I don't see why these two philosophies can't coexist peacefully, but I do think that emotional design is very important for some things. Norman's first analysis of design as merely scientific and necessary seems cold and calculating, but this chapter seems very warm-and-fuzzy, and I prefer it. I'm currently looking at a bookshelf I refinished--it serves its purpose perfectly, yet I'm more attached to it than other furniture because I took care of it myself. Some things, though, don't need to be emotionally designed to be used well: microwaves, washing machines, televisions (I'm attached to my television because my parents gifted it to me, not because of its design or its function).
I'm confused that this is allegedly a departure from The Design of Everyday Things. Did I misunderstand him when he wrote about necessary aesthetics in Design? Did he really focus only on usability and neglect aesthetics? That's not how I remember, but I suppose I could be wrong. Obviously, he focuses more on aesthetics here.
The effect of happiness on productivity is obvious to me. When I get frustrated with work, I have to pause and try something that I'm better at so I can return refreshed and able to think more clearly. Of course it makes more sense to design something that makes me happier; why would I use it if it didn't? I have to come back to Design here, though--easy-to-use things make me happy, too. I'll just say that both philosophies have to be used. Useless things are frustrating, and pretty things make me happier, so let's make pretty, useful things.
Once again, I find myself wondering if he's over-thought this system. However, I should reserve judgement and remember that this work is important. It is vital to know how people react to various situations. Visceral reactions are most likely what affect our emotions most; for example, I strongly disliked the UT (sorry, t.u.) campus the moment I walked onto it for a visit for no particular, discernible reason, but I loved the A&M campus. Emotionally, I would not have functioned well in Austin, yet I find myself comfortable and successful here in College Station. Behavioral processing is essentially "programming", as is reflective processing. I could be "programmed" to use any stove, but I have a visceral reaction to the one in my apartment (the electric heating elements annoy me because it's hard to tell which one is on). I use it anyway because it's available and it makes sense to use it.
All in all, Norman says that he's "changed his mind", but I don't really think so. I think he just considered a different perspective on design, switching from cold and scientific to actually considering the psychology of it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment