Aaron - Reading this reminded me a lot of John Maeda's law of more. I agree with Norman that things that are attractive work better. I am not a maker of beauiful things, I think most of the stuff I make with my hands looks like something the cat dragged in, and is quite possibly falling apart as well. I therefore think that most of the things i make wont work, and thus if I make a table, I dont use it because i am afraid it could fall apart any moment, though it might be quite stable and usable. I have read Norman's other book and really liked it, because I also agree that things need to be usable first, and then, like Maeda's law, you can add things to make them beautiful.
CAROLINA///////////////EMOTION&DESIGN:ATTRACTIVETHINGSWORKBETTER
aesthetics matters, that's why we fell in love with certain objects and we can't avoid buying them, even if we don't need them, just because they are appealing to our eyes. sometimes i had experienced the neccesity of having plenty of different dishes; big ones for serving food, medium size ones for having pie or bread, smaller ones for something smaller, and the smallest ones for something else. i actually have a couple of different sizes, but i found myself with not enough time to "think" in which one is more usefull to the ocation, not enough time to wash them, if i use them all when having tea, for example. even, i really use a single cup in order to avoid using more things than needed... so, my efforts on having different, well sized and designed dishes, is kind of meaningless, so i had asked myself ultimately, and also enhanced by last text, why don't some objects have the flexibility enough to be used by all the uses we can give them: say, a dish could be resizable, a spoon can become ahair brush. so as to emphasize usability rather than aesthetics, but then, what would happen to useless things, stupid things, variety, aesthetics finally!(usable but ugly) cognition and affect, in the other hand, depend one from the other, but i think it's not something easy to achieve in terms of how our mother had raised us, and i feel that is not something you can acheve naturally when you are an adult, since cognition sound easier, but takes time, and affect is something thsat depends on how we give affect back, so it is directly linked with interaction. something extremely complex to begin if we don't have the capacity to be empathic or sensitve, two features you learn how to develop from being newborns. so, producing an armonius design, would ultimately be something subjective, since it'll depend on each person's eye(development). using a pleasant design will obviously make us to have a better attitude towards life in general. i had an electric kettle which didn't have a base,but a cable attached to the whole object............ so, each time i needed to boil water, i had to unplugged the cable from it. this detail would drive me crazy every morning, so i had to buy a new one with the cable on the base, separate from the object-kettle. and believe me, my mornings are better! in this case beauty and usability were in balance.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
'Although my reasoning told me that color was unimportant, my emotional reaction told me otherwise.'
I agree that it is important to pay attention to irrational/emotional responses to design, and also to dissect them in order understand the 'why' behind the reaction. Having said this, I would hope that functionality/sustainablity would be intertwined with 'aesthetic' sensibility in product design---which does not mean that all products need be utilitarian. The beauty of a product could be it's push and pull with regard to functionality.
kati london
xiaochang - One of the striking things about the essay was the way in which it distinguished between functionality (how something works) and usability (how well we can use something). While the former to me exists independent of the user interaction, the latter is contingent upon not only how easy it is to use something, but how much we want to use it. Attractive things then do not necessarily "work better" so much as they're more usable because there exists an affective desire to work with attractive things. I think this is an interesting and important disctinction. Aesthetics and usuability become linked therefore when a third factor comes into place: human interaction.
Joanna - My response is posted here.
Joseph's thoughts
Kenny - Thougts practice here
Won (Won Sup Shin)
Response to “Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better” by Don Norman
Norman rightly explains that how good designs affect our ‘affect’. Adding a few to his examples, food tastes better served in fancy plates on candle light dining table. When put on clothes that I have coveted long, I feel more confident.
He also mentioned “good human-centered design” enhances cognitive concentrations helping avoid distractions. To extend his understanding, safety tools such as goggles, gloves and helmets are not alone protecting us from hazards. The design stimulating ‘negative affect’ will increase our safety alertness.
So when you work on power tools in Phycom shop, try to be as on ‘negative affect’ as possible to keep you unharmed.
Sai - Comments on this reading are here.
Teresa- I agree that design of things should be both asethically pleasing and made with a good functionality. It was interesting what Norman wrote on the 'positive effect' and 'negative effect' and how it relates to design. At the end of the day I think that the ease of use and functionality should be a priority no matter what emotional state a person may be in. Also our society has an ingrained pre-occupation with how aesthetically appealing something is whether it be a person or a wine opener. So people are going to be attracted to what looks best first followed by wanting the product to work well too, but I think it is contigent upon the aesthic design first for the consumer to want to use it all. I think the design attractiveness and functionality of the product go hand in hand.
