Not sure I see the contention between usability and aesthetics. Maybe
you could give an example from one of your experiences?
I see usability as a scalar attribute, measured from Extreme
Frustration to Extreme Delight. Efficiency and success rates really
only talk to the frustration portion of the scale. Engagement (both
with the design and their corresponding brands, thus expanding into
the 'experience' aspects) increases as you move past the neutral
center (neither frustrating nor delighting) and focus on design
elements that enhance delight.
Limiting usability to only deal with the frustration portion of the
scale would be equivalent, in my opinion, to limiting aesthetics to
color palettes.
I think we can agree that a very beautiful, yet extremely frustrating
design would be unacceptable. But, I'm not sure how you'd create an
extremely ugly, yet extremely delightful design.
At some point the aesthetics must become integrated into the design,
along with the functionality, to create the delight.
Also, I believe that at some point, aesthetics become personal and
contextual. Many users are delighted with Craigslist (surprisingly
so!). While its clear that an aesthetic makeover would be easy to do
with Craigslist current design, would it truly enhance the experience
of those users who are already delighted?
I believe that the only way a makeover could truly bring more value to
Craigslist's users would be if it was very carefully tuned by bringing
out capabilities currently hidden by the current (lack of) aesthetic
presentation. Yet, because of the simplicity of the overall functional
set, those capabilities would need be tailored to niche audiences for
their specific needs (enhancing interfaces for certain types of job
hunters, for example). The context of use and the needs of the
individual user is the critical challenge of the design space for
Craigslist.
So, in this example, I believe, the "ugly" veneer of the Craigslist
design contributes to its current level of delight. (For the same
reason that delighted Costco customers would not be happier if it took
on Neiman Marcus's aesthetic qualities.)
This is all a long way of saying that I think at a certain point,
beauty and usability converge and thus aren't in contention, instead
are synergistic. It's all about meeting needs and desires. Only when
working together, does the beauty and usability of the design reach
perfection.
But what do I know? I'm just an academic who has never designed
anything. My opinion isn't worth the money you've paid for it. :)
Jared
On Sep 19, 2009, at 9:00 AM, dave malouf wrote:
While I agree that a beautiful interface that doesn't work (in some
ways) may become ugly, but I also agree with Norman's assertion that
something emotionally appealing can basically make up for its lack of
usability. Beauty and the positive emotional impact associated with
that creates a pain threshold that I'm not sure I have observed the
other way around. I have really seen a "usable" product really make
me feel more engaged.
For clarification and for the purposes of my post and I'd like to
suggest for this thread I am speaking usability quite narrowly
possibly. I'm considering usability the quality of a product related
to the efficiency and rate of success towards completing a desired
activity. Basically, whether a user can or with what level of
consistency and efficiency they can complete an intended task in the
product design.
So again, I do think that I would if the 2 areas became in contention
and I have many experiences where they have, learn towards the
aesthetic over the purely usable b/c aesthetics can be used to engage
in ways that pure usability does not seem to in my experience.
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
