Talk:User experience design

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kavita96. Peer reviewers: Kavita96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbv5114.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carly4B.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why the H*** is there a criticism section!?

As if designers being underpaid wasn't bad enough they're forced to have their profession uniquely be subjected to a criticism section? Is there a criticism section for pilots, doctors, developers, executives, etc!? No there is not. If some developer thinks he/she can remotely produce a better product without a designer by just following 'best practices' they're sorely ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.202.37 (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User experience design vs Experience design

Isn't it is a bit headhatching to differenciate thoose terms ? When you speak about "experience design", who else than the user's experience would it be ?

Maybe that they are they used both with not the same approach, so that they does not deserve the same page. Anyway can we really say that the "User Experience Design" is a part of the "Experience Design" ?!?

I'm feeling like if that UX Design is a more popular word to describe this design and is used more widely. I guess there is no source on that because researchers are maybe not really interested into making studies on terminology, wich belongs more to political views. However I open the debate about keeping this line "is part of" or not.

--Thirow (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

A user is a little more specific than anyone who may share in an experience. "User" mostly pertains to interactivity. Whereas, potential customer, member of an audience, citizen, resident, tenant, spectator, victim, or witness may not necessarily interact with whatever it is they are experiencing.

Not everyone who experiences (meaning effected by) something necessarily "uses" it, chooses it, or was even meant to have any contact with it. That's what makes it a design consideration. A user experience designer only considers the person using the tool. An experience designer may consider everyone who is potentially effected by that tool. For example: a user experience designer may consider the driver or passenger of a car. An experience designer may consider any pedestrians, other drivers, or onlookers who may notice the aesthetic appearance of the car or external safety features such as visibility of signals or physical hazards. Pedestrian safety through vehicle design is experience design, but not user experience design. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I understand better what you mean. It seems I'd just should better take more information on english terminology before posting. It is really funny that it seems that we do not really pay attention to this in France. I feel like if dfferenciation between user and non-user experience was something natural. In my product/service design formation we used "user" as a general term, even if in reallity we took also in account none-users. Another thing is that "design" is also a french word wich is restrictive to, well, lets say experience design if it is the largest english name. We translate the english "design" by "conception", wich includes engineering and all the design fields. I guess that then there where no reason to think about a filiation exp. design -> UX design. As well I really feel like if we prefere terms that have a physical proof like "product design", "webdesign", "graphic design", "space design", "communication"... We have also a strong use of "interaction design", and the new comming "service design" and "strategic design", but evryone seems to have a different definition of thoose new terms. We do not have UX design as professional speciality, well, I guess it would be an horrible syntaxe in french "design d'experience utilisateur" but make a strong use of "User experience" alone. We also have an "Experiencal design" term but it is not very trendy exept for some specific aeras of design (I guess it is in space design). Well, sometimes I feel like if design vocabulary was a batlefield beetween many many visions. On some days I'm not sure yet if it is really "in consruction". It sometimes seems to me to be in "perpetual RE-construction"... Well, it is on "saddy" days. --Thirow (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they do have different meaning and as mentioned below, UXD is a subset of Experience Design. Experience design is a way more generic term and posses different challenges than the user experience design. An experience design problem is typically more generic for example it could be about customer experience at a shop, or event experience in a concert. Whereas, User experience design is more focussed on finding issues with what people face while "using" a product or service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi9av (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the User Experience Design and the Experience Design pages should be merged as they are creating confusion among the readers, more clarity needed--Varshauxwiki (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Major edits needed

I have several concerns about how user experience (UX) is presented in Wikipedia. I share some of them below, and would like to hear others' opinions.

1. User experience deserves a page of its own, and should be separated from User experience design. UX is a vague term and requires a lot of explanations and examples. UX design is about the process and about things to consider, but not everyone is a UX designer. UX evaluation may require its own page as well. I know there has been a merge some years ago, but this field has developed since.

2. Although it is hard to come to a conclusion on how to define user experience, the current circular definition "overarching experience" does not help readers to understand what UX is about. I propose a simple explanation "User experience is about how a person feels about using a system".

3. Explaining UX is easier if we explain its difference to related terms such as

• • Experience (general term that is not about using a system, UX is one category of experience)
  • Usability (how easy and efficient it is to execute a task with the system)
  • User interface (the components of the system that are used for input and output)
  • Brand engagement (person's attachment to a brand)
  • ...

There have been some scientific workshops, surveys, and publications about understanding, defining, and scoping user experience, and it would be great to get Wikipedia to the level of state-of-the-art.

