Hello,

well, the whole world looks at Apple now, no? Windows 8 was full of ideas, I sort of liked it, too, to be honest, but it is not perfect, maybe we can agree here. Now what?

Apple did a good job with iOS, I think that at least. I think people may be overwhelmed... But somehow, it is fun to ease, it is taken back, understandable, it is actually less colorful than it used to be, I thought, but when colors are used, you see them more clearly and they sort of signify more precisely.
I thought that is where OS design may be heading a bit. Reduced to what you really need, full screen apps, simpler icons.

Do you think OS X will receive a radical redesign? Would you want this? What do you think they can learn from Tablets much more?

Greetings.
Pete

[OreoCookie]

I don't think it will receive a radical redesign. I'm sure it will receive a visual overhaul, but I don't think it will fundamentally change the UI concept. From what I can tell Apple optimizes OS X for a more narrowly defined group of users, those who can't get the job done on tablets. They'll continue certain things from iOS, but in a much more subtle way. Apple's focus on battery life and giving the foreground application a higher priority in the CPU scheduler is one of them.

[besson3c]

Why is it that most discussions about OS X and its future seem to revolve around its aesthetics and user experience?

I think we'll see further consolidation between iOS and OS X, but I suspect that we won't see major changes until/if cell phone infrastructure, traditional internet infrastructure (cable, DSL, etc.), and TV infrastructure start to consolidate into one technology, at which point we'll see further consolidation of concepts and conventions across these different devices/platforms.

Well, there is also something else I never really understood so well. I thought iOS and OS X were identical at core. How much of this remains, really? I mean, each time you contribute a great technological advancement to iOS, OS X should improve automatically. I know they are further apart than this, but in theory, in mine at least, they should learn a lot about OS X through iOS. Is this true? Or is this what we have seen during past years, AppNap etc.?

[osiris]

The future of OSX?

I'd like to see the OS split into two groups - a consumer and a professional group, then see development focus on performance, not frickin notification centers or Facebook integration.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

Well, there is also something else I never really understood so well. I thought iOS and OS X were identical at core. How much of this remains, really? I mean, each time you contribute a great technological advancement to iOS, OS X should improve automatically. I know they are further apart than this, but in theory, in mine at least, they should learn a lot about OS X through iOS. Is this true? Or is this what we have seen during past years, AppNap etc.?

Yes, this is pretty much true, and is pretty much being continued with things like AppNap and battery optimizations and such — in both directions (I'm sure we'll see memory compression á la Mavericks in iOS 8 at the latest).

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I'd like to see the OS split into two groups - a consumer and a professional group, then see development focus on performance, not frickin notification centers or Facebook integration.

Rather than split OSX, I think you're more likely to see iOS developed to become the "consumer" OS, leaving Mac OS for the group that truly needs a traditional computer workspace. The "pros", if you will.

[ghporter]

In the vein of osiris and Thorzdad's posts, I'd like to see OS X be optimized with performance improvements at a base level, and perhaps add a layer of "pro" enhancements that most users wouldn't want or need. This would be almost the opposite of osiris' suggestion, but would continue to have the same basic OS for both consumers and high-end professionals.

[P]

Apple has added some real performance enhancements - SL and Mavericks were both mainly focused on that. The main problem from that perspective is that museum piece of a file system.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

Well, there is also something else I never really understood so well. I thought iOS and OS X were identical at core. How much of this remains, really?

Even though they are based on the same core, iOS and OS X are being optimized in different ways. For instance, iOS eschews swapped memory, something that is essential to how OS X works. There is some cross pollination, because with the ever increasing performance of iOS devices, you can afford to adopt more and more technologies that are normal for traditional PC OSes but until recently were too costly for iOS devices. Memory compression is one example I can think of.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think we'll see further consolidation between iOS and OS X, but I suspect that we won't see major changes until/if cell phone infrastructure, traditional internet infrastructure (cable, DSL, etc.), and TV infrastructure start to consolidate into one technology, at which point we'll see further consolidation of concepts and conventions across these different devices/platforms.

I don't think we will see more consolidation, because at the end, we are dealing with software problems, meaning that you need to design and program an app specifically for a screen size and UI model. A blown up phone app on a tablet is not a good tablet app. Microsoft had to learn that the hard way. The fact that they are so similar underneath doesn't help as much as you'd think (after all, it's all either *nix or the NT kernel).

