| Revision as of 17:03, 20 January 2013 editHipal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,837 editsm Reverted edits by 81.159.108.58 (talk) to last version by SineBot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:12, 27 October 2024 edit undoMrOllie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers236,232 edits Restored revision 1216388227 by Zefeng jing (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
| ==Merge ] with ]? == | |||
| {{WikiProject Computing|importance=Top|software=yes|software-importance=Top|websites=yes|websites-importance=Top}} | |||
| It has been suggested that UX and QoE pages should be merged. I do not support this idea. | |||
| {{WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction|importance=Top}} | |||
| While QoE is related to UX, both terms are in use and used a bit differently. The current description of UX is about using an interactive system, while the description of QoE seems to be covering a wider area of all touch points between a customer and a company. In this sense, QoE is closer to ] than User experience. -- ] (]) 10:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Marketing & Advertising|importance=High}} | |||
| :Totally incorrect merge suggestion IMO. I'm amazed the suggestion has survived this long. QoE is more of an engineering term trying to quantify things, I'm not sure I've ever actually heard it used by any UX/HCI professionals. --] (]) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject Systems|field=systems engineering|importance=Mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:User experience/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} | |||
| == Intro still confusing and unclear - A suggestion == | |||
| ==Discussion from 2006 == | |||
| The intro of any Misplaced Pages article should start with the most general and simplest definition. | |||
| This should not be filed under "Computers"? | |||
| The current one is still a confusing jumble, but ends with a fairly useful simplification. | |||
| This topic is not directly Computer Related. User Experience is a "phenomenon" that has to do with all kinds of interaction with products or systems. Although coming from a HCI-domain, it is an interdisciplinary topic that covers psychology, marketing and sociology more than computers. ~ Garyu | |||
| Here is an improved version of that to start the intro with. Clearer? Aspects like emotion and attitude are just two of many included in what follows. | |||
| *I know this covers more than just "computers", but {{tl|compu-stub}} is the closest thing that we've got. You can take a look at ] and find a better one if you want. ] ] ] 15:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The stub is fine. If we can't more editors fleshing this article out, there are a number of other articles where it could be easily merged. I could really use a tool that crawls the links from a wikipedia article 2-3 links out and maps the results to help find a good location for the merge. --] 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| User experience (UX) is a person's experience of and interaction with a particular product, system or service. It includes etc... ] (]) 21:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I deleted the link to the entry, , which covers a different discipline. ], 12:37 Pacific, 12 Sept 2006. | |||
| :Summarizing (or even quoting) from at least one authoritative source is essential. --] (]) 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree that the disciplines are so different. I've entered it in under See Also. Perhaps you could help make the distinction clearer? --] 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your guidance ]. I just slightly paraphrased the perfectly clear ISO standard definition quoted in the Definition section already. What I propose then is to replace the whole jumbled intro with a summary of that Definition section, as follows. | |||
| :I disagree totally. These are very much similar actually. Both are concerned with the user aspect of technology/design. They both strive for a pleasant and good experience for the user, so they are very inter-related. That this article needs more flesh is clear. The Experience Design topic seems a bit older and more familiar, and this article still needs a LOT of work. Perhaps it could learn from the as discussed on the NordiCHI conference in Oslo this year? | |||
| ===Fewer external links, more content?=== | |||
| In the hope that editors will contribute more to the content of the article, I propose removing all external links to essays and the like. If the essays are useful, then certainly portions can be used in the article itself, with proper references. --] 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''User experience''' ('''UX''') is all of a person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service<ref>{{cite book|title= Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407) | author= International Organization for Standardization |id= ISO F±DIS 9241-210:2009 | year=2009}}</ref>. It includes all the users' emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses, behaviors and accomplishments that occur before, during and after use. | |||
| *I agree. The ones already there are no different from tens or hundreds of similar websites. This article is a potential vanispamcruftisement magnet. ] 01:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That's it. OK? ] (]) 11:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I removed the following links per this discussion: | |||
| ::Looks good. Why not reference the 2019 version? --] (]) 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| *, by ] | |||
| *, by Robert Rubinoff | |||
| * | |||
| * Interaction-design.org's encyclopedia covers the range of disciplines commonly associated with user experience - Interaction Design, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Design, Human Factors, Usability, Information Architecture | |||
| ⚫ | == Developer experience == | ||
