The Experience Cycle

I'm not sure what you are trying to convey, but I really like how Hugh Dubberly talks about user experience in the context of a brand - http://www.dubberly.com/brand.html

And that may just be because I'm a geek and he uses Saussure and Pierce models to support his framework. ;)

You really like the Dubberly model? The semiotics references are a nice touch, but I have a hard time taking seriously a model where experience is subordinate to brand. It just stinks of the advertising industry (by which I mean, I don't think it's bad, but it really shows off its worldview).

For the above diagram, it helps to look at the explanations for each part of the wheel (I've fixed the link, by the way). It's more of a little UX model than a big one. (Also, Jess made this... I should give him full credit.)

I agree, it certainly 'stinks' of advertising and generally I like to discuss brand with a big grain of salt when talking about UX - however, I really like the larger relationships in his model.

I don't like the final diagram with all that stuff in it, but the underlying pieces work really well for me (basically the stuff that's described on the top left of that PDF)

The actual model diagram has put too much emphasys on certain things and introduced some elements that don't really help (stewards, etc) - but I find that the relationship between product, perception and name (with brand and experience as intersecting points) is a really great way to talk about this whole thing. It's technology agnostic, it's channel agnostic and it's domain agnostic.

In Jess' UX cycle, though I can definitely understand all the elements, the representation of their relationship really doesn't speak to me. Even if you have something represented as a cycle, their relationships are still demonstrated linearly and that's what doesn't really jive with me.

In contrast, Dubberly's model - even if it's not great - does a very good job at expressing those relationships as relative (areas and proximity) in a more spacial way that clicks with me better (enough for me to ignore to branding and all the extra stuff i'm not crazy about).

You could say this is 'just' about how this is represented, but for this particular topic, I think representations makes or breaks the message.

On that note, I say Jess' cycle stinks of Service Design theory (not that it's bad!) ...with it's 'triggers' and 'expectations'; put 'touchpoints' in the middle and you'll get a whole community of people to nod their heads.

You know I'm critical because I care... ;P

I meant to say: 'It's technology agnostic, it's channel agnostic and it's domain agnostic' ...and yet it feels broad and relevant enough.

I just came across another one that stinks' more of Service Design: http://www.scottweisbrod.com/index.php/?p=109

You know I'm critical because I care...

I know. :)

I wasn't comparing Jess's model to the Dubberly model. Jess's is more of a micro-model, and it really doesn't scale up. But for investigating a particular experience or interaction, it's been helpful. Of course, it's linear... but we just ignore steps if they don't apply to what we're looking at. More than anything, it's helping us ask better questions about people's experiences (and about our own research methods).

On reflection, I think the Dubberly model is fine. Its brand-centrism chaps, but that's really a reflection of my people- or experience-centrism. I suppose it's a bit unfair to criticize Dubberly's model for being what it is... a model of brand.

And I know that he means to show a symbiotic relationship between experience and brand. Ultimately, though, there's a giant "brand" in the center of the diagram and that reflects a brand-dominant perspective. Nothing wrong with brands or branding or marketing... but I have occasionally found branding efforts shallow and dismissive of actual experiences.

(But if you're going to talk UX with a bunch of marketing people then the Dubberly model would be a good place to start.)

I'm sure you've seen this concept map. It mentions brand, but only in the context of users' expectations (and so I like it better, though it's not without its own problems).

Yeah I agree with you - I like this concept map a lot. Interestingly, it was bastardizied inside my company to include about 357 other things in it, which instantly made it lose its meaning :D I'll show you sometime.

Sorry I'm so late to the game ;-) I designed the 'Importance of UX' diagram that Gene mentioned—under the direction of Frank Spillers who commissioned it.

Gene I'd love to know what you think its problems are. I've gotten a lot of feedback via Flickr comments and emails, typically positive but generally vague. Any thoughtful analysis, positive or negative, is seriously welcome.

And Livia, I would dearly LOVE to see your companies bastardized version. I think it'd be a hoot. ;-)

best regards...