No, I expect that the development diverges, they're making OS X more distinct from iOS. The nice thing about the Mac is that it is powerful despite its apparent simplicity. I think OS X will be a breeding ground for many iOS technologies, the same way high-performance and premium cars introduce new, initially expensive technologies which eventually trickle down to the whole line-up. I hope that Apple's goal of both, iOS and OS X will be that they should be true to themselves.

Well...

Even though, how about Touchscreen implementation on Macs? Couldn't that be great in the long run. I read it only costs 100 dollars to update a screen with touch technology.

How far is Retina implementation on OS X anyway? I first thought ALL apps would need udates now, or isn't that true?

Greetings,
Pete

[OreoCookie]

No, it wouldn't be great. The lack of success of Windows 8 should give you an idea why: you either use the mouse or your finger. And optimizing an interface for both, touch and a pixel-precise pointer is impossible in my opinion. Just look at their version of Windows RT with the »touch« versions of Office. They are complete unusable when you use your fingers instead of a trackpad. I certainly don't want Apple to add that to OS X.

The key is the software UI design and how to conceptualize an app, not about shared APIs or some such. If you included touch, it should make the app better.

[P]

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

How far is Retina implementation on OS X anyway? I first thought ALL apps would need udates now, or isn't that true?

The graphics will need updating to show up in full resolution, and all apps need a recompile for text. Without that, they look just like they would on a non-Retina display. All OS apps are updated, others get updated over time. Non-updated apps work fine though, they just don't look any prettier. There are highly unsupported ways to hack in an update yourself.

[OreoCookie]

The worst thing about Retina is that apps which are not updated are really an eyesore. For instance, Connected Data's menu bar item for the Transporter looks horrific.

But editing texts (which is what I do all day), looking at photos and writing e-mails is really, really nice, text is sharp and crisp. And kanji (Chinese characters used in Japanese) are infinitely more readable).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why is it that most discussions about OS X and its future seem to revolve around its aesthetics and user experience?

And what, exactly do you suppose should appeal to the overwhelming majority of computer users with regard to their OS?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And what, exactly do you suppose should appeal to the overwhelming majority of computer users with regard to their OS?

First of all, if MacNN represented the overwhelming majority of computer users I don't think many of us would be here. The overwhelming majority of computer users are probably either ambivalent or at least not as interested in technology as we are.

But, to answer your question:

- user friendliness
- design principles
- general roadmap
- usability
- performance
- efficiency

Why the laughy face?

[Spheric Harlot]

All of those things, except for "general roadmap", fall under user experience.

And "general roadmap" isn't a feature that belongs in that list; it's merely the question restated.

This is not the debate I had really hoped for so much. I mean, if you put a touchscreen into an computer, and offer APIs for developers to change their applications a bit - you would let the customer decide. It might be true the only reason that iPhone and iPad really worked and work so well, is that they only do what they do, they don't try to be a notebook etc. Maybe the same OS and set of applications for everything don't make so much sense, maybe desktops and notebooks can change a lot over time, though. There are many new ideas on the table now.

For instance the full screen apps. I still think browsing in full screen on a notebook is a great experience. I also sometimes wonder why I can't touch the screen to switch to the next image, roate etc,
I don't know how much other people use Launchpad or Mission Control, but at first I thought it was Apple's take on the whole debate, trying around a bit, introducing things very carefully, and actually, what they tried was pretty useful, not a totally new world.

You could do other things, like being able to write with a pen on the screen in Illustrator on a notebook, if it had a touch screen. Sounds not so bad, really.

Then, tablets and smartphones really offer a new approach to file systems - consistently arguing the other way around. Basically, if the approach was a bit more unified and cleverer and more accessible, you could transfer this back to normal computers in the long run.

Then, an app is a bit of a different software concept. The weekly political magazine I read has an app for iPad, but no windows or mac app, the wep app is alright, but not perfect. Somehow, apps haven't really come to computers.
In a way, if you could really display like an App space at the side, with notifications, full screen apps, web integration etc., it could make sense, depending on the app, use etc. People and companies go to length and write apps for about everything, although they never wrote a desktop or notebook app that could have been really useful.

Stuff like this.
Pete

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

All of those things, except for "general roadmap", fall under user experience.

And "general roadmap" isn't a feature that belongs in that list; it's merely the question restated.