Past comments on Norman
"Just as negative affect can make some simple tasks difficult, positive affect can make some difficult tasks easier. In a clever set of experiments, Alice Isen has shown that if people are given small, unexpected gifts, afterwards they are able to solve problems that require creative thought better than people who were not given gifts. The positive affective system seems to change the cognitive parameters of problem solving to emphasize breadth-first thinking, and the examination of multiple alternatives. It also has the side effect of making people more distractible."
Reminds me of this past week's Applications class - both the video game discussion and Ze Frank talking about creativity, anxiety, and giving people means for expressing themselves. - Rebecca
I feel like Don Norman's overall philosophy on design can be summed up in these 4 sentences from the reading:
"True beauty in a product has to be more than skin deep, more than a façade. To be truly beautiful, wondrous, and pleasurable, the product has to fulfill a useful function, work well, and be usable and understandable. Good design means that beauty and usability are in balance. An object that is beautiful to the core is no better than one that is only pretty if they both lack usability."
It makes sense. I think people may get caught up on the word "beauty"—they just need to be reminded that beauty can mean different things to many people.
Addendum: And I don't think it is necessarily that attractive things exhibit greater usability, but that we often find objects that are easy to use to be more attractive.
-Lisa
Lisa is right, the things that he said made a lot of sense, and I agree with all of it. There was one subject though that I wish he had addressed, and that is the fact that while 'usability' is something that can last for ages, 'beauty' is something that shifts constantly in its definition. I mean, the fork has been useful for thousands of years, but every epoch has a different idea of what the fork should look like. In this way, I think that it's misleading to say and 'beauty' and 'usability' are of the same importance. I would work much harder on the innovation of a product than the aesthetics of it, because I know that the outward appearence is just going to be redesigned fifty years down the road.
-Charles
I agree with Lisa that beauty and usability in an object should be in balance. However, I disagree with Charles' notion that the aesthitics of an object should be secondary to its innovative quality. I do agree that beauty is relative and that it does change through time, that different cultures will have different concepts of what they consider to be well designed or beautiful. But I think the point lies in the fact that if something satisfies a particular culture's need for something and is beautifully designed as well, itt will be more widely utilized. Form should always follow function, but why should an object simply perform a function and be ugly so? Relative to today, I don't think we are in a time currently where the creation of something needs to happen purely out of neccessity. I think when things are designed today in that vein they quickly become obsolete. For instance, while some people may prefer a plain white Ipod to its colorful cousins, I have a 13 year old sister, and beleive me, all of them are listening to their music in color, as I'm sure many people are even though the non-colorful versions perform the same function. Cell phones are another example. How many of us would trade our small, sleek amd pretty looking little phones for a large walkie-talkie looking object, even if it performed all of the same functions? In a different less technologically motivated example, I would much prefer to buy and drink out of a tea cup (I drink lots of tea) that is funky or has something interesting or funny written on it then a plain white cup, even though both will do the same job equally as well.
These seem to be silly examples but I strongly feel that we appreciate beauty and art in everyday things because it makes our experience of the world more enjoable. Something that is hastily designed or designed with little thought to its aesthetic value will suffer in functionality because most people gravitate to and have or want to have a greater cognitive understanding of something that has a pleasing design. Not that something which exists purely for aesthetic value, such a the tea pot with its handle above the spout, is sensible. If its beautiful and it doesn't work or serve a purpose it will only exist as stagnant art instead of part of our daily experience. But if it works and its ugly or sloppily designed someone will eventually replace it with something prettier. -Catherine
I feel like it's less that "attractive things work better" and more like we work better with attractive things. Whether or not something is aesthetically pleasing does not affect the way it functions. But it does affect the way we function and how we interact with it. It's a subtle difference, but I think it's important in determining the way that relationship plays out.
-Kate
Pretty products do come off more attractive at first. And they do catch the attention of buyers. If I were given two products with the same functionality, I would most likely favor the one that is more “appealing to the eye” However, I agree with Norman’s view that beautiful things have to also “fulfill a useful function.” Especially in industrial design, practicality plays a big part in as well as it aesthetics. If you have a pretty object, that isn’t practical, it may just as well be a piece of sculpture.
As designers and artists, it is our challenge to come up with an object that is both appealing and practical.