If you agree, how could we proceed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirpiRoto (talk • contribs) 10:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can just agree on using simple termes because the UX design is complicated to understand for the user. Speaking of feeling is not easy so that the user does not analyse his own feelings... and then does not understand much when we speak about UX design without an effort to make him understand.

Another tips is that Wikipedia basement on definitions is not really adapted, the user may understand better if we explained him what change UX design, waht are the contrubutions of UX design, in place of using hermetic definitions. Storytelling would be a good point too.

Anyway for a Wikipedia format I just can agree to your points 1, 2, 3. With an effort to use examples to illustrate what it is said.

--Thirow (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

-- I'm not sure how to correctly add to this, but I completely agree with Thirow -- it's very confusing that UX doesn't have a separate entry here, and that "User experience deserves a page of its own." Rosspw (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this page has a long way to go and does not do a good job of explaining what UXD is. Point 3 seems to be the best approach as those are concepts that constitute UX. Overall, I feel like the article is not well structured at all and keeps going in loops. The term 'Design' has also well evolved in the industry and we need to polish that. Ndhaijaan (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that user experience design and user experience should be two different pages and the fact that the description is pretty vague. I also think this page is in need of better sources and more relevant information to the topic. For example, the history section gives a lot of information about Donald Norman and it isn't relevant to the topic of user experience design. I think that this information could be cut out and be replaced with relevant information about the history of user experience design. Payswan73 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Language Edits

Grammar and sentence structure in the article seemed off at many places. I have tried to refine it to the best of my knowledge. Please let me know if anything more can be done.

“With the rise of the information age, many generalizations of the components have been based on the building blocks of the user experience design of digital systems.” – Replaced as "With the rise of the information age, the term "User Experience Design" has been generalized to mean User Experience Design of digital systems"

“In the context of information architecture, information is separate from knowledge and data, but lies indefinitely in the middle” – Rephrased as: In the context of information architecture, information is separate from both knowledge and data and lies nebulously between them.

“It is information of all shapes and sizes: websites, documents, software applications, images, and more.” - Changed to: It is information about objects. The objects can range from websites, to software applications, to images et al.

“ New introduction of software must keep in mind the dynamic pace of technology advancement and the need for change.” – Changed to: Every new software introduced must keep pace with the rapid technological advancements.

“Simplifying design documentation and customer-facing technical publications”. - Rephrased as - “Simplifying design documentation and customer-centric technical publications” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirumalavan (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Most of the references don't appear to be reliable per WP:V, WP:OR, & WP:RS. Perhaps this is an indication that the topic is not notable enough for a wiki article? --Ronz 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a new field, much of the literature for this topic originates from practitioners of the field. Because the field is so new, there is not a wealth of published materials that comprehensively cover its particulars. Like Experience_design which is listed appropriately Within wikipedia, much of the information has been gathered through practicing authors and bloggers such as Don Norman who coined the term User Experience and Mark Hurst, a noteworthy proponent of good customer experiences. Additionally, much of the formulation of this field has been through open dialogue among practitioners. That being said, I will work to find published materials that support the information on this page and make edits in this direction over the next few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.58.107 (talk • contribs)

Merge?

"User Experience" is to "User Experience Design" what "Web Page" is to "Web Page Design." Given that, I think that it makes sense to keep the two terms separate since they have different meanings. "User experience design" is the professional field of designing "user experiences." 71.131.221.156 06:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)SP

So it seems, but while it's clear what web pages are and what web page design is, it's not clear with user experience. More importantly, it's hard to distinguish in user experience design references between what people are actually doing versus what they want to be doing versus what they promote themselves as being able to do. It's messy. I appreciate your prespective and hope we can continue to discuss this. --Ronz 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a little awkward comparing (user experience) an event to (a web page) an object. Anytime the word "design" is used, it should be understood as a form of (planning) goal-oriented problem solving. User experience design is a form of event planning. When talking about a subject outside of the context of design, one should consider who would be interested in the subject. The question here is: who would be interested in the event of user experience and for what reason other than (design) event planning? Oicumayberight 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Still there's my concern about the difficulty differentiating what's done vs what some would like to do vs what is just promotion. I'm not sure how to resolve this in an encyclopedia.

