On 05-Jun-20 09:51, Jay Daley wrote:
On 4/06/2020, at 10:13 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you read my mail, the comment was that all this
"journey" stuff was either waffly or over-reach and
that ditching the fashionista term and using clear
English would be needed to determine which. I think
that's a clear comment.
Your responses so far suggest that you have no regard for the field of UX for which user journey mapping is a foundational technique, and as I’m not willing to abandon the use of those techniques to help us in our work I’m not sure how far we can go with this. However I’ve had one last attempt by creating a new issue
https://github.com/ietf-llc/strategy-2020-consultation/issues/43 "More clarity around participant journey"
and addressing that with this change
https://github.com/ietf-llc/strategy-2020-consultation/commit/ddc0af3e2d5628a71ca6eaca8359c6187ac40b01#diff-ace2c9f1dd155e5220c2a50de0c79018
Better, but I still think that the phrase "the participant journey" suggests that there is only one typical path through the IETF labyrinth, and that isn't so. There are many alternative paths and destinations, not to mention many different motivations for participating. I'm not sure the "journey" concept captures that.
It’s a term of art in the field of UX and in that context does indeed capture motivations and multiple paths (or no path at all).
Jay
Brian
|