I'd suggest that "user experience" is too vague to use as anything but a heading. User experience is often as unique as the individual user. It would include the UI, conventions and quirks of both the UI and the OS inner workings, and things like data safety and security (and whether these things are transparent, require user intervention or something else).

I get the concept of a "roadmap," but to me, Apple has always had some sort of less than obvious course already charted, and when it seems that I have an idea what would be a good next step, they have already taken a hard turn to starboard... An example would be the UI changes in iOS 7, where all the iconography became flat and (to me) cartoonish; I thought they'd go for animated or at least more thoroughly detailed icons.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

All of those things, except for "general roadmap", fall under user experience.

And "general roadmap" isn't a feature that belongs in that list; it's merely the question restated.

That's not right. From the Wikipedia page on User Experience:

User experience (UX) involves a person's behaviors, attitudes, and emotions about using a particular product, system or service.

Users can feel good about a product with a one-dimensional design, or a design that works well for them personally but not others, or a design that works well for particular tasks.

Users can feel good about a system that performs poorly or is inefficient if they have no frame of reference, or they aren't bothered by these problems.

Users can overlook usability problems if they don't impact them personally.

Users can overlook usability problems and design issues if they are familiar with what sense of familiarity was leveraged with the design.

Etc., etc.


Perhaps this lack of common understanding/agreement is what deters us from having these sorts of conversations. My point is, so many of the above issues *could* be discussed, and it would be a little more interesting than the 23948209348 threads of "I hate how these new icons look, they look yucky!"

There is always more to unearth beneath the surface.

[Spheric Harlot]

I stand by what I said: every single point you listed, except for "general roadmap", directly affects what it feels like to use the computer.

It doesn't matter if one particular user doesn't notice that a basic concept is messed up; it still affects the user experience.

If Apple works on improving their cursor tracking algorithms for a trackpad, they're still working on improving the user experience, and it's completely irrelevant that you, in particular, spend most of the day in the command line.

So, your list.

- user friendliness
What about "user friendliness" could possibly be construed as NOT being user experience?

- design principles
Is basically a subject that encompasses aesthetics and user experience, simplicity of concepts, "intuition", obviousness of options. This is the front most layer of "user experience", by any definition.

- general roadmap
Is just a vague term meaning "where are we headed?", which is the premise of this thread in the first place.

- usability
Follows from design choices that make the interface visually appealing and user-friendly. Same thing as your first two points on this list.

- performance
This, too, directly affects user experience. How responsive a system is is vital to how enjoyable it is. I don't know if you remember OS X 10.0 to 10.3, and how 10.4 was the first system to present an enjoyable experience due to finally being up to expectations of "snappy".

- efficiency
Are you talking about resource efficiency? That's what results in performance (above). Or are you talking about interface efficiency? That's "usability".


I am NOT saying that there isn't great reason to optimize network stacks or hard drive access.

I'm saying that the only reason anybody cares — including Apple — is because all of these things directly or indirectly impact the user experience.
OS X/iOS are all about the user experience because that is the reason these systems exist.

The only time user experience doesn't matter is when you don't actually have a user. Apple isn't too big on the server market these days, though.

[besson3c]

If you are going to include such indirect connections then every single byte of code Apple changes in OS X affects user experience, but I think user experience generally refers to the most direct and tangible components of any product, not the abstract ones.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think user experience generally refers to the most direct and tangible components of any product, not the abstract ones.

Apple's success hinges entirely upon their disagreement with that assumption.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Apple's success hinges entirely upon their disagreement with that assumption.

No, the definition of user experience (i.e. what we're discussing here) is purely semantic, I'm not making some philosophical statement about design.

It doesn't matter what is under the umbrella of user experience though, my point is that, again, the intangibles are often overlooked in these sorts of discussions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

First of all, if MacNN represented the overwhelming majority of computer users I don't think many of us would be here. The overwhelming majority of computer users are probably either ambivalent or at least not as interested in technology as we are.

Fair enough.

But, to answer your question:

- user friendliness
- design principles
- general roadmap
- usability
- performance
- efficiency

Why the laughy face?

Because I couldn't have imagined what, other than aesthetics and user experience, people would find most desirable in their OS. I'm still curious.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fair enough.


Because I couldn't have imagined what, other than aesthetics and user experience, people would find most desirable in their OS. I'm still curious.

Have you ever used a product that looked awesome, but couldn't actually do stuff the way you wanted it to?

