I would hope that we can eventually come up with a more ‘exacting’ term to align with the distinct scenario-set represented by this article than ‘experience’ (perhaps ‘deep experience’). As noted in “The Experience Economy”, every interaction a business has with an individual is an experience and the majority of them are not online and yet still ‘should’ require the involvement of the types of skills/activities alluded to by the model.

While George suggests a way to add to the model by inclusion of another ‘narrow’ perspective, I see opportunities to add to the model due to more ‘broad’ perspectives.

just say what you have to say!

Paula, if Jesse and George had been a bit more overt in their focus and used the term “Computer Interactive Experience” instead of “User Experience”, would you be happier with the essay(s)? I’ve always thought that in this field the term “user” was assumed to mean “user of a computer system”… It seems to me that you are (re)defining “user” as “a person who interacts with an organization”. It’s an admirable definition, but I think most people in these parts are trying to have a discussion about computer interaction design, not customer relationship management (i.e., HCI not CRM). I’m not even sure that the topics raised in these diagrams are sufficient to cover those topics associated with CRM.

-Cf

@jjg: saying the flash-technologie doesn’t belong to the web, is like saying fish doesn’t belong to the ocean. it is one of many creatures and manifestations of the ever-changing and evolving ocean called “www”…

1. Why the censorship? Why was ‘fifa_mifa’s post removed? Agreed that it wasn’t eloquent etc, but it did raise an important point: ‘How does George have the time during the working day to be doing a back-and-forth on this discussion list’?

2. I, and I’m sure I am not alone, for one work for a company that does real work. I shoulder quite a bit of responsibility and crank out a good amount of work. The IAs- and pretty much everyone else here- is not looking for the next blog to post to or the next book to write. We’re cranking out schematics/ wireframes/ use cases/ deliverable reviews/ design reviews/ etc… So, to re-iterate fifa_mifa’s point (and this time a little more eloquently), ‘George, how busy are you? And is replying to blogs/ discussions/ etc the most exhilarating thing you do in the day?’

PS: Before flaming me and accusing me of double standards for writing this during the work-day, I’m currently sitting at an airport, connected via GPRS, waiting for my plane to leave

I guess my concern was not so much of a personal attack (and my apologies if it came across as such), but more of a curiosity about what IAs- or call them what you will- are doing in the average work day.

Honestly, is being an IA at a client’s side so to speak, a walk in the park compared to being an IA developer-side?

I have been experimenting with this idea over the past few days. Though JJG makes it clear that his multi-layered diagram is “does not describe a production process” my thought is that maybe could. I’ve incorporated the ideas presented by George Olsen in his article at Boxes and Arrows which elegantly added to the user experience view and JJG’s diagram.

In haste I have created some quick diagrams in OmniGraffle (less than perfect) and have assigned task lists to each of the items — possible pre-production tasks one could look at doing in each stage of production. They are available here: http://www.benry.net/blog/archives/2003_04.html#000314

Feedback welcome as I continue to tread through these murky waters.

The way I’ve interpreted it, I’ve gone from a two-dimensional on-or-off state to having a three-dimensional continuous model.

It’s helping me visualise sites as multi-dimensional entities (imagine vectors: 15 task, 30 immersion, 55 information) and considering how pages/sections can contribute to that.

In the long term, I’m sure it will help me meet the divergent/convergent needs of different users.

Thanks,

Simon

PS: Jesse’s diagram remains the one on my wall!

Significantly, the added “immersion-oriented” column is *not* a dimension. It’s not orthogonal to the two previous columns. Rather all three are *parallel* layers or workflows. Both Jesse and George’s diagrams seem to present these three columns as representing different types of UE design. While I agree that emphasis varies by project, I think all three workflows are present and interracting in all projects.

It seems to me that we could replace the terms Information-oriented, Task-oriented, and Immersion-oriented with more classic terms of Content, Function, and Form. This might not be quite what you had in mind, since there is already a horizontal dimension of Visual/Sensory Design.

But I think it might make sense. In fact, I wonder if we might learn something here from the Rational Unified Process (software developers, God forbid!). RUP has a process diagram that presents a Y dimension of “workflows” and an X dimension of time (http://www.rational.com/products/whitepapers/100420.jsp). The workflows (requirements, analysis, design, implementation etc.) sound like the traditional phases of a waterfall approach, but because they are kept in an orthogonal dimension, they are allowed to interact. For instance, an implementation might reveal new requirements.

So, if we thought of this new diagram as presenting three parallel design disciplines of Content, Function, and Form, it would explain how content, function, and form are really inextricably tied together. They can be treated as parallel rather than sequential processes. For instance, visual design can influence interaction, and interaction design can influence content, rather than the other way around as is usually thought. This is an issue I’ve always thought needed more attention.