still tired of selling shit
Posted to some AIGA mailing list:
----------------------------------
Is the term brand inherently commercial?
It makes plenty of sense to design a comprehensive brand that permeates from customer touch points all the way through the core of corporate culture. And it's quite clear the same design approach is taken in some non-commercial organizations. Is "branding" the right term to describe that practice?
I intentionally left the term brand out of my stated definition of ED, because I wonder if they are inextricably tied. Perhaps the term ED describes processes and approach, while the term branding adds a connotation that the goals of the exercise are profitability, or at least some form of measured success. And the follow-up question: Regardless of our own individual practices, is the general industry practice of branding inherently insincere?
It's a semantic question - how are you all using the language lately?
----------------------------------
Previously when prompted to define Experience Design:
Here's a go at it:
Experience design is a user-centered approach to the design of systems for information manipulation and communication.
Break it down:
-- user-centered - the value of the product/activity is based on how it is experienced
-- systems - includes deliverables and the rules that direct their successful application to a goal
-- communciation and manipulation - authoring and consuming information. There are a lot of critical patterns you can throw on top of those, but those are the foundation. Input/Output.
There are a lot of cultural and institutional overtones cast on the practice of experience design, but I believe the above gets to the heart of it. It makes sense as a term right now, but I expect that specialization will either clarify it as a term or render it obsolete. It's really most useful as a title now because it is largely free of exisinting industry references. Although sometimes that's as harmful as it is helpful.
----------------------------------
Is the term brand inherently commercial?
It makes plenty of sense to design a comprehensive brand that permeates from customer touch points all the way through the core of corporate culture. And it's quite clear the same design approach is taken in some non-commercial organizations. Is "branding" the right term to describe that practice?
I intentionally left the term brand out of my stated definition of ED, because I wonder if they are inextricably tied. Perhaps the term ED describes processes and approach, while the term branding adds a connotation that the goals of the exercise are profitability, or at least some form of measured success. And the follow-up question: Regardless of our own individual practices, is the general industry practice of branding inherently insincere?
It's a semantic question - how are you all using the language lately?
----------------------------------
Previously when prompted to define Experience Design:
Here's a go at it:
Experience design is a user-centered approach to the design of systems for information manipulation and communication.
Break it down:
-- user-centered - the value of the product/activity is based on how it is experienced
-- systems - includes deliverables and the rules that direct their successful application to a goal
-- communciation and manipulation - authoring and consuming information. There are a lot of critical patterns you can throw on top of those, but those are the foundation. Input/Output.
There are a lot of cultural and institutional overtones cast on the practice of experience design, but I believe the above gets to the heart of it. It makes sense as a term right now, but I expect that specialization will either clarify it as a term or render it obsolete. It's really most useful as a title now because it is largely free of exisinting industry references. Although sometimes that's as harmful as it is helpful.