I thought some of the ideas in this article were very interesting. Taylorism to me sounds like micromanagement. I don’t see why they’d analyze peoples movements doing work and then tell them how to do the job. If they are going through that much effort of analysis, why not just replace the person at that point with a machine? I think the idea of creating systems that appear complex because of a complex input is smart. The Traces room seems like an interesting idea. I wonder how augmented reality stacks up against VR in terms of the experience really convincing the user, as Traces to me sounds more like augmented reality.
Wright, McCarthy, Meekison:
This reading was very analytical of the process of experiencing and, while I agree with the more broad statements about experience such as preconceptions influencing experience, I am not totally convinced by the framework presented. I think there are too many “distinct” steps involved. I agree that anticipating an experience helps shape it, but connecting and interpreting seem like largely the same step. They explain that connecting is a pre-linguistic step, but go on to refer to a website as “sleazy”. I also think they are overcomplicating the framework by separating reflecting and appropriating, is reflecting on our thoughts of a site during the experience not making it our own experience? They also grouped connecting/interpreting/reflecting in their example, which leads me to believe that the users had trouble understanding the differences in the framework as well.