Experiences Before Things: A Primer for the (yet) Unconvinced

In ‘Experiences Before Things: A Primer for the (yet) Unconvinced’ author Marc Hassenzahl argues that HCI designers should shift their focus from thinking about the creation of objects, to designing for meaningful user experiences. In make his case he firstly claims that people value experiences more highly than they value material objects. He defines experiences as being intangible and transient, like the lovely holiday he took to Paris with his wife. Objects on the other hand are tangible and lasting, like a laptop. The inference here is that the author would rather have a Parisian holiday with his wife than a shiny new laptop. Whilst there is a clear distinction between a holiday (experience) and a laptop (object), objects and experiences are often far more closely related as the author himself acknowledges when he states ‘things (i.e. technologies) play a crucial role in creating and shaping meaningful positive experiences’. He even goes on to give an example of this, describing how hand-held GPS devices led to the creation of a sport called geocaching which many people enjoy playing. This leads me to my first issue with the paper. I think designing for experience as the author describes here, does not take into account the ways in which people will repurpose technology – just like they did with GPS devices which led to the creation of geocaching. So why even bother designing for experience when people will create their own experiences as they play with technology and discover the opportunities it affords? Perhaps the the crowd can be far more creative than a single designer, and therefore we should leave technology as open as possible?

My second issue relates to a topic we have given quite a lot of time to in our Intro To Digital Civics module, around the question ‘who knows best?’ i.e. should we be ruled by technocrats? Hassenzahl seems to be arguing for this as he claims that HCI designers should be designing for user experiences, which requires designers to think about what these experiences should be and then decide if they want people to have them or not. He gives an example in his closing remarks about how designers could offer safer alternatives to driving technologies with lots of acceleration and fun! I would argue from a libertarian stance here, that decisions about safety should be left up to the individual and that it is essentially undemocratic if designers are limiting our choices based on their own sensibilities.

Finally, I would have liked this paper to have given a clear example of how an object could be improved by taking an experience centred approach. This was sadly lacking so I am currently sceptical about experience centred design, but I have not given up hope. Tonight I will endeavour to read McCarthy and Wright’s chapter for another go at being convinced!