Further, you're saying user experience is an event. Should we have articles for both the event and designing for such events, or just for designing them? --Ronz 19:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the question out there because I don't know the answer. If you are talking about an event, it depends on the event whether or not anyone but the event planner would be concerned enough to treat it as a subject of an encyclopedia article. For example, customer service is an event, but you wouldn't talk about customer service (in general) to the customer unless you were selling the service of a particular company. That's not an encyclopedia article, but instead, it's an advertisement. The only ones concerned about customer service (in general) are customer service professionals. So the article customer service is written for customer service event planners, not the customer. There is not an article for customer service planning or customer service design. There is an article for customer service representatives, but it is written for human resource concerns. On the other hand, there are events that do warrant encyclopedia articles separate from the designing (planning) concerns. A movie is an event, that warrants articles apart from film making. So I don't know if enough could be said about user experience outside of the context of user experience design that anyone but a designer would be concerned with.

As for your question of differentiating what's done vs what some would like to do vs what is just promotion. I don't see much difference between the latter two. They are both goals. "What is done" sounds like an article describing (present tense) reality, the dynamics of how things are or how things work. "What some would like to do" sounds like an article describing (future tense) the design of how things should work (goals) or the (past tense) history of the design specialty, what worked and what didn't work in the planning process. Oicumayberight 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. I originally suggested the merge because the articles seemed to be saying the same things. After reading my own words, I don't think much can be said about user experience outside the context of what a designer would be concerned with. I don't care if the article is titled "user experience" or "user experience design", just so long as they are merged. Oicumayberight 20:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree. This discussion has made it much clearer for me as well. --Ronz 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

UX as super-field containing other fields?

Should we consider UX to be a field that contains other fields, like Human-Computer Interactio, Human-Robot Interaction, etc. It seems that UX may have developed from other fields, but it is a superset, studying how users relate to products. This would mean a fair change to the writing style on this page. Aaronpowers 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are good sources verifying it, perhaps. From what I've read, UX is just a promotional label for what designers have been doing for many decades if not longer, usually used by designers that don't know better. --Ronz 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the word emerged to distinguish what designers do from what engineers do when technology overwhelms the planning discussion. At one time, engineering and design was one in the same. As technology became more advanced, it became impossible for a person to know everything about a high-tech product. Things like customer experience would get little attention when concerns were weighted towards technological soundness. The term "User" emerged in place of "customer" from the computer science world. Engineers and programers knew how to use their own software, so it was easy for them to be blinded to just how complicated and difficult their product might be to a unfamiliar first-time users or less tech-savvy customers. It was the Nick Burns effect. User experience brings the balance back to less tech-savvy designers and (heaven-forbid) customers.

Having said that, I agree that without references, it's a bit early to pull the other fields mentioned into it. It's mainly used in software now. The wikipedia article can expand with the expanded referenced usage of the term. Oicumayberight 03:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.paradymesolutions.com/articles/what-is-user-experience-design/ This is a link from the article :) Nahrihra 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronz> "From what I've read, UX is just a promotional label for what designers have been doing for many decades if not longer, usually used by designers that don't know better."

The term has been used since the late 70s according to this: http://interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/user_experience_or_ux.html Nahrihra 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

sensorymetrics.com

The link fails wiki guidelines and policies in a number of ways:

• First, it appears to be added for promotional purposes, in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:COI.
• Second, it is a blog written by non-notable authors, in violation of WP:EL.
• Third, it appears to be added by someone that owns and maintains the site, in violation of WP:EL and WP:COI.
• Fourth, it has been added with personal commentary inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV.

Before adding it again, please read the most relevant guidelines: WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, and discuss here why you think it should be added. Please note that as the editor making the contribution, the burden of evidence rests on you for justifying the link. --Ronz 01:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

UX Diagram

I found an interesting diagram on the importance of user experience. This diagram is hosted on Flickr, and many people have translated it to other languages. It is an educational poster! The non-english diagrams are available to download for free.

Take a look at the following URL: http://flickr.com/photos/bryce/106972762/

I want to add a link to this "educational diagram in Flickr" to the "External Links" section of this article. Ok?

