The checkbook anecdote was engaging, thanks for sharing those findings.
I suspect that there was something more than just aesthetics going on in
this scenario, semiotics had an active role. Probably this man did not find
a picture of Hello Kitty on his checks as "visually appealing", but the
meaning behind it triggered the emotional reaction that led to his decision
to get it.
The denotative aspect of aesthetics communicates the function (any chair =
possibility to sit). The connotative aspects of aesthetics are our
interpretations or perceptions of aesthetics (wooden bench = "humbleness";
golden throne = "arrogance"). The design of the checks had a special
connotation for that guy that probably other people couldn't see.
The denotative aspects of aesthetics makes it functional (affordance - a
widget can be dragged, a button can be pushed). And even the motivational
power of connotation serves a function in design. I just can't separate
aesthetics from "usability" that easily.
Gilberto
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jared Spool <jsp...@uie.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 3:45 AM, Eric Reiss wrote:
>
> There's a definition of kitsch that states that anything that purports
>> to be one thing, but actually does something else is kitsch. A pepper
>> mill in the shape of the Eiffel Tower, for example. I think Starck's
>> lemon squeezer falls into that category - sculpture pretending to be a
>> useful tool.
>>
>
> So, I've recently had the opportunity to watch a couple dozen people buy
> personal checks for their bank accounts.
>
> Personal checks are a functional item. You use them as a transaction
> instrument. An individual, writing a check, spends only a few moments with
> them. When used to pay bills, most of the recipients don't know the check
> owner (and in many cases are automated processors), so really don't pay
> attention to the check's design.
>
> Yet, most of the people buying the checks in our study spent considerable
> time choosing the right check for themselves. They were very particular
> about the designs they looked at. They showed definite preferences.
>
> One study participant, was a 45-year-old male lube-and-oil mechanic who
> works for a major speedy-oil-change chain. He took considerable time
> studying the designs, gravitating to designs that were particularly, shall I
> say, girlie. Flowers, bright colors, kittens.
>
> Each time he found one of these he liked, he said, "My girls would like
> this." Interviewing him revealed that he's divorced and his two girls, ages
> 6 and 8, don't live with him. He was picking out checks that he thought
> they'd like.
>
> The design of these checks were important to him. It's unlikely they'd see
> the checks -- at most only when he sent them a money gift, maybe in a card.
> The designs were less about what the girls would actually like and more
> about what he wanted -- a connection to his daughters.
>
> We saw this frequently in the study. People were using the check's design
> as an emotional connection. Some were using it as a way to introduce
> something pleasant into an inherently unpleasant activity -- paying bills.
> Others were using it as an extension of themselves ("When I hand a check to
> someone, it needs to say something about who I am.") or a tie to their
> context ("I want Texas scenes on my checks because I love Texas.").
>
> Independent of the design, the utility of the checks were identical. There
> was no reason to pick one check over the other except for its emotional
> appeal. The cheapest check is the Blue Safety Check -- a simple blue-lined
> pattern which everyone referred to as "boring," even those who bought them.
> I was surprised, in the study, at how many people spent the time and money
> on buying the fancier checks and their rationale for choosing them.
>
> The checks with designs would fit under your definition of Kitsch. They
> purport to be a financial instrument, but, in fact, they are something quite
> more.
>
> I think that's what the emotional design thing is all about.
>
> Jared
>
> p.s. Congrats at getting The Norman pissed off at you. Now, I sat through
> the same UX London presentation that you did and I came away with the same
> impression: Don did say that he loved his Phillipe Starck juicer even though
> it didn't work. However, I do think the book takes a more complete survey of
> what the emotional design discussion is about.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________
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
