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
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Gilberto Medrano gmedr...@gmail.comwrote:
And even the motivational power of connotation serves a function in
design. I just can't separate aesthetics from usability that easily.
And that was my point. Going back to David's original principal of Beauty
I think we can say that the Aesthetic over Usability has some logic holes in
it.
I think I felt that emotion over logic wasn't enough, or did not articulate
well enough in practice and felt that the a over u articulation hopefully
would do that.
So I'll concede for now that the dichotomy fails
I think where the tension lies is that while aesthetics play a role in
usability, there isn't a two-way correlation between aesthetics
usability. In other words, making something more usable requires
attention to aesthetics, but the reverse isn't true and focusing on
aesthetics alone
On Sep 24, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Adam Korman wrote:
I think where the tension lies is that while aesthetics play a role
in usability, there isn't a two-way correlation between aesthetics
usability. In other words, making something more usable requires
attention to aesthetics, but the reverse
On Sep 24, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Dave Malouf wrote:
I won't concede though that there are areas of aesthetics and
emotion that are not included under even the broadest definition or
focus of usability.
I agree with you.
Jared
I'm not advocating doing things poorly, just saying that these things
(usability, aesthetics, beauty, delightfulness) aren't on/off
propositions. And, while they are intertwined, there is some slack. It
is possible (and may sometimes be appropriate) to fiddle with design
elements that make
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
Dave,
Don Norman is dead wrong about this: that something emotionally
appealing can basically make up for its lack of usability. I may love a
beautiful object, but I didn't buy Philip Starck's lemon squeezer for
its aesthetic appeal; I was hoping to squeeze lemons. (This is the
piece-of-crap