| ] 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * {{diff2|1064081478|1063969079|13:29, January 6, 2022}} - ''«Undid revision 1063969079 by Alexander Davronov talk) reverted addition with multiple errors»'' | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| : {{re|Cerebral726}} What errors? Why not to fix them first? | |||
| '''Merge''' Both articles are short and there is much in common. --] 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-weight: bold" >] ] ]</span> 23:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :See discussion in ]. --] 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was the second person to revert that addition. It isn't the responsibility of other editors to fix mistakes you add if you repeatedly add them. It might be better if you start a discussion on this talk page with the additions you want to make so these errors can be worked through before they are in the article. The issues were mainly grammatical and style errors, as the previous editor who reverted your addition noted. --] (]) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :User experience requires an own page, as discussed in ]. Now it is there. (] addded at the same time.)] (]) 07:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{re|Cerebral726}} Are you going to ignore my question above? You seen ]?<br>{{tqi|I was the second person to revert that addition.…}} ← This justifies nothing. The previous editor ] because he was a long term abuser nicknamed as ] and whose edits weren't genuinely constructive. He basically made spurious and baseless accusations against me in an unrelated article about "mistakes" with the same nonsential rhetoric about "start on talk page". That's not how it works here. You also should be aware that the text I've added in fact, only partially mine. I've copied it from here: <small>]]</small>. <span style="font-weight: bold" >] ] ]</span> 19:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::: First off, you should try to be a little less incendiary with your approach to communicating with another editor, I am not acting in a way intended to upset you. I reverted the addition because the mistakes were not minor. I found the addition difficult to understand as it was written. I am not trying to disparage your addition, it is clear you are acting in good faith, but there are numerous grammatical and content errors. Regardless of why the other person was reverting your addition, I saw it as a valid removal. I am adding back in your addition with several fixes. --] (]) 19:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's fine. Regards. <span style="font-weight: bold" >] ] ]</span> 20:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Relation with the customer experience wikipedia page == | |||
| == "User eXperience"? == | |||
| Why is there no relationship between this page and the customer experience wikipedia page? The customer experience page has a section on user experience but doesn't point to this article. In fact, the customer experience article has a huge warning about its quality. I suspect some of those arguments apply to this page as well. Is it worth reconciling these two pages? ] (]) 22:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think the "X" in "'''User eXperience'''" should be capitalized like that... does the ] say anything about this? --] <small>(]⋅])</small> 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu== | |||
| ::Agree. | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_SP24_-_Sect_201_-_Thu_(Spring) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-03-04 | end_date = 2024-05-04 }} | |||
| Mis-use of language in this sort of marketing newspeak waffle distinguishes empty buzz-phrases, such as this, from anything of substance. Sorry for the people taken in by it, really. It's not about computing, user interfaces or user "experiences", all of which have established, respected literature. It's about form over function and conning the gullible. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ==User experience is NOT just subjective in nature == | |||
| I completely disagree that user experience is only subjective in nature. If we take into consideration theories such as Activity Theory and Group Cognition, than this would suggest that there is an objective nature to UX which is tangible and may be measured, quantified and evaluated. In addition, there are common interaction patterns which groups of users would agree to be "true" for them, therefore, making UX more than just subjective in nature or taking place in one individual's mind. Having said all of this, I am an HCI researcher, not a social psychologist, if anyone reading this is, I would love you to weigh in on this argument. Basically, I would like to add that UX is both subjective and objective in nature to the main definition. | |||
| : I would like to have an example of objective UX. I don't see interaction patterns be part of user experience, but rather one of the various factors affecting it. User experience studies how a person perceives the interaction pattern, i.e. the subjective part. Does this make sense to you? -- ] (]) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == FDIS 9241-110:2009 -> IS 9241-110:2010 == | |||
| http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52075 says that the FDIS has been published as a standard, with a new date (2010). Ideally, someone with a copy of the standard should verify that the definition did not change. --] (]) 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:12, 27 October 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Intro still confusing and unclear - A suggestion
The intro of any Misplaced Pages article should start with the most general and simplest definition. The current one is still a confusing jumble, but ends with a fairly useful simplification. Here is an improved version of that to start the intro with. Clearer? Aspects like emotion and attitude are just two of many included in what follows.
