The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 8:39 am

cf
step one
step one
Posts: 23
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:06 pm
Location: pittsburgh
My friend Nick Baker just published an article detailing a design philosophy he developed and coined called Familiarism. He defines it as...

...the design philosophy of adding a familiar or subconscious interaction to a new or incongruous object in the effort to create an easier or more unique experience.

I would encourage you to read the following article, and let him know what you think.

https://nicholas-baker.com/familiarism
fam.jpg
fam.jpg (96.95 KiB) Viewed 3057 times

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 8:58 am

Mrog
step three
step three
Posts: 170
Joined: July 12th, 2013, 7:03 am
Location: Germany
Copypasta from the other thread for Nick ;)
I think this is honestly pretty pretentious. So he's some guy online who looked at Fukasawas' style really hard and then came up with this new "design style" that he puts next to things like modernism and minimalism? I'm sorry but I think he has no idea about design theory and never really digged into contemporary design discourse. I would suggest him to read a proper book on that topic, eg. "The semantic turn" by Klaus Krippendorf which deals with this topic and many more in great depth. If he says he did research if something like this already exists and "came back empty handed" I would say he didn't really look very hard in the first place.

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 11:42 am

User avatar
nickbaker
Posts: 11
Joined: April 8th, 2015, 5:09 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Thank you Mrog for the feedback.

To be clear, I did not invent or create this type of design. I've only observed it and feel like it lacked a name as stated by the first paragraph in the article.

Yes, I may not have a doctorate in design theory but I don't think this should exclude me from sharing my thoughts and observations.

I will have to check out that book, thank you. Please send any more research my way, I would love to refine this idea further.

Cheers,
Nick

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 2:24 pm

Mrog
step three
step three
Posts: 170
Joined: July 12th, 2013, 7:03 am
Location: Germany
Hi Nick, I know you didn't claim to have invented this and of course you are allowed to share your thoughts and observations.
At the same time I think I have been a bit harsher in my assesment simply because I know you have a certain reach on social media and probably especially a lot of students follow you. With this reach you have a certain responsibility. This may sound overly dramatic but don't underestimate the amount of students who just gobble up everything you serve them without the proper background. In the last 20 years there has been done an extensive amount of research on these topics and there is a big push to establish design as it's own social science - and that starts by agreeing on a common language. By introducing competing terms to thousands of students without actually putting much thought or research into them you are basically undercutting the efforts to form a common ground that the social science called design can be based upon. Who do you serve by coining the term familiarism? Do you do it to advance the greater design discourse or is it something that would mostly serve yourself?
I am strictly a design practitioner myself and only follow design theory to advance my own mindset - and I think proper design theory and the knowledge about it serves us all and elevates design from a pure craft based discipline to something that can be argued and reasoned with. If you want to read up on it search the keyword "product semantics" - there is a whole wealth on publications on this topic that analyses very thorougly how function, form, meaning, affordance and culture play together and shape contemporary industrial design. I would applaud you and appreciate if you could bring a deeper and more meaningful well researched design theory to your many many followers - something that is really lacking in the popular design community. Because let's be honest, most designers don't want to read a 400 pages book about design theory and product semantics.

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 3:37 pm

iab
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 2685
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:03 pm
cf wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 8:39 am
He defines it as...
...the design philosophy of adding a familiar or subconscious interaction to a new or incongruous object in the effort to create an easier or more unique experience.
Oh. You mean this then.

Image

By "He", do you mean John Dewey?

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 4:28 pm

User avatar
Dan Lewis
step four
step four
Posts: 363
Joined: December 6th, 2005, 5:47 pm
YIKES

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 5:15 pm

amunta
step one
step one
Posts: 41
Joined: August 1st, 2016, 4:23 pm
I don't get it, how is it any different from intuitive design? I feel like it's short sighted and hasn't been researched fully.

Straight out of Don Normans "Design of Everyday Things," read: affordances.

"Affordances are an object’s properties that show the possible actions users can take with it, thereby suggesting how they may interact with that object. For instance, a button can look as if it needs to be turned or pushed. The characteristics of the button which make it look “turnable” or “pushable” together form its affordances."

The only reason we know that a button is a button is from experience, aka familiarity.

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 5th, 2019, 5:33 pm

User avatar
nickbaker
Posts: 11
Joined: April 8th, 2015, 5:09 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
This is great guys, thank you for all this info. In terms of the affordance idea, yes familiarism definitely incorporates interactions that are familiar. The difference that I have noticed is when you add a familiar interaction to a new or incongruous object in hopes of creating a more unique or user friendly experience.