[Spheric Harlot]

Yes. The user experience sucked.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes. The user experience sucked.

So, user experience and aesthetics are not necessarily intertwined, and it is possible for somebody with very minimal needs to have a positive user experience with a product that you have a lousy experience from due to a one-dimensional design.

The point is, UX can be positive up to a point, and sometimes beauty is only skin deep. What we all want is a positive UX for as large a population as possible with sound design principles that scale to a wide range of user types and use cases. We cannot analyze these designs by only looking at the surface details. This is like analyzing the integrity and design of a car just by looking at its paint job or body.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, user experience and aesthetics are not necessarily intertwined

Of course they are. You're using fallacious logic.

Something looks good and has a shitty user experience, from which it DOES NOT follow that good looks don't necessarily affect user experience.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We cannot analyze these designs by only looking at the surface details. This is like analyzing the integrity and design of a car just by looking at its paint job or body.

I agree with this, to a point.

The problem is that you don't seem to grasp that "user experience" is the WHOLE SHEBANG. Starting from deciding upon a model, over the packaging, the feel of materials, the smell, the sounds, the speed or responsiveness with which vital things happen, the obtrusiveness or in-your-face-ness of relevant or irrelevant details and information, the obviousness of function, the complexity involved with getting basic stuff done.

In your car example, yes, beauty is somewhat skin-deep. Stitched leather upholstery and machined aluminum knobs mean very little if the car is underpowered and trying to get anywhere means I have a screaming little lawnmower engine blaring down the car stereo (="performance"). It is similarly detrimental to the driving experience to have to stop after 150 miles to recharge the batteries for a few hours (="efficiency").

Where your argument breaks down is where you appear to claim that I cannot make a decent judgement about the usefulness of a car by seeing grave flaws in its body or the quality of its finish.
If I get into a car, and everything is raw plastic, wobbly rocker switches and jagged edges, then THAT is what I will interact with the entire time I am using the product.
I may be willing to compromise on this, because the car is a ****ing F40 and the rawness and lack of interior detail is testament to the priorities made in the design of the car.

Or because I'm a gamer and just built a screaming system from scratch.

Or because it's a server and the throughput is just off the scales.

But that's just not what Apple does.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Of course they are. You're using fallacious logic.

Something looks good and has a shitty user experience, from which it DOES NOT follow that good looks don't necessarily affect user experience.

Huh? Maybe it is just my jet lagged state, but I'm not able to make sense of this statement.

I agree with this, to a point.

The problem is that you don't seem to grasp that "user experience" is the WHOLE SHEBANG. Starting from deciding upon a model, over the packaging, the feel of materials, the smell, the sounds, the speed or responsiveness with which vital things happen, the obtrusiveness or in-your-face-ness of relevant or irrelevant details and information, the obviousness of function, the complexity involved with getting basic stuff done.

In your car example, yes, beauty is somewhat skin-deep. Stitched leather upholstery and machined aluminum knobs mean very little if the car is underpowered and trying to get anywhere means I have a screaming little lawnmower engine blaring down the car stereo (="performance"). It is similarly detrimental to the driving experience to have to stop after 150 miles to recharge the batteries for a few hours (="efficiency").

Where your argument breaks down is where you appear to claim that I cannot make a decent judgement about the usefulness of a car by seeing grave flaws in its body or the quality of its finish.
If I get into a car, and everything is raw plastic, wobbly rocker switches and jagged edges, then THAT is what I will interact with the entire time I am using the product.
I may be willing to compromise on this, because the car is a ****ing F40 and the rawness and lack of interior detail is testament to the priorities made in the design of the car.

Or because I'm a gamer and just built a screaming system from scratch.

Or because it's a server and the throughput is just off the scales.

But that's just not what Apple does.

I'm not making that claim.

It the appearance/feel/vibe is off, you can and should make a judgment accordingly. What I'm saying is the reverse, which you've agreed with - it is possible for that appearance/feel/vibe/whatever to seem great, but for the product to actually be flawed once you spend more time with it, become experienced, your needs grow, etc.

In other words, the aesthetic details are a prerequisite to a positive user experience, they are a given. However, you cannot establish a complete analysis of the product just by looking at these details, you need to take the other details into account, and your example above about the crappy car engine is a great example. Another might be a good looking politician with a nice suit and haircut and smile who can toss off a few flashy soundbites, but underneath that exterior is an incompetent buffoon.

