<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Usability and the user experience</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:50:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mbb448</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-3522</link>
		<dc:creator>mbb448</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 05:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-3522</guid>
		<description>Thanks, David. I appreciate the response. Yes, I&#039;m familiar with the inverted pyramid style of writing. I&#039;m writing a paper on User Experience and therefore am looking for nuggets of brilliance. Not leaving any stone unturned. Often, the comments offer good insight. Take care, MB</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, David. I appreciate the response. Yes, I&#8217;m familiar with the inverted pyramid style of writing. I&#8217;m writing a paper on User Experience and therefore am looking for nuggets of brilliance. Not leaving any stone unturned. Often, the comments offer good insight. Take care, MB</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hamill</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-3521</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hamill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-3521</guid>
		<description>Hi mbb448, thanks for the comment. You&#039;ll find that most well-written articles on the web make their point at the beginning then follow up with supporting arguments. It&#039;s often referred to as the inverse-pyramid. Few people read any article word for word, so I&#039;m surprised you got as far as “esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature” in the comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi mbb448, thanks for the comment. You&#8217;ll find that most well-written articles on the web make their point at the beginning then follow up with supporting arguments. It&#8217;s often referred to as the inverse-pyramid. Few people read any article word for word, so I&#8217;m surprised you got as far as “esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature” in the comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mbb448</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-3520</link>
		<dc:creator>mbb448</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:17:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-3520</guid>
		<description>The article was helpful. First few paragraphs were the most useful and really all that was needed to convey the point in full. 

The second half of the article and (unfortunately) most of the comments contributed nothing new.

I knew I had read too much when I reached: &quot;esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature&quot;. WTF?! Thinking about the person who wrote that made me realize this is far too granular and a waste of time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The article was helpful. First few paragraphs were the most useful and really all that was needed to convey the point in full. </p>
<p>The second half of the article and (unfortunately) most of the comments contributed nothing new.</p>
<p>I knew I had read too much when I reached: &#8220;esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature&#8221;. WTF?! Thinking about the person who wrote that made me realize this is far too granular and a waste of time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hamill</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-2642</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hamill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 06:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-2642</guid>
		<description>Hi Mark, thanks for the comment.  I&#039;m not making up my own definitoin here and that&#039;s kinda my point.  It&#039;s an ISO definition that I happen to agree with. As for over compliating it? I guess I&#039;m biased but I recckon my argument is a bit easier to understand than yours, esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature or not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Mark, thanks for the comment.  I&#8217;m not making up my own definitoin here and that&#8217;s kinda my point.  It&#8217;s an ISO definition that I happen to agree with. As for over compliating it? I guess I&#8217;m biased but I recckon my argument is a bit easier to understand than yours, esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-2641</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 02:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-2641</guid>
		<description>I have to disagree here with this article. As a UX Architect, we redefined the role of information architect with UX (user-experience) architect to take into account user-research, user-feedback hence the new evolution of IA, versus Web Master, versus System Operator of old.

User experience is just that, it is the overall encompasses aspect of the user&#039;s experience with website, application or product.

Usability is the metrics, the quantitative metrics and the fundamental aspects of the basic interactions of any given product.

I see a lot of this esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature by people who are new, who want to throw their two cents worth into overcomplicating what we architects actually do.

Usually I see these debates by theory versus practical application (real world) types.

Don&#039;t overcomplicate this with new definitions to what we already do.  it&#039;s simple.  If a person cannot use (usability( a product, he&#039;s going to have a bad experience (user-experience).  We created UX architect terminology to seperate us from Information Architects who took no account from user-research, user-feedback, user metrics, but architected their way into a corner with their blinders.

