Now after having read both articles I realize how little beauty is appreciated in how productive it will make us. What I mean is that most people, myself included wouldn’t have thought that by getting a nicer looking laptop or by being in a more aesthetically appealing place that we could be more productive. However, not necessarily productive in general. The first author emphasized that positive affect (the experience of positive emotions, or feelings) could allow for broadened thinking, and make people more willing to disregard minor difficulties, and that positive affect is linked with a more aesthetically appealing design. That is not to say that all designs should focus on aesthetics. In a rocket or a plane for example, it is important that the design focus more on function so as to make it as easy as possible to complete simple tasks and not be distracted.
In the reading about the Apollo program I found it interesting how those in charge felt that because they had because “they were trained to be perfect” it meant that they wouldn’t make any mistakes. I wasn’t sure why they would think that. Personally, I don’t believe that they believed that they were perfect, instead I think those in charge thought that it would just be very unlikely that a mistake would happen, and maybe they just didn’t want to deal with adding any redundancies/error detection. Ultimately, the problem was that human-centered design wasn’t taken seriously.
As I was reading both articles I thought about the things I use around me. I’m not sure if this relates but I found that I am more willing to use something if its aesthetically appealing or just made me feel good in general. I’ll give an example: I was more willing to write notes or draw after buying a pen which feels nice to write with or if the notebook I’m using looks nice. Or, its easier for me to write code/debug if the environment around me makes me feel better. For example, being in bed is more comfortable than being in a public environment in my opinion.