Weren't some people complaining about iMovie or something this way, or is my memory off?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by PeterParker 

This is not the debate I had really hoped for so much. I mean, if you put a touchscreen into an computer, and offer APIs for developers to change their applications a bit - you would let the customer decide.

Microsoft is doing this experiment right now and the customers by and large are rejecting it. What more proof do you need? I don't think the reception would be any different if Apple were doing it, after all, they have to solve the same »square the circle« problem of optimizing the UI for two very different UI paradigms.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Huh? Maybe it is just my jet lagged state, but I'm not able to make sense of this statement.

You had the example of a pretty phone that didn't work well, and concluded that aesthetics are irrelevant to user experience.

That is not a permissible conclusion to draw.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In other words, the aesthetic details are a prerequisite to a positive user experience, they are a given. However, you cannot establish a complete analysis of the product just by looking at these details, you need to take the other details into account, and your example above about the crappy car engine is a great example. Another might be a good looking politician with a nice suit and haircut and smile who can toss off a few flashy soundbites, but underneath that exterior is an incompetent buffoon.

Ah, yes. We agree. I don't get what you were trying to say with your list, though: the user experience is something that grows out of all aspects of a product working together.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Weren't some people complaining about iMovie or something this way, or is my memory off?

If you're remembering the iMovie redesign, your memory is off.

That, just like the Final Cut Pro X redesign, was NOT about aesthetics, at all.
It was a complete rethinking of basic user interface concepts, a ground-up redesign of the user experience. People were complaining that a lot of the details were missing, in some cases these details being essential functionality they had grown to depend upon.

Apple painted in broad strokes, released what worked, and fleshed out the details over time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You had the example of a pretty phone that didn't work well, and concluded that aesthetics are irrelevant to user experience.

That is not a permissible conclusion to draw.

Where? When? What phone? Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about *insert bunny pancake image here*

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Ah, yes. We agree. I don't get what you were trying to say with your list, though: the user experience is something that grows out of all aspects of a product working together.

If you use "user experience" literally, i.e. the end experience of the user, yes, but what is tripping me up is that the UX is a very specific piece of terminology used in discussing HCID, defined by the Wikipedia quote I included earlier in this thread.

People's emotions and feelings about using a product don't necessary reflect *all* aspects of a product working together, because in the case of using an operating system, for example, it is likely that Joe Sixpack won't start testing the MIDI and audio latency or something.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where? When? What phone? Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about *insert bunny pancake image here*

Wow. That's a really interesting perspective on the inside of MY head.

I took this post:

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have you ever used a product that looked awesome, but couldn't actually do stuff the way you wanted it to?

and immediately associated it with my own experiences (which concerned cellphones).

Sorry about the confusion.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

People's emotions and feelings about using a product don't necessary reflect *all* aspects of a product working together, because in the case of using an operating system, for example, it is likely that Joe Sixpack won't start testing the MIDI and audio latency or something.

Joe Sixpack is really gonna notice if GarageBand instruments play funny, though. These things are vitally important IF you use them.

And if Apple decides that enough people will (or enough people within Apple happen to care), then stuff is done.

Also, FWIW, CoreAudio and CoreMIDI are a HUGE part of why so many musicians are on Macs: The (wait for it) USER EXPERIENCE is so much smoother WRT audio and MIDI drivers and studio setup. It actually ALLOWS us to be "Joe Sixpack" with regard to computers.
I am no longer a computer technician. I am a musician, a mix engineer, a studio technician, a teacher, and growing into the video editing business. The user experience allows me to focus on those things, and no longer worry about INITs, cdevs, "production" extension sets vs. those necessary for other uses, manually assigning memory, working around latency-increasing processes, etc.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Wow. That's a really interesting perspective on the inside of MY head.

I took this post:



and immediately associated it with my own experiences (which concerned cellphones).

Sorry about the confusion.

No problem, I was starting to think it was my jet lag!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Joe Sixpack is really gonna notice if GarageBand instruments play funny, though. These things are vitally important IF you use them.

And if Apple decides that enough people will (or enough people within Apple happen to care), then stuff is done.

Also, FWIW, CoreAudio and CoreMIDI are a HUGE part of why so many musicians are on Macs: The (wait for it) USER EXPERIENCE is so much smoother WRT audio and MIDI drivers and studio setup. It actually ALLOWS us to be "Joe Sixpack" with regard to computers.
I am no longer a computer technician. I am a musician, a mix engineer, a studio technician, a teacher, and growing into the video editing business. The user experience allows me to focus on those things, and no longer worry about INITs, cdevs, "production" extension sets vs. those necessary for other uses, manually assigning memory, working around latency-increasing processes, etc.