This article overcomplicates the simplistic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to disagree here with this article. As a UX Architect, we redefined the role of information architect with UX (user-experience) architect to take into account user-research, user-feedback hence the new evolution of IA, versus Web Master, versus System Operator of old.</p>
<p>User experience is just that, it is the overall encompasses aspect of the user&#8217;s experience with website, application or product.</p>
<p>Usability is the metrics, the quantitative metrics and the fundamental aspects of the basic interactions of any given product.</p>
<p>I see a lot of this esoteric obfuscation of the nomenclature by people who are new, who want to throw their two cents worth into overcomplicating what we architects actually do.</p>
<p>Usually I see these debates by theory versus practical application (real world) types.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t overcomplicate this with new definitions to what we already do.  it&#8217;s simple.  If a person cannot use (usability( a product, he&#8217;s going to have a bad experience (user-experience).  We created UX architect terminology to seperate us from Information Architects who took no account from user-research, user-feedback, user metrics, but architected their way into a corner with their blinders.</p>
<p>This article overcomplicates the simplistic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-2492</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-2492</guid>
		<description>[...] Usability and the user experience [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Usability and the user experience [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared M. Spool</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-1612</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared M. Spool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-1612</guid>
		<description>From my perspective, UX gives you the chance to talk about the entire, holistic experience that the user is dealing with. When our clients talk about it, they get it very quickly.

When we focus just on usability, they start to bring up all these other concepts, such as aesthetics, business models, offline integration, and persuasion. Yet, when we talk about user experience, they seem to &#039;get&#039; that all these things are part of the solution.

So, we&#039;ll be sticking with user experience for now. :)

Jared</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From my perspective, UX gives you the chance to talk about the entire, holistic experience that the user is dealing with. When our clients talk about it, they get it very quickly.</p>
<p>When we focus just on usability, they start to bring up all these other concepts, such as aesthetics, business models, offline integration, and persuasion. Yet, when we talk about user experience, they seem to &#8216;get&#8217; that all these things are part of the solution.</p>
<p>So, we&#8217;ll be sticking with user experience for now. <img src='http://www.goodusability.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Jared</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hamill</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-1571</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hamill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:20:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-1571</guid>
		<description>Hi Jared, thanks for the detailed comment. Pretty soon I think that User Experience/Usability people will be searching for a new label. Or even returning back to Usability. In recent years, User Experience is used more and more to describe things that just look nice. People who were once called &#039;web designers&#039; are noticing this &#039;user experience designer&#039; role and deciding that this is what they are. But they&#039;re often using the same practices that don&#039;t involve users. 

Looking around the web, I see websites and blogs profiling examples of good user experience that are just nice designs. I also meet people who introduce themselves as a user experience somethingorother only to find that they have never put a design within a 100 yards of its target user before launching it.

I realise that I&#039;m going to continue to append &quot;and by usability I mean&quot; every time I want to say that it&#039;s more than ease of use. But I guess I think it&#039;s better than explaining that user experience is more than being snazzy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jared, thanks for the detailed comment. Pretty soon I think that User Experience/Usability people will be searching for a new label. Or even returning back to Usability. In recent years, User Experience is used more and more to describe things that just look nice. People who were once called &#8216;web designers&#8217; are noticing this &#8216;user experience designer&#8217; role and deciding that this is what they are. But they&#8217;re often using the same practices that don&#8217;t involve users. </p>
<p>Looking around the web, I see websites and blogs profiling examples of good user experience that are just nice designs. I also meet people who introduce themselves as a user experience somethingorother only to find that they have never put a design within a 100 yards of its target user before launching it.</p>
<p>I realise that I&#8217;m going to continue to append &#8220;and by usability I mean&#8221; every time I want to say that it&#8217;s more than ease of use. But I guess I think it&#8217;s better than explaining that user experience is more than being snazzy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared M. Spool</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-1556</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared M. Spool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-1556</guid>
		<description>Good discussion.

When we use terms like &quot;usability&quot; and &quot;user experience&quot;, we&#039;re trying to use a shorthand to communicate concepts that are important to us.

The success of that communication will depend on whether both the transmitter and the receiver (the two components of any communication) share a common understanding of the shorthand terms. If they do, the communication will be clear.

However, if they don&#039;t, the communication will become muddled and, worse, the disconnect in meaning may go unnoticed until a later point, where reconciling the differences may be more costly.

So, while we can each have our own definitions of terms, such as &quot;usability&quot;, unless we define our use with each instance, we can&#039;t be sure our definition is the same as the person we&#039;re communicating with. This becomes a problem when we adopt a different interpretation (such as &quot;usability is broader than ease of use&quot;) than the majority of people we&#039;re talking to. 

