Misplaced Pages

Talk:User experience

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.171.64.176 (talk) at 14:42, 2 August 2013 (whkotugwdsj19löxhbsv10jkdhudwefgywsdloşkw2oı). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:42, 2 August 2013 by 78.171.64.176 (talk) (whkotugwdsj19löxhbsv10jkdhudwefgywsdloşkw2oı)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Merge User experience with Quality of Experience?

It has been suggested that UX and QoE pages should be merged. I do not support this idea. 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, whilegtpsqwj 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 Customer experience than User experience. -- VirpiRoto (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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. --99.152.9.49 (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion from 2006

This should not be filed under "Computers"? 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

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. --Ronz 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the entry, Experience Design, which covers a different discipline. Bob Jacobson, 12:37 Pacific, 12 Sept 2006.

I disagree that the disciplines are so different. I've entered it in under See Also. Perhaps you could help make the distinction clearer? --Ronz 21:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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 User-Experience Special Interest Group (SIG-UX) 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. --Ronz 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. The ones already there are no different from tens or hundreds of similar websites. This article is a potential vanispamcruftisement magnet. Kla'quot 01:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following links per this discussion:

Kla'quot 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with User experience design

Merge Both articles are short and there is much in common. --Ronz 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See discussion in Talk:User_experience_design. --Ronz 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
User experience requires an own page, as discussed in Talk:User_experience_design. Now it is there. (User_experience_evaluation addded at the same time.)VirpiRoto (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"User eXperience"?

I don't think the "X" in "User eXperience" should be capitalized like that... does the WP:MOS say anything about this? --Zarel (talk⋅c) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.108.58 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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? -- VirpiRoto (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

FDIS 9241-110:2009 -> IS 9241-110:2010_IS_9241-110:2010-2011-12-12T18:05:00.000Z">

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. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)_IS_9241-110:2010"> _IS_9241-110:2010">