If Joe Sixpack uses Garageband, sure, but that wasn't my point.

My point was that I think it is a good idea to not use "user experience" to mean "the general experience experienced by that user", but by its very specific definition (see my Wikipedia quote). Otherwise, my poor brain gets confused.

How about this, when we are using the term as per its industry definition, we'll call it UX, and its more general meaning "user experience"?

It is possible to provide a satisfying UX while the product is flawed, for many of the reasons I've cited (e.g. the user not being a Garageband user, in the case of my audio example). However, to circle back to my main and original point, if you want to analyze OS X or any other product, discussions have to go beyond aesthetics and UX, unless that UX covers a very wide spectrum of users and use cases in such a way that will unearth technical deficiencies and design flaws.

[Spheric Harlot]

The wikipedia definition:

User experience (UX) involves a person's behaviors, attitudes, and emotions about using a particular product, system or service.

That literally encompasses EVERYTHING from marketing, purchase decision, packaging, and use, to disposing of the product, its resale value, etc. Those are ALL aspects that affect a person's attitudes and emotions about using a particular product.

ISO 9241-210[1] defines user experience as "a person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service". According to the ISO definition, user experience includes all the users' emotions, beliefs, preferences, perceptions, physical and psychological responses, behaviors and accomplishments that occur before, during and after use.

(emphasis mine)

That is not a "very specific definition", that is the broadest strokes possible. And it is even more broadly scoped than what I was working from (I didn't include marketing and evangelism, which are very clearly part of wikipedia's definition, as their whole intent is to affect how people feel about a product).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The wikipedia definition:


That literally encompasses EVERYTHING from marketing, purchase decision, packaging, and use, to disposing of the product, its resale value, etc. Those are ALL aspects that affect a person's attitudes and emotions about using a particular product.


(emphasis mine)

That is not a "very specific definition", that is the broadest strokes possible. And it is even more broadly scoped than what I was working from (I didn't include marketing and evangelism, which are very clearly part of wikipedia's definition, as their whole intent is to affect how people feel about a product).

How does this dispute anything I've said?

UX deals with psychology, emotions, vibe, things like that. UX is the "je ne sais quoi" of technology, the bit that separates a product from being utilitarian from being magical. The general, non-industry specific definition of "user experience" can include the specific outcomes of their experience with the product. Therefore, bad performance and other technical and design flaws may or may not trigger these negative emotions and feelings making for bad UX, it all depends on the user.

There is a difference between UX and user experience, as per the differentiation I've specified.

[Spheric Harlot]

What am I missing? As per the wiki definition you quoted, "UX" is the abbreviation for "user experience".

You're quoting that, but saying they're not the same thing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The wikipedia definition:


That literally encompasses EVERYTHING from marketing, purchase decision, packaging, and use, to disposing of the product, its resale value, etc. Those are ALL aspects that affect a person's attitudes and emotions about using a particular product.


(emphasis mine)

That is not a "very specific definition", that is the broadest strokes possible. And it is even more broadly scoped than what I was working from (I didn't include marketing and evangelism, which are very clearly part of wikipedia's definition, as their whole intent is to affect how people feel about a product).

How does this dispute anything I've said?

UX deals with psychology, emotions, vibe, things like that. UX is the "je ne sais quoi" of technology, the bit that separates a product from being utilitarian from being magical. The general, non-industry specific definition of "user experience" can include the specific outcomes of their experience with the product. Therefore, bad performance and other technical and design flaws may or may not trigger these negative emotions and feelings making for bad UX, it all depends on the user.

There is a difference between UX and user experience, as per the differentiation I've specified.

[Spheric Harlot]

I responded before your double post.

[besson3c]

A good example of what I'm talking about: the iPod.

There were other MP3 players before the iPod, but there was something about the iPod that seemed magical to users. Users fell in love with it. It wasn't just a nice piece of technology, it was beloved, and the first iPhone was like that too.

AFAIK, from an academic standpoint the study of UX is exactly what creates this sense of magic and loyalty. It's all deeply psychological stuff. This is the sort of context I understand technical/academic discussions involving UX to entail.