The overdetermined experience

While I agree with many of the ideas expressed here, I find myself trying to rationalize this with the notion that a simple design (i.e. google's search page) is often the 'best' of the user (best obviously being quite subjective...)

It seems like the temptation is to try meet so many needs (i.e. have the overdetermined experience) by piling on complexity. So the danger is that too many 'determinations' can clutter an experience.

Obviously there is an art to finding a simplistic design that meets overdetermined needs, but like many such arts, are there guidelines for finding that happy medium? Or is it not so much about a happy medium, as much as a specific sweet spot in a design that is unique to the particular needs of a set of users?

Very good point, Alec. Services or products that delight do so on several points, meeting multiple needs - some of which we were aware of only on a subliminal basis. Conversely, just one significant shortcoming may cause failure.

Nice article.

I think the definition you're articulating for a "good experience" is along the lines of my definition for "architecture."

When I first heard the term "Information Architecture", I moaned, as it seemed that deep and rich notion of architecture as I had come to know it in the physical world was being appropriated for a significantly less rich environment. But I'll get off that soap box...

I think the very essence of architecture depends on the "multi-valent" nature of the discipline (the term used by architectural historian Charles Jencks)...

Without this richness and multiple vectors (in the case of Architecture, one "determinant" expected of practitioners is to add value to the "history" of the expression - either to play reference games back to design influences from hundreds of years ago or to further the design intention through invention) "architecture" just becomes "building".

Regarding the notion of "simplicity" expressed by Alec, I believe the notion of richness and simplicity can be completely congruent; when they do, the designer has achieved the attribute of "elegance" - the least number of elements to create the richest experience.

Hi, Mark!

Had a few observations to share about today's Good Experience.

You wrote:

"In both cases we see one 'thing of importance' - a good experience - overdetermined by several factors: artistic, functional, humanistic, community-oriented, and perhaps, in some cases, even spiritual."

I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding Christo and Jeanne-Claude's "The Gates". Kind of cool in how it was very much a participartory demonstration of art. Even if you thought it was ridiculous, you were afforded the opportunity to openly confront the art where it was displayed (and, from what I've heard, you may even have been able to give Christo a piece of your mind as he was often seen in Central Park while the exhibit was up). "The Gates" was the exact opposite of the self-absorbed arrogance many artists gain infamy for (and which, as a younger artist, Christo even demonstrated to some degree - see the turquoise plastic-wrapped island in Biscayne Bay in Miami in the early '80s - although it was obviously designed to communicate a different message).

The above-cited paragraph you wrote, however, may have contained an unintentional dichotomy.

The following definitions are provided by Princeton University's WordNet 2.0:

humanistic (adj.) 1: of or pertaining to a philosophy asserting human dignity and man's capacity for fulfillment through reason and scientific method and often rejecting religion; "the humanist belief in continuous emergent evolution"- Wendell Thomas

Conversely, the definition of another word which you used to describe the art carries another definition from the same source:

spiritual (adj) 1: concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a nenber if a religious order"; "lords temporal and spiritual"; "spiritual leaders"; "spiritual songs"

Without putting to fine a point on it and having cited the etymological conflict, an expression or element cannot be BOTH humanistic AND spiritual, for the terms are mutually exclusive.

This said, I DO in fact consider Christo's work to contain an underlying spiritual current, whether it is intended by the artist or not. Not having seen the Theo Jansen piece, I'm unequipped to offer any insight.

Keep up the GREAT work!

My brain immediately applied this idea of overdetermining or layering on of "good experiences" to my own field: writing, including crafting resumes and cover letters.
A person becomes a potential good candidate if these representations of him or her(the cover and resume) capture the essence of relevant skills, education, experience as well as character, and interest the hiring party enough to want to experience "the real thing".
This crystallization has given me a new way to look at my work. My thanks, Stephanie

I think this is an important topic, and that it needs to be explored further. You write that the topic is a little to deep for this column. I disagree.

We need to be able to explain what a great experience is beyond the observation that multiple factors come together – just right somehow – and overdetermine the experience positively. What is the fit between the various factors of the total experience that makes for a good experience? We could use the term "experiential fit" or "-fitness" to describe this phenomenon. If a certain experiential factor, e.g. the wrapping of the product, is consistent with the purchase experience and makes the customer confident of his/her purchase decision, the wrapping has a good fit with the experience. All experiential factors together add up to the total experiential fitness.

If we were really smart, we could probably quantify this into a measurable variable. I would love to have an experiential fitness quotient. How about some multivariate statistics for this challenge?

If we were able to answer this – with or without the fitness quotient – we would have a definition of what a good experience is that would give us a holistic framework for conceptualizing those experiences. And, maybe most importantly, we would have a way of describing such experiences to managers and clients so that they would understand what it takes to create them, and why it makes good business sense.

Just a quick note to add - I believe that over-determination can avoid being cluttered if 'customization' is taken into account.

Stephanie Clark wrote that over-determination in terms of writing resumes is about tailoring what is presented, to capture the essence of what is required by the employer. I think this applies in any environment - if the over-determination is tailored to each customer or guest this can avoid too much complexity and cluttering.

Thanks for the article, it was very interesting.

Over-determination is not about "piling on complexity" or even finding the "sweet spot" for a particular group or even customization. It's about the intersection along axes of needs and desires, some spoken, some not. Some known, some still pushing to the surface.

While Whole Foods and JetBlue may serve niche sweet spots, Target and Starbucks do not. Starbucks and Whole Foods offer somewhat customizable versions of their experiences, JetBlue and Target not so much.

But their commonality is that they sit at the intersection of those axes, not within layers of offering. And I find that the experiential point on each of the axes fulfill basic things for customers. People want to see that their time is valued, to feel that their attention is valued, to feel they are contributing to something worthwhile, to feel they are being treated honestly, to feel successful in their endeavors, etc. etc. etc. As Tom Stewart puts it in an article you can get to through the link to the BBC in Mark's email, people want experiences that are effective and efficient (efficient is not necessarily easy or quick). I add rewarding to the list. If you can intuit or design experiences that feel effective, efficient, and rewarding, then you are most likely at or near that instersection of determinants and thus well on your way to success.

I am taken up at the moment at the concept of "Good Experience" and what it means to my clients. As a designer should we not aim to provide a good experience to our clients as we build them the next best thing after sliced bread? Should the preproduction and production processes not smell as beautiful, feel as good as the end product that we want to build? Why do designers get a bad rap, and do they deserve it? Love to hear your comments here and at my blog entry for this month (November 2005)at http://www.designstamp.com/opinion/