While trolling around the Internet, I stumbled on what promised to be a great white paper. All About UX published a User Experience White Paper that promised to "clarify the concept of user experience". While I have a very clear understanding of what User Experience (UX) means, it's always good to learn other perspectives.
The list of contributors was quite impressive. I've worked with many smart people from the UK and Finland, so for me, that added a lot of credibility. Of course, it was missing something important. What was their expertise or background? Just because you're from a research facility or university, does not make you a UX expert worthy of contributing to a white paper. The introduction clearly broke down the different ways to look at UX (phenomenon, field of study, and practice). The paper does not does delve into the UX as a field of study.
The phenomenon section was a little boring. Now I'm not saying that I disagree with the phenomenon section, it just looked like filler for someone's research paper. I will say that the bulleted list on "What is UX not?" rubbed me the wrong way, mostly because of how it was positioned. While reading half of this list, I thought, well yes.....and no. For example, the paper says "UX is not just cognitive task analysis, or seeing users as a 'human information processor'." While the words are accurate, they are misleading, because cognitive task analysis, and seeing users as a 'human information processor' (not my phrase) definitely contributes to the UX. Again the statement is accurate, it's just written in a black and white format when it's not black and white.
Moving on to the section "UX as a Practice". This was more my speed, real world application. Maybe there was a nugget of genius that I could grab onto and improve knowledge and skills. It started out very promising and then I was stunned. They missed the very core element of UX. Again, let me be clear, the words within this paper are accurate, but the picture painted is massively incomplete. Maybe the title should be "User Experience White Paper from a Designer Perspective". Design is critical to a great UX. You definitely don't want bold colors with balloons and clowns on a site that's about a cancer treatment drug. Great visuals are needed for an effective UX. But it's not enough! The white paper total misses that UX is goal driven. UX is defined by how effectively, efficiently and pleasantly a user can achieve a goal. That goal can be anything; find and understand information, purchase a product, play a game, etc. This is job for an Information Architect.
Key the superman music - Without an Information Architect or someone to define the user's interaction needed to accomplish a goal, you are looking at UX with one eye closed. Behind the creativity provided by the designer, you need someone that takes the 'goal' and meticulously defines how users will accomplish it. The designer makes it look fabulous, but the Information Architect provides the process that ensures users can effectively and efficiently accomplish a goal.
You cannot practice UX without considering the Information Architecture. Because this white paper omits this key element, it does not clarify the concept of UX, it paints a confusing and misleading picture.
The list of contributors was quite impressive. I've worked with many smart people from the UK and Finland, so for me, that added a lot of credibility. Of course, it was missing something important. What was their expertise or background? Just because you're from a research facility or university, does not make you a UX expert worthy of contributing to a white paper. The introduction clearly broke down the different ways to look at UX (phenomenon, field of study, and practice). The paper does not does delve into the UX as a field of study.
The phenomenon section was a little boring. Now I'm not saying that I disagree with the phenomenon section, it just looked like filler for someone's research paper. I will say that the bulleted list on "What is UX not?" rubbed me the wrong way, mostly because of how it was positioned. While reading half of this list, I thought, well yes.....and no. For example, the paper says "UX is not just cognitive task analysis, or seeing users as a 'human information processor'." While the words are accurate, they are misleading, because cognitive task analysis, and seeing users as a 'human information processor' (not my phrase) definitely contributes to the UX. Again the statement is accurate, it's just written in a black and white format when it's not black and white.
Moving on to the section "UX as a Practice". This was more my speed, real world application. Maybe there was a nugget of genius that I could grab onto and improve knowledge and skills. It started out very promising and then I was stunned. They missed the very core element of UX. Again, let me be clear, the words within this paper are accurate, but the picture painted is massively incomplete. Maybe the title should be "User Experience White Paper from a Designer Perspective". Design is critical to a great UX. You definitely don't want bold colors with balloons and clowns on a site that's about a cancer treatment drug. Great visuals are needed for an effective UX. But it's not enough! The white paper total misses that UX is goal driven. UX is defined by how effectively, efficiently and pleasantly a user can achieve a goal. That goal can be anything; find and understand information, purchase a product, play a game, etc. This is job for an Information Architect.
Key the superman music - Without an Information Architect or someone to define the user's interaction needed to accomplish a goal, you are looking at UX with one eye closed. Behind the creativity provided by the designer, you need someone that takes the 'goal' and meticulously defines how users will accomplish it. The designer makes it look fabulous, but the Information Architect provides the process that ensures users can effectively and efficiently accomplish a goal.
You cannot practice UX without considering the Information Architecture. Because this white paper omits this key element, it does not clarify the concept of UX, it paints a confusing and misleading picture.
When you say 'white paper'.. Is that just the title of the document? Or a technical term?
ReplyDeleteCheck out this link
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper
Hear, hear!
ReplyDelete