Point project. I think the most compelling thought I read was this: We argue that the right strategy cannot be known a priori. Instead of trying to define a service from the top down, we start with exploratory or immersive research to lead to opportunities for innovation in strategy. This, in turn, provides context (or the fill) from which the service can be created. But there are many great thoughts that help give picture to the concept of experience design: Great experiences are leading to a demand for even better experiences. As expectations for service experiences rise—are the people participating or cocreating those experiences becoming more skilled at leveraging the resources for their experience and designing their service? If so, then what are the implications for designing-for-service experiences? In designing-for-service experiences we must pr...

I've been doing a bit of reading about experience design. One thing that strikes me as interesting is the idea that sometimes in UX design we begin focusing on such minute things that it almost seems ridiculous. Like writing an entire article about whether or not you should write "submit" on your button or some other verbiage. Not that I don't think that is important in its own way. (I certainly agree with the sentiment.) I just feel like the more important broad principles of human engagement get ignored by a myopic view of the user experience. In " 10 Faces of Innovation ," by Tom Kelley, he tells how he will ignore cracks, dust, and peeling wallpaper in a hotel that has an exceptional bed because that's what is important to him when he is travelling. He comes in late and gets up early. The most important part of the hotel is the bed since a good night's rest makes a difference to his traveling experience. A vision of how you can make the user f...

Jakob Nielsen  suggests only testing 3-5 users because of the decreasing return on investment for more users. The graph from his post suggests that you find most of the errors in user interfaces with in the first few users. He suggests testing five users, then redesigning based on the feedback, then testing five more. It increases quality of data and results in a better product while keeping budget costs under control. It's a more efficient way to go. The exception is when you have distinct user groups, in which you test 3-4 users of each distinct user group in the same fashion as noted above.

Susan Weinschenk  wrote about the three loads of human factors in UX design, viz. cognitive, visual, and motor loads. She suggests the proper user experience design for any given program or site would be a balance of the three loads and would attend to the purpose of the site, whether to entertain, engage, or get things done.