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 6th, 2019, 7:17 am

User avatar
ralphzoontjens
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 936
Joined: February 3rd, 2010, 10:20 am
Coroflot: 76078
Location: Tilburg, the Netherlands
As a designerly attempt to add value to the user interaction, I think it can bring charm and humor to a design.

As a serious theoretical attempt in HCI, I think it is a very limited strategy.
Essentially metaphorical, it fails to convey the right mental model for multidimensional interactive systems.
In the example with the cork-operated radio, how would one change the volume? Levitate the cork - or would we rather pull a furry tail? Because that is how it works with a cat.
The HCI community generally recommends to avoid the temptation of metaphors and seek out to convey a product identity of its own (not a merged identity between a radio and a wine bottle, say) that has a more fitting mental model.
http://www.id-z.one
IDZone - Product Design || Visualisation || 3D Printing

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 6th, 2019, 8:12 am

iab
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 2685
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:03 pm
nickbaker wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 5:33 pm
This is great guys, thank you for all this info. In terms of the affordance idea, yes familiarism definitely incorporates interactions that are familiar. The difference that I have noticed is when you add a familiar interaction to a new or incongruous object in hopes of creating a more unique or user friendly experience.
So if I'm getting this straight, as designers, we should be combining old and new.

Wow.

Mind.

Blown.

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 6th, 2019, 2:29 pm

User avatar
slippyfish
full self-realization
full self-realization
Posts: 1564
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 7:07 pm
Coroflot: 2572
Location: 48 degrees north
ralphzoontjens wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 7:17 am
As a designerly attempt to add value to the user interaction, I think it can bring charm and humor to a design.

As a serious theoretical attempt in HCI, I think it is a very limited strategy.
Essentially metaphorical, it fails to convey the right mental model for multidimensional interactive systems.
In the example with the cork-operated radio, how would one change the volume? Levitate the cork - or would we rather pull a furry tail? Because that is how it works with a cat.
The HCI community generally recommends to avoid the temptation of metaphors and seek out to convey a product identity of its own (not a merged identity between a radio and a wine bottle, say) that has a more fitting mental model.
+1, nice response.
“Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy."

http://www.superformer.com
http://www.coroflot.com/skhid

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 6th, 2019, 3:00 pm

User avatar
yo
Administration
Administration
Posts: 17282
Joined: January 5th, 2004, 6:57 pm
Coroflot: 67242
Location: SoCal
That is why I think this kind of thing gets lumped into Post Modernism.

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm

cf
step one
step one
Posts: 23
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:06 pm
Location: pittsburgh
amunta wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 5:15 pm
I don't get it, how is it any different from intuitive design?
Intuitive design is something where you could probably figure out, like if there was a tab on something, you could assume that it has a function. Familiarism is taking existing elements such as a chain to a fan to make the product intuitive. Since you know what the fan does, you can assume a similar behavior for the product(ie CD starts playing).

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 6th, 2019, 8:41 pm

AVClub
step three
step three
Posts: 190
Joined: November 22nd, 2014, 9:32 pm
cf wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 5:00 pm
amunta wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 5:15 pm
I don't get it, how is it any different from intuitive design?
Intuitive design is something where you could probably figure out, like if there was a tab on something, you could assume that it has a function. Familiarism is taking existing elements such as a chain to a fan to make the product intuitive. Since you know what the fan does, you can assume a similar behavior for the product(ie CD starts playing).
Both the tab and the pull chain fall into the realm of physical and cognitive affordance which has been popularized by Don Norman, as well as others. Although I applaud Nick in documenting his thoughts, I can't help but respond with Mrog's comment of " Who do you serve by coining the term familiarism? Do you do it to advance the greater design discourse or is it something that would mostly serve yourself?"

Re: The Philosophy of Familiarism

February 7th, 2019, 8:29 am

cf
step one
step one
Posts: 23
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:06 pm
Location: pittsburgh
AVClub wrote:
February 6th, 2019, 8:41 pm
Do you do it to advance the greater design discourse or is it something that would mostly serve yourself?"
I think it can help the greater design community. After learning about this concept in July, I started to work on a coin bank inspired by these kind of familiar actions. I ended up calling my creation the "Hammer Bank" and it plays off the idea of "Break glass incase of emergency". When you see a hammer, you instantly know how hold it. To open the bank, it must be smashed. The form of the object informs the user how to open the bank.

More info about the project can be found here -> http://bit.ly/hammerbank

cf
Reply