People have been banging the &quot;usability is broader than ease-of-use&quot; drum for a really long time (greater than 10 years). However, it hasn&#039;t caught on yet. Maybe someday.

Introducing a new term, such as user experience, can be helpful in some instances. It&#039;s because its use, being foreign, demands definition. So, that&#039;s why you see new terms supplanting old ones (Interaction Designer vs. UI Designer; Information Architect vs. Webmaster).

The vague and fluffy qualities of User Experience is why it makes the term so useful. Being vague and fluffy means it&#039;s malleable. 

So, if you wish to keep pushing usability to have the broader definition, then I think you&#039;ll be taking on the burden of appending, &quot;And by &#039;usability&#039;, I mean...&quot; for quite a while.

:)

Jared</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good discussion.</p>
<p>When we use terms like &#8220;usability&#8221; and &#8220;user experience&#8221;, we&#8217;re trying to use a shorthand to communicate concepts that are important to us.</p>
<p>The success of that communication will depend on whether both the transmitter and the receiver (the two components of any communication) share a common understanding of the shorthand terms. If they do, the communication will be clear.</p>
<p>However, if they don&#8217;t, the communication will become muddled and, worse, the disconnect in meaning may go unnoticed until a later point, where reconciling the differences may be more costly.</p>
<p>So, while we can each have our own definitions of terms, such as &#8220;usability&#8221;, unless we define our use with each instance, we can&#8217;t be sure our definition is the same as the person we&#8217;re communicating with. This becomes a problem when we adopt a different interpretation (such as &#8220;usability is broader than ease of use&#8221;) than the majority of people we&#8217;re talking to. </p>
<p>People have been banging the &#8220;usability is broader than ease-of-use&#8221; drum for a really long time (greater than 10 years). However, it hasn&#8217;t caught on yet. Maybe someday.</p>
<p>Introducing a new term, such as user experience, can be helpful in some instances. It&#8217;s because its use, being foreign, demands definition. So, that&#8217;s why you see new terms supplanting old ones (Interaction Designer vs. UI Designer; Information Architect vs. Webmaster).</p>
<p>The vague and fluffy qualities of User Experience is why it makes the term so useful. Being vague and fluffy means it&#8217;s malleable. </p>
<p>So, if you wish to keep pushing usability to have the broader definition, then I think you&#8217;ll be taking on the burden of appending, &#8220;And by &#8216;usability&#8217;, I mean&#8230;&#8221; for quite a while.</p>
<p> <img src='http://www.goodusability.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Jared</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Hamill</title>
		<link>http://www.goodusability.co.uk/2009/03/usability-and-the-user-experience/comment-page-1/#comment-1444</link>
		<dc:creator>David Hamill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goodusability.co.uk/?p=1001#comment-1444</guid>
		<description>Hi Lee,

Bizarrely I hadn&#039;t seen that Jared Spool post. I think we&#039;re getting into granular detail here. To the extent that it isn&#039;t helpful.

My argument would be that this is all just usability. It just depends on what you&#039;re looking at. You can research the usability of a camera, the process of buying it, the act of researching your purchase decision, the menu system of the phone line when you complain that it doesn&#039;t work. The list is endless. 

The reason I prefer using the term &#039;usability&#039; is that user experience is a little too vague and fluffy. It is also borrowed far too often by people who really mean &#039;snazzy&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Lee,</p>
<p>Bizarrely I hadn&#8217;t seen that Jared Spool post. I think we&#8217;re getting into granular detail here. To the extent that it isn&#8217;t helpful.</p>
<p>My argument would be that this is all just usability. It just depends on what you&#8217;re looking at. You can research the usability of a camera, the process of buying it, the act of researching your purchase decision, the menu system of the phone line when you complain that it doesn&#8217;t work. The list is endless. </p>
<p>The reason I prefer using the term &#8216;usability&#8217; is that user experience is a little too vague and fluffy. It is also borrowed far too often by people who really mean &#8216;snazzy&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