-Min
__________
I like the idea of all aspects of design being in harmony in a product. Maybe it is also a cultural thing for me coming from Finland. I think the article spoke to a very Scandinavian ideal in design. So I finally figured out where I got my name from :P
- Nanna
___________
Kate hit the nail on the head. It is a subtle difference,but important to note, that we work better with attractive things and not the other way around. Using unattractive things seem to be more of a chore. I am less likely to try and take care of a tool, utensil, car, etc... that is unattractive. When something is unattractive, it seems that the designer didn't really care about it, or know enough about what they were designing to try and do it well.
When I encounter something like that, I might think to myself, however unconsciously, "the designer didn't care about this, so why should I?" It might tick me off that no one cared enough to design it well, and then it would tick me off even more that I paid for it. In the end, the fact that I paid money for some ugly product that I use leads me to the negative affect Norman was talking about. This negativity focuses my energy on the negativity I have towards the unattractive object and slows me down. Hence, when I work with an attractive object, I am not slowed down and can work happily. I can't believe I used 'hence' in the previous sentence.
-chris
Don Norman makes both an objective and subjective statement about design in his latest book “Emotion & Design”. I will use his subjective story about the three teapots as a metaphor to express my take on design.
I try to live according to my personal belief about what 'quality of life' is suppose to be which includes drinking “Earl Gray” tea. If I should decide to buy a teapot, I would take my time, give it a lot of thought, and do a lot of research. A teapot to me should be beautiful, practical to use, and fit in to my environment. Beside that, anything I buy must last forever. I don’t want on a later date to have to spend any additional time looking for teapots over and over again – it’s a one-time thing.
Some objective factors are the cost, whether or not it is made out of environmentally correct materials, and if it is practical to use. I would also look at how easy it is to clean. In addition I would fill every teapot I look at with water and see if it drips when I pore from it. The subjective evaluation would be its appearance in terms of size, color, and shape, which would be of great importance.
When I finally have decided what I want, I’ll spend no more time thinking about buying another teapot; because by then I have created a personal relationship with the specific chosen teapot. It has at this point become a part of my life and I will admire its beauty and functionality every time I drink tea. I will give thanks to it for having enriched my life and provided me with pleasure. This teapot and I will create history together and share moments of memory.
Having three teapots would to me be a waist of time and money. I don’t need to cover my changing moods by switching between three teapots, or have three of them diplayed in my living space so I can have conversations with friends. – But that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t engage in conversation with somebody else if they have three different teapots. I truly would enjoy looking at them, talking about their beauty or lack of beauty, and test their functionality. But I know in my heart that inside my domestic space I have the best teapot.
Rolf.
Only recently has affect been considered a valid component of cognitive psychology and neuroscience. In his first chapter, Norman gives a good working introduction to a theory that is gaining creedence regarding the influence of emotion on how we perceive our environment, react to stimuli and learn. Last semester I took a Psychology of Music class that examined the same kind of issues albeit in much greater detail and applied to the musical, rather than the design arts. I am particulalry interested in the evolutionary and biological forces at work behind affect. Why and how did we, as humans develop our emotions, and furthermore the idea of beauty? Is there a biological basis for emotion? Recent studies do indeed show at least a correspondence between certain morphologies and activites in the brain and how the self is feeling. So-called spindle cells are large, specialized, cigar-shaped neurons, found only in humans and the great apes that broadcast electrical impulses throughout the brain in emotional response. The anterior cingulate - a patch bay with many connections reaching throughout the brain- is consistently activated when human subjects are experiencing emotions or need to think about things that are difficult. The anterior cingulate is actived when the subject faces conflict or is rewarded. If "beautiful" objects elicit a positive emotional response, it would be interesting to see if the use of beautiful and ugly objects activate these structures. Would there be a noticeable difference in neural activity if the object in question was ugly in one sense, but beatiful in another (i.e. a really soft, warm sweater with a hideous pattern)? In a study conducted by cognitive neuroscientists Blood and Zatorre, subjects selected music that gave them "chills", which is to say music that elicits an extremely positive emotional response. When the subjects were played their "chill" music and monitoered using fMRI, the areas of the brain seen activated were those also active when addicitve drugs are administered and during orgasm. Is there equivalency to this kind of physiological response to good design? In Blood and Zatorre's study there was no addicitve reponse when subjects were played control muisc or "chill" music from other subjects. Do individuals, if exposed to precisely designed individualized stimuli, become addicted to beauty in music or design?
TODD