AmirBehzad (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too promotional for our use here per WP:EL and WP:SPAM. You can't really make out the details in the flickr version, plus it links to the site that it came from where it is offered for sale as a poster. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Materials section

I've removed it per WP:NOT and WP:OR, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTDIR. Without sources demonstrating the encyclopedic value of any list of providers, the list doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User experience design has its roots in HCI, not Human Factors or Ergonomics

The UX design is the extreme opposite to Human Factors and Ergonomics. These fields were a-theoretical, focused on the physical characteristics of human bodies as problems that need to fit the the machine. In fact it was this reason after 1980s why HCI field emerged. The milestone and birth of Human-computer interaction field can be dated to publishing the important work The Psychology of Human-computer Interaction in 1983. The book attacked the current dogmas in the aforementioned fields and argued for the stronger focus on theory and applications of knowledge from cognitive science. As the book said:

“The user is not [a manual] operator. He does not operate the computer, he communicates with it…”

Even though HCI under the influence of cognitivism in cognitive science had its own problems, it was these problems UX Design mostly reacts to. Cognitivist HCI didn't take into account the broader and situational context of interaction, whereas in UX design, the context is everything. Without context, you cannot decide what is meaningful, useful and pleasurable to the user.

Experience design afd

Watchers of this page may be interested in this afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experience design. This article has come up regarding a possible merge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Broken link on this page

The text "International Standards" (mentioned before UsabilityNet. 1998. Retrieved 2015-06-18.) has a broken link on this page which goes page not found.I have found the right page for it .It is https://web.archive.org/web/20070224170152/http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/r_international.htm

Apart from that there are two sources i have found which are https://www.tadcourses.com/ and https://www.uxmatters.com/ which gives a lot of information user experience design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajmathur56 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Acronyms are Wrong - "UX" is the Industry Term, not "UXD, UED, or XD"

This says "User Experience Design (UXD, UED, or XD)" but few people in this industry call it that, they say "User eXperience Design (UX)". I'm not sure why "UX" is the standard but maybe it's because the line between User eXperience Design and User eXperience Engineering is very blurry. Also the 2nd X in experience is capitalized, not the e, according to the acronym. When you're referring to the job title that is repeated later in the article as an acronym then it should be written "User eXperience Design" not "User Experience Design". I don't have citations for this because it's just my job.

Should content always be POUR?

POUR is an abbreviation for accessibility principles stated by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which conveys that any content in technological devices should follow to aid people with disabilities.

1. Perceivable means the user can not only use visuals but also all means of senses such as sensory cues for hearing to identify content and interface elements.

2. Operable means the user can successfully interact (e.g. clicking, tapping, and swiping) or navigate through the website with the use of controls, buttons, or any interface elements.

3. Understandable means the user can easily learn and comprehend the content, design (e.g. presentation or format), and its usage patterns to operate and control the interface.

4. Robust means the user can access any type of technology, such as websites, online platforms, or any other multimedia services, to interact with information.

I agree, I think any content or platform should be "POUR" as in perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust. I think this is a really helpful method for any kind of users! Lleebkn (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What are the drawbacks of contents not being POUR? Lleebkn (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You brought up a great question! I think designing for better accessibility means you not only design for people with disability or struggling with impairments, but also to empower people to feel more independent and less frustrated by something poorly designed or implemented. Thus, I don't think there is any drawback to the POUR guidelines.

To research and redesign products, apps, or services that failed to launch in a new culture or region. The goal is to minimise the rejection rate of potential users while improving the rate of integration into the new culture or region.

To research and redesign products, apps, or services that failed to launch in a new culture or region. The goal is to minimise the rejection rate of potential users while improving the rate of integration into the new culture or region. 80.78.212.74 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This page is too narrowly focused on aspects of experience design for digital products.

I believe the introduction to this page should define user experience as being inclusive of *all* encounters and interactions a user has with a product or service. Currently, it references only "digital products and websites," which is just a subset of what many experience designs entail.

Since the page refers to Don Norman originally coining the term, then perhaps it's most helpful to point out that he said it best in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BdtGjoIN4E

He briefly references the idea of buying a computer, transporting it home, unboxing it, and setting it up. He says, "...all of that is user experience. It's everything that touches upon your experience with the product. And it may not even be near the product. It may be when you're telling somebody else about it. That's what we meant when we devised the term 'user experience.'"

---

Here is a proposed revision to the intro section (leveraging the existing copy and links, but adjusting the definition to more accurately refer to Ux design as much more than digital)...

