The Engineering of Experience
While I found some of the computer science based examples given kind of hard to follow at times, I thought this article brought up a lot of truths that I had never really thought about directly. For example, the importance of efficiency in “Taylorism” (or what watered-down versions of it we use today) has always been the norm for me in both school and work. I think this idea that while at work, one is there solely to complete a task, has carried over into some of my work in design in a way, I imagine, similar to Senger’s computer science and AI examples. I’ve always aimed to produce creative solutions to problems, but I don’t always provide accommodation for unanticipated human interaction. I think the solution going forward is to remember that no matter what the product, every user is still human, and as Senger says, “…they can somehow never generate the complexity and richness of natural behaviour of humans” (pg. 26).
Making Sense of Experience
This article made much more sense to me. I especially thought the four threads of experience and the six other bullets (anticipation, connecting, etc.) were outlined in a way that made each aspect of user experience easier to understand. I think this attempt to define each facet of experience was important, especially after the first article in which I was sort of unclear as to what exactly the ‘human behavior in experience’ was. This article also made me really see that creating a universally great human experience is impossible since we’re all so different and it’s our unique feelings, pasts, and associations that determine the effectiveness of an experience. The only question I have after reading this article was what exactly they meant by “tendencies to reduce” or “reductive experiences”.