A famous quote from Donald A Norman a cognitive scientist from America.
I don’t know if I agree. Any thoughts?
Yes a more aesthetically pleasing product is going to make you want to use it but does this affect its usability?
I’m familiar with the quote and I think maybe he meant tat attractive objects are “easier” to use in that you want to use it more, or are willing to let some faults go more willingly.
I think that it is true that we are more forgiving of things that we find pleasing in other ways. The new bettle is a great example of this, I bought one when it first came out and although the thing is pretty much falling apart (the latest: my seat adjustment lever just snapped off this weekend) my general impression of the product does not mirror all of the faults. If it looked like a cavalier I am not sure I would be so forgiving.
(Interestingly: I think that this observation is rooted in earlier observations of friendship.)
This quote comes from a Japanese ATM design study that supposedly proved it true.
He documents the study in his book Emotional Design.
Actually a pretty interesting study, the whole book is good.
Or do we find them attractive because we can subconsciously see the potential ease of use in them (from the products that haven’t been handled yet) and then the gratification that comes when we find out we were right? You look at the product and say “that’s perfect, all I need is that little scroll thing right there and for it to be smooth, no need for all those ergo bumps, etc…” all by just looking at pics. Then you actually get to pick it up and it matches your expectations.
Kind of like looking at a pretty person, only gets better when you see them smile and they have all of their teeth and a nice sounding voice and pleasant personality.
If you look at someone you think is pretty, then they open their mouth and their teeth are raggedy and they talk like a sailor, changes your beauty definition and makes you look more carefully later on.
hahaha!!! that is hilarious, and true…but if you turned that around and compared that person to an unattractive person with good teeth, you might reconsider your former position. it is like having a model type slimmy with a stank attitude or that is really high maintenance…
Or do we find them attractive because we can subconsciously see the potential ease of use in them (from the products that haven’t been handled yet) and then the gratification that comes when we find out we were right? You look at the product and say “that’s perfect, all I need is that little scroll thing right there and for it to be smooth, no need for all those ergo bumps, etc…” all by just looking at pics. Then you actually get to pick it up and it matches your expectations.
i doubt that we are that thoughtful beforehand, there a lot of functional products on the shelves that are not coveted in that manner…i do however think that function adds to its attractiveness afterward though, like that slimmy that is not all that attractive but is just a really cool & fun person to be with, make you see her in a different light
so i guess, for me it would be this:
I think that it is true that we are more forgiving of things that we find pleasing in other ways. The new bettle is a great example of this, I bought one when it first came out and although the thing is pretty much falling apart (the latest: my seat adjustment lever just snapped off this weekend) my general impression of the product does not mirror all of the faults. If it looked like a cavalier I am not sure I would be so forgiving.
Yes a more aesthetically pleasing product is going to make you want to use it but does this affect its usability?
can’t say for sure but, i remember when the razr dropped and my local news station did a lil’ piece on all the problems users had with the phones’ actual functionality, most said despite the problems they were willing to overlook them because they liked the style of the phone (it was a pretty small sample though, comprised of teens and 20-somethings)
i think it depends on the product. sure a cell phone, a car, or fashion items are more forgiving: we give more importance to the way they look since they convey status.
would the same idea apply to a screwdriver? or a dolly? or a shovel? i dont know, it would be interesting to see a study on contrasting products like that.
Thats a good point d-flux.
I think you could probably say the more purely functional a product, the less tolerance for poor function. The more fashion focused and personal, the more room for subjective attachment.
…but how many “beautiful” shovels have you seen, subjectively of course?
What about the nail hammer market. Their have been some nice designs lately from Stanley that look like hammers of the future. I wonder what the perception if when using them?
this
vs
?
How about Virginia Postrels famous toilet-brush comparison?
vs.
Unfortunately both hammer and brush examples show obvious usability improvements. How about something that’s 100% aesthetic?
They may be easier to use because ‘that sexy aesthetic’ may serve a purpose! As we are getting better at designing products, functionally, (form follows function and all that) this may in turn lead to some desirable forms etc. so therefore easier, better and more appealing than the predecessor,
Why do people upgrade their phones, cars, etc. to the latest model if the one they are using works perfectly well?
does anyone have examples of products that looked great but were a failure in the market? just curious
Thats also a statement from F1 design. That if it looks right it should function right. Something on the lines of, if the solution that you are working on is starting to look beautiful, you are likely to be pursuing a right course of action.
I compare it to that moment when everything “clicks” and it looks beautiful. At that point I know it will work well too, because I have been hammering away at the function from the get go, and it has finally started to mesh with the aesthetics.
It probably is a subconscious conglomeration of a lot of cues
I think yo was right with his initial point
attractive objects are “easier” to use in that you want to use it more, or are willing to let some faults go more willingly.
and then later on with
the more purely functional a product, the less tolerance for poor function. The more fashion focused and personal, the more room for subjective attachment.
In my opinion ‘beautiful’ products such as a really nice looking car, or an expensive looking jacket (for example) you are willing to overlook issues like the drive is terrible or it doesn’t quite fit right (in each respective example.) You are far more lenient with products and designs that you really want; the moment you see them you have to have them. This could be brought down to clever marketing, but whatever it is to that individual it has that certain something about it that clouds your vision and you suddenly can overlook any short comings.
When aaron mentioned relationships earlier I think he was right, you could start linking it to emotional aspects such as friendship, love etc. that you do get blinded by, if product designers knew exactly what this feature is they’d be quids in!
To riff off of Donald Norman, I think it has to do with the emotional power of “visceral simplicity.” That is, if simplicity is associated with beauty… I think it usually is.
The iPod is a great example: it’s multi-modal scroll wheel is a usability no-no (ever tried turning down the volume while browsing your collection?) But we forgive it’s behavioral complexity because of its visceral simplicity. We forgive it’s flaws. As skinny points out, that’s true for attractive people as well.
Awhile back I read an interview with Bob Lutz when he was at Chrysler. To totally paraphrase and butcher it, he said they didn’t have the ability to make the Viper an entirely reliable car, but that he felt that people would rather have a car they loved 100% and only worked 65% than a car that worked 100% and they loved 65%… of course there are a lot of Camrys out there…
Not to dissimilar to what Ghosn said about Nissan. To paraphrase: “Nissan will never beat Toyota at Quality, so we’ll become known for Design unlike any other Japanese company.”