User experience design (UX design, UXD, UED, or XD) is the process of defining the journey and various pathways a person, or group of people, would go through when interacting with a product or service. UX design encompasses all aspects of a user's real and perceived experience with a product or service, including its usability, usefulness, desirability, brand perception, and overall performance. [1]https://xd.adobe.com/ideas/career-tips/what-is-ux-design/

The scope of any given UX design effort can range from a narrow focus on a single touchpoint, such as a mobile app or website, to a sophisticated ensemble of touchpoints including encounters with physical products, packaging, mobile apps, software, websites, content, instructional material, and much more. Ux design consideration may also incorporate interactions with other humans as part of the user’s use of the product or service. [2]https://dorve.com/blog/the-disciplines-of-user-experience/

UX design decisions are often informed by insights from research, data analysis, and test results. Decisions are also guided by objectives and intended outcomes for the experience. In commercial endeavors, experience design must consider the desired business outcomes being sought as the user engages with the product or service. Environmental and social objectives are increasingly included among UX goals to ensure that experiences are responsible and inclusive.

UX design is frequently considered a core element of the customer experience (CX), which encompasses all aspects and stages of a customer's experience and interaction with a company. Service design is an extension of UX design that goes deeper than the user touchpoints described above to also plan and design the "backstage" interactions, systems, and workflows (unseen by the user) to deliver the desired user experience for the service.

---

Some subsections on this page (e.g. "Elements" and "Deliverables") should also be expanded to more completely articulate the full spectrum of Ux design that involves physical elements. But let's first start by improving the introduction block. Decksmyth (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You've got how Wikipedia works backward. The body of the article is a summary of what the sources say, and then the lead is a summary of the rest of the article. We have to build the article based on sources - you cannot simply rewrite the lead based in your personal beliefs and opinions of what user experience should be. Start with sourced additions to the body of the article. Also, note in particular that blogs, youtube videos, and other self published materials are not usable sources here. - MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense from starting from the body and then writing the summary. And this is not my "opinion" or "personal believe" on what user experience should be. It is deeply informed definition based on 25+ years working in the field. Decksmyth (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned, since policy (WP:NOR, WP:V) expressly prohibits writing based on personal experience. - MrOllie (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

PS: You can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources either. Please read WP:RS thoroughly. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph about UX design for videogames was complete nonsense, so I changed it.

Hi! I'm a professional UX/Game Designer with a bachelor's degree in Game Design and over 10 years of work experience in this field.

I wrote this new section with the help of Google and ChatGPT, based on a critically acclaimed reference book, several up-to-date articles from reputable sources and my own professional knowledge.

I don't have much experience though with editing and formatting Wikipedia articles. So I would greatly appreciate if a more experienced Wikipedia user could help me format the text paragraphs and citations/references into a correct/consistent form.

Thank you! :) RRR3MU5 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed it because it depended on a collection of unreliable sources, and because the topic isn't really a true specialization anyway. Also, please do not insert ChatGPT generated content into Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've now removed this as well. The glowing ChatGPT text is not helpful - please use your own words. Additionally, each line should be sourced to a reliable source. "The Gamer's Brain" is a publication from a reputable publisher and fine and gamesindustry.biz looks solid - industry-specific newsletter with editorial oversight. Protopie.io, careerfoundry.com, uxpin.com, and uxdesign.cc appear to be blog posts with no or minimal oversight. It's best to add the sources to each line of text that they support, and stick to the reliable ones, not the blogs. Please use the talk page to discuss contested edits - repeated re-inserting your material is likely to result in a block for edit warring. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Sam Kuru,

thanks for your contribution to this discussion! I'm happy that an admin is getting involved at this point. There seem to be a couple of misunderstandings here. Let's resolve this together, shall we?! :)

First of all, my text is not "generated by ChatGPT". As I have stated in my initial edit comment: "I wrote this new section with the help of Google and ChatGPT, based on a critically acclaimed reference book, several up-to-date articles from reputable sources and my own professional knowledge."

As I am not a native English speaker, I have utilized tools like Grammarly, Google Translate, dict.cc and also large language models, such as ChatGPT, to spell-check, simplify and refine my text, to make it better suitable for a general audience on Wikipedia. You can check the text online for plagiarism and for predicted probability of being AI-written. You will see that it contains 0% plagiarism and has a less than 1% probability of being AI-written. Of course I have checked this myself before publishing it, to make sure I am posting only original text and high quality content.

Regarding the quality of my sources: I'm an experienced Game/UX Designer myself and I hold an academic degree in Game Design from one of Germany's top-tier public Universities. I have over ten years of experience working in this field as a Game/UX Designer and scientific researcher for academic and commercial projects. I am well capable of judging the quality and reliability of my sources. They are all written by reputable authors and they are containing correct and reliable information about the subject matter. You can show the text and the sources to other experienced UX/Game Designers and they will tell you the same.

Every statement in my text is implicitly or explicitly backed by these sources, even without citing an exact source segment for each sentence of my text. I have written this as an original text for an encyclopedia, not for a PhD thesis. If a reader wants to properly fact-check a text, it's their job to actually read the referenced sources and also check for additional sources themselves. I will not write a text where each and every sentence is just a reformulated sentence from an external source, just so I can give an exact citation for each and every line of text. You can let an AI write those kind of unoriginal copycat texts if you like. That's not what human researchers and professional experts are there for.

Also don't forget that, in the end, we are talking about a short paragraph that is intended to give a general overview of this specialized sub-topic of "UX Design in Video Games" for a layman audience of an encyclopedia. This is not a hardcore deepdive and it's not a controversial topic.

Maybe we as a community should be happy and welcoming, when an expert of a given field donates their valuable time to contribute a short, well-written paragraph about some little nerd topic. Maybe these kind of contributions should not be swiftly removed because of some small formatting errors or because of some premature assumptions. This is only demotivating and discouraging people from contributing valuable content to the Wikipedia project.

Thank you for your time and your understanding! :)

Best regards,

RRR3MU5 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally, when using LLMs, you will wind up with a number of significant problems. Aside from the problems of origin, you'll also have an abundance of filler prose that's fairly useless and unverifiable. In this case, it appears you've created a few assisted paragraphs and then applied a number of general sources that do not support the material directly, and much of the filler is apparent.

I want to be very clear: I don't care about your credentials. It's not important here. We write material that is sourced clearly to third-party reliable sources and is verifiable. We cannot use your unsupported original thought. There are much better outlets if you're looking to write articles of your own novel material. We don't know you from a hole in the ground, and we don't care, since material being added should be easily verifiable.

On the subject of sourcing, I am concerned about your statement "they are all written by reputable authors." I'm sure they're great people, but I'm not sure how you're evaluating them. The material at the careerfoundry.com blog was written by record label manager/graphic designer/radio personality. I'm not clear on how that makes him an expert on UX, but probably an awesome person to go on a craft brewery tour of Austin with. The site is some kind of student blog with no indicated oversight. The material at the unxpin blog does not indicate an author, so I'm not clear on how you vetted the authorship. The site is a content marketing blog for a "product design platform" with lots of product pitches and lead generation links. The material at the protopie.io blog was authored by a "global digital marketing manager and SEO/SEM specialist" with no indicated skillset in the topic or in journalism. The blog is a content marketing site for a prototyping tool. No editorial controls indicated and clearly no independence from the sales function. uxdesign.cc is written by someone working in UX design "for over a year" and indicates it is his first article. The site appears to just be a Medium blog, again with no oversight. I was generally fine with the "gamesindustry.biz" link, since there does appear to be some evidence of oversight, but again, the author - "freelance writer and critic" is not an expert in any way. Obviously, I'm fine with the Celia Hodent chapter in the book, she's clearly an expert and the publication provides sufficient editorial control. I would suggest using this as a direct source to begin with.

Unfortunately, you've indicated that you cannot and will not directly attribute the text, and that it's up to us to research it. I'm afraid that's not acceptable. We're not talking about "small formatting errors" - we've indicated fundamental problems with your approach to contribution. I understand you feel this may be a waste of your valuable time and that's fine. I don't really contribute to topics where I have very deep expertise since I'm sure it would drive me insane. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

RRR3MU5 is indef'ed. DMacks (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2023 and 7 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 00mkp, Mandymelville (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Logan Picunko, ECM0815, BCMisc, Brb0305.

— Assignment last updated by Logan Picunko (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Payswan73 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SydneyL23.

— Assignment last updated by Savmanbanans (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I recently made a few small changes to this article as well as a couple of bigger changes. First, I made minor grammar and sentence structure edits to make the article more clear and concise. I did this by adding commas, changing sentences to active voice, cutting out unnecessary or extra words, and other things to that effect. There were also a few confusing sentences that I reworded so that users would better understand what they were reading. This was the bulk of my edits; however, I made a few changes that were a little heavier. For example, I deleted the last paragraph underneath the "History" section. I believe that the information was not relevant to the section, and it was also not relevant to the topic of user experience design as a whole. There was also a citation under the history section that directed users to a webpage that was no longer available, so I deleted it. Another edit I made consisted of adding a sentence to the very first paragraph about how user experience design is essentially a user centered design approach and I added a citation to this. Lastly, I changed the subheading under the UX deliverable section because it was a little unclear as to what the information below it would be about. Payswan73 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)