Marc Hassenzahl explains the fascinating concept of User Experience and Experience Design. Commentaries by Don Norman, Eric Reiss, Mark Blythe, and Whitney Hess
User Experience and Experience Design !
Human factors, as a discipline, derives from the problems of designing equipment operable by humans during World War II (Sanders and McCormick, 1987) and thus originally had strong military ties. The focal point of the discipline was sensory-motor aspects of man-machine interaction (for example the design of flight controls and other military hardware). The interaction between man and machine were originally not viewed in terms of communicative and cognitive aspects but viewed at the very tangible, muscle-operated level. This was, among other things, what became a problem for the discipline as new advances in monitor/screen technologies changed the interaction style. In the early 80s, the discipline of HCI spawned from the Human Factors community (as well as from other disciplines such as Cognitive Psychology/Science) and focused on the cognitive or epistemological coupling between user and system.
It is very telling that the word 'factors' in 'human factors' occasionally is equated with 'limitations'. From the Human Factors literature, one gets the impression that the 'factors' of computer systems were regarded at least fairly predictable, whereas the 'human factors' were not and hence attempted 'ruled out'.
An assumption of the Human Factors community was that insight into e.g. cognitive, sensory-motor, and perceptual aspects of human behaviour could instigate the design of an optimum performance of 'man in concert with his machine', viewed as one united functional system/unit. With knowledge of 'generic' human factors or 'basic' human behaviour and cognition, it was thought that an optimal coupling between man and machine could be found. However, as the discipline evolved, the hunt for 'human constants' proved problematic as well as it proved highly difficult to establish the design implications of such constants.
The stance of the Human Factors community toward this kind of 'singular ontology', i.e. that truth or meaning is 'out there' as in a natural science, came under heavy criticism by many, e.g. Suchman (1987) and Winograd and Flores (1987). In consequence, the HCI community, which had spawned from the Human Factors community, took a "contextual turn" toward more humanistic and sociological accounts of meaning from the late 80s and onward. Aspects like context were now given higher priority and meaning and truth was seeked in the interaction between man and machine or as a product of the wider context. For a short review of the contextual turn, see Jensen and Soegaard (2004).
Human factors, or limitations, include:
The list is adapted from Michael Osofsky, published source unknown.
The best and most authoritative introduction of research in the Human Factors discipline is Sanders and McCormick (1993)
Note: The term 'Human Factors' is sometimes used (in especially North America) as a synonym for HCI or Usability.
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions
that you would like other visitors to see?
Hewett, Thomas T., Baecker, Ronald M., Card, Stuart K., Carey, Tom, Gasen, Jean G., Mantei, Marilyn, Perlman, Gary, Strong, Gary W. and Verplank, William (1997). ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. Retrieved 7 August 2003 from ACM SIGHCI: http://sigchi.org/cdg/index.html
Jensen, Mikkel and Soegaard, Mads (2004): Refocusing the Contextual Turn: The Forgotten Construction of Meaning at the Interface. In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction October 23-27, 2004, Tampere, Finland. pp. 185-188.
Suchman, Lucy A. (1987): Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. New York, Cambridge University Press