User experience (UX) is a person's experience of and interaction with a particular product, system or service. It includes etc... Majvr (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Summarizing (or even quoting) from at least one authoritative source is essential. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance Hipal/Ronz. I just slightly paraphrased the perfectly clear ISO standard definition quoted in the Definition section already. What I propose then is to replace the whole jumbled intro with a summary of that Definition section, as follows.
User experience (UX) is all of a person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service. It includes all the users' emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses, behaviors and accomplishments that occur before, during and after use.
- That's it. OK? Majvr (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good. Why not reference the 2019 version? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
References
- International Organization for Standardization (2009). Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). ISO F±DIS 9241-210:2009.
Developer experience
- 13:29, January 6, 2022 - «Undid revision 1063969079 by Alexander Davronov talk) reverted addition with multiple errors»
- @Cerebral726: What errors? Why not to fix them first?
AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was the second person to revert that addition. It isn't the responsibility of other editors to fix mistakes you add if you repeatedly add them. It might be better if you start a discussion on this talk page with the additions you want to make so these errors can be worked through before they are in the article. The issues were mainly grammatical and style errors, as the previous editor who reverted your addition noted. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cerebral726: Are you going to ignore my question above? You seen WP:FIXFIRST?
I was the second person to revert that addition.…
← This justifies nothing. The previous editor was banned because he was a long term abuser nicknamed as WP:BKFIP and whose edits weren't genuinely constructive. He basically made spurious and baseless accusations against me in an unrelated article about "mistakes" with the same nonsential rhetoric about "start on talk page". That's not how it works here. You also should be aware that the text I've added in fact, only partially mine. I've copied it from here: . AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cerebral726: Are you going to ignore my question above? You seen WP:FIXFIRST?
- I was the second person to revert that addition. It isn't the responsibility of other editors to fix mistakes you add if you repeatedly add them. It might be better if you start a discussion on this talk page with the additions you want to make so these errors can be worked through before they are in the article. The issues were mainly grammatical and style errors, as the previous editor who reverted your addition noted. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- First off, you should try to be a little less incendiary with your approach to communicating with another editor, I am not acting in a way intended to upset you. I reverted the addition because the mistakes were not minor. I found the addition difficult to understand as it was written. I am not trying to disparage your addition, it is clear you are acting in good faith, but there are numerous grammatical and content errors. Regardless of why the other person was reverting your addition, I saw it as a valid removal. I am adding back in your addition with several fixes. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- First off, you should try to be a little less incendiary with your approach to communicating with another editor, I am not acting in a way intended to upset you. I reverted the addition because the mistakes were not minor. I found the addition difficult to understand as it was written. I am not trying to disparage your addition, it is clear you are acting in good faith, but there are numerous grammatical and content errors. Regardless of why the other person was reverting your addition, I saw it as a valid removal. I am adding back in your addition with several fixes. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Relation with the customer experience wikipedia page
Why is there no relationship between this page and the customer experience wikipedia page? The customer experience page has a section on user experience but doesn't point to this article. In fact, the customer experience article has a huge warning about its quality. I suspect some of those arguments apply to this page as well. Is it worth reconciling these two pages? 2A01:4B00:AD02:DB00:E553:6AC7:5BAA:66FB (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zefeng jing (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Zefeng jing (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class Computing articles
- Top-importance Computing articles
- C-Class software articles
- Top-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Top-importance
- All Software articles
- C-Class Websites articles
- Top-importance Websites articles
- C-Class Websites articles of Top-importance
- All Websites articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class Marketing & Advertising articles
- High-importance Marketing & Advertising articles
- WikiProject Marketing & Advertising articles
- C-Class Systems articles
- Mid-importance Systems articles
- Systems articles in systems engineering
- WikiProject Systems articles