Talk:Experience design

Article quality

The article, with it's lack of citations, appears to be original research. See Wikipedia:No_original_research. --Ronz 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The article as currently "revised" is anorexic and the debate focused on, wrongly presented. But who has the time these days to educate when it's all about confrontation? As one of its original owners, I find it no longer fun or interesting. Maybe later. -- Bob Jacobson 07:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

The article is the target of regular linkspam. Please see WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM. --Ronz 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

I looked around for cleanup tags and how to use them, but am giving up after finding nothing helpful...

The article does need attention by experts to help with removing original research, providing information from verifiable sources, and clarifing the language and points.

The article also needs formatting, and rephrasing.

Most importantly, the article needs to be organized into concise sections, which may require some expertise. --Ronz 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The links to MakingMeaning should be removed, replaced with a proper book reference. --Ronz 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! --Ronz 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else think the article is both grandiose and vague? Lots of buzzwords and impressive claims, but lacking real detail. --Ronz 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna give a stab at making it more like an encyclopedia entry, less like the essay/ad that it is now. I'd hoped others would have contributed more since I added the cleanup tag. --Ronz 18:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the results, but it's a start in the right direction. I cut out portions that I found to be repetitive, overly showy, and/or vague. I also removed the "longest disagreements in the Experience Design community" as a philosophical discussion poorly suited for an encyclopedia entry. Hopefully, this will encourage more discussion and editing. In hindsight, I should have probably made more, smaller edits to make all the changes clearer. --Ronz 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

As one of this article's secondary authors, I don't believe it's "grandiose and vague." The authors are practitioners and most of the work being done in this field is being done now. The scholars of experience design have yet to identify themselves. However, if Ronz will identify the points that stick in his craw, including points that he believes need citing, I'd be glad to undertake the effort. -- Bob Jacobson, 12 September 2006

Is something sticking in my craw? No. Why do you think so? Meanwhile, more references would be nice, or perhaps some of the other suggestions I made above. I'm very aware of the immaturity of the field, which is why I specifically asked for experts to help with the cleanup. Thanks for offering to help. --Ronz 21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask the author of the "Focus Debated" section to rethink their presentation? I am unaware of any "debate". I think I understand what you're aiming for - its a multi-disciplinary field so its hard to say what's the "right" perspective. However, I don't know any designer who would say Don Norman's perspective is wrong. I don't believe encyclopedias should promote straw men unless discussing straw men per se. Also, Don Norman is not a design practitioner (which I take to mean "designer") - he's a design critic. -- MarkYo, 16 February 2007

I think Don Noman's perspective is wrong. Among other things, he focuses far too much on (often trivial) problems, and usually glosses over solutions. --Ronz 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don is a design practitioner and educator. He uses criticism as a means to draw attention to as well as investigate design issues. --Ronz 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "Focus Debated" section should be reworked, as could the rest of this article. --Ronz 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article could use information regarding the applications of experience design. I am an Experience Designer and my company has a short article on experience design which could be helpful here. I don't want to contribute to the link spam. So I am posting this in the discussion. --Corey Julihn 10:49, 11 June 2007

"The core application of experience design is matching what an organizations says with what they do. Communication is delivering a message; experience is the message. If an organization says they make technology friendly, an experience designer would work to make sure that organization's touchpoints are friendly." - What is Experience Design --Corey Julihn 10:49, 11 June 2007

All i can add to the discussion (new to editing Wikipedia to hope i'm doing this right) is that the experience design page on Wikipedia had a great impact on me when i was looking for my way and today i am happy to call myself an experience designer, there are also interesting academic programs in respectable institutes (RCA London, Sandberg institute Amsterdam and more) that are leading the research and development of the field, i also tried to find what would be the best way to translate the wiki page to Hebrew and even asked for help in doing so along the years but didn't get any decent response i could actually use in doing so. I would be happy helping add to the existing page and translating it and would be gravely disappointed if it were to be deleted or added to UX which i very vaguely related... hope someone out there is actually going to read this. many thanks. Saron Paz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saron paz (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge into User experience design

The AFD for this article closed in December 2018 calling for a merge into User experience design. I might take care of this, but to be frank I find it very hard to find anything in this page which isn't pure bafflegab. Can anyone indicate what if anything has any actual meaning here? Pinkbeast (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)