Category: Spring 2024 – Aaron (Section 001)

The reading titled Emotion & Design and its exploration of the applications of form vs function led me to consider how people respond differently to objects that have similar affordances.

The author’s teapot examples reminded me of Pierre Paulin’s Dune Ensemble Sofa which has attracted some attention online in the past few years. In this case, the object certainly holds a significant form factor, thus producing a positive affect in the user and enhancing its central purpose – comfort. I feel that what makes the design of this object effective is that its inferred functionality also feeds back into this affect as users immediately associate expansive soft surfaces with the act of laying down. Moreover, the object’s purpose is expanded through its adoption of a ‘conversation pit’-like structure which encourages social interaction. With this design element, it can be argued that the object is transformed into and can be interacted with as a space in and of itself.

However, as mentioned in the reading, these interesting design choices (which embrace both form and function) can only be appreciated if presented in the appropriate low-risk social and domestic context.

Conversely, a hospital bed has similar affordances and a similar purpose of ensuring the comfort of the user but functions very differently as an object. To begin with, the need for it to be economic (financially and spatially)  leads to the bed’s compact and minimal stature. This links to the author’s point about form hindering processes within high pressure situations as, for example, getting a patient on and off of the Dune Ensemble Sofa would be tedious and uncomfortable. Naturally, the hospital bed’s function fills in the lack of form with features such as handles and an adjustable reclining angle.

Linking to the reading on Margaret Hamilton, I feel that what she was able to accomplish is even more impressive considering the usability of the tools she was working with. While they were less complex than the ones in use today, their design was also less informed by what we now know about usability and human-centred approaches to design. This thereby affected both form (exposed raw materials, unclear affordances) and function (manual processes, limited tech) of what Hamilton and her team were dealing with on a daily basis. Considering this, I am now curious to see whether studies have been done on the topic of usable design and efficiency across different use cases.

Jihad Jammal

Intro to IM

Professor Aaron Sherwood

Reading Reflection Week 8A

March. 26, 2024

 

Response #1: Her Code Got Humans on the Moon

The essence of innovation, as illustrated by Margaret Hamilton’s story, pushes us to reconsider our perception of technological achievements. Hamilton’s legacy embodies the reality that groundbreaking advancements are often the culmination of relentless, behind-the-scenes effort rather than just celebrated moments of success. Her contributions, critical yet initially overshadowed by the astronauts’ lunar feats, prompt a deeper reflection on how we recognize and value the architects of progress. This perspective challenges the prevailing narrative that often glorifies the end result while glossing over the intricate processes and individuals essential to these achievements.

 

This narrative invites us to search for the ‘Margaret Hamiltons’ of our current era, whose pivotal work may be lurking in the shadows, unrecognized due to prevailing biases or the allure of more sensational accomplishments. It raises pertinent questions about the criteria we use to evaluate and celebrate innovation. Are we too focused on the visible peaks of success, neglecting the vast contributions that form the foundation of these achievements? The persistent gender gap in technology further complicates this discourse, suggesting that the undervaluing of foundational work might not just be a matter of oversight but also of systemic undervaluation of contributions from diverse voices. Hamilton’s story, therefore, not only highlights the need for a broader appreciation of the many facets of innovation but also calls for a more inclusive recognition of who gets to be celebrated as innovators.

 

 

Response #2: Attractive things work better

It’s clear that there’s a deep relationship between how things are designed and how we feel about them. The idea that well-made objects have the power to arouse happy emotions raises the possibility that great design is about more than just functionality—it’s also about appealing to our sense of beauty and wellbeing. My viewpoint has been expanded by this investigation into design philosophy, which shows that good design is more than just functional—it also has an emotional component that improves our day-to-day existence. It offers a vision for the direction of design, one that seeks to improve our lives by skillfully fusing beauty and functionality rather than just satisfying the most fundamental functional needs. This growing knowledge highlights the transformative potential of design, emphasizing its ability to improve the quality of our daily interactions by carefully balancing form and function in addition to solving practical issues.

 

Citations:

Norman, D. (2002). Emotion & Design: Attractive Things Work Better. Interactions Magazine, 9, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/543434.543435

McMillan, R. (n.d.). Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself. Wired. Retrieved March 26, 2024, from https://www.wired.com/2015/10/margaret-hamilton-nasa-apollo/

“Design matters, but which design is preferable depends upon the occasion, the context, and above all, upon my mood” (page 2). We can see that Norman starts off by giving us a warning that design is subjective especially when relying on mood. With that, I believe that mood is such an important component in design…is it designed for an emergency situation where everyone is panicking (push/pull door example) or is designed to impress your guests in a calm environment (teapot example)? Designers must consider such aspects when considering usability because “the principles of good human-centered design are especially important in stressful situations” (page 6). The author further discusses color and how color was fulfilling some need, but one we could not measure…he further adds, “Although my reasoning told me that color was unimportant, my emotional reaction told me otherwise” (page 3). This proves that when it comes to design, there shouldn’t be solid reasoning like you would see in Mathematics or the Sciences. The essence of design is intuition, emotions, and ultimately pleasure in completing tasks or perhaps user-feedback. 

At some point during the reading, I believed that attractive things don’t work better; I disagreed with the author if attractive meant minimal, an example would be the Tesla vehicles. When Tesla made their cars too simple (almost no user feedback), it caused confusion & accidents, which shows how minimalism can sometimes make things chaotic. That’s what I initially believed, but upon page 7, I came to terms with the author where he says “to be truly beautiful, wondrous, and pleasurable, the product has to fulfill a useful function, work well, and be usable and understandable.” The author follows and says that good design means that beauty and usability are in balance. That’s where I came to agreement that attractive things work better if and only if beauty does not surpass usability. Unfortunately, not every designer believes that, such that they minimize too much in attempts to make things more modern/appealing, but doing this can make the things harder to use (usability) and understand (intuitive design).

Finally, this brings me to Margaret Hamilton. While reading about her experiences, I couldn’t help but draw parallels to modern design practices and the ongoing designs inspired by minimalism. Hamilton’s role in developing the Apollo computer system proves the importance of prioritizing functionality & reliability over aesthetics, especially in high-stakes environments. In this case, I might agree that beauty and usability mustn’t always be in balance; sometimes, usability can surpass beauty for the sake of safety. In today’s world, minimalist designs often dominate, and Hamilton’s story reminded me of the potential consequences of overlooking usability and prioritizing “the balance” as Norman defined it. With that, I wonder, would Norman still believe that we must balance beauty and usability, or would he make an exception, considering high-stakes environments like the Apollo program?

RESPONSE: Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself

It is indeed reassuring to read about Hamilton’s journey and her crucial part in a momentous occasion in human history when one considers the strength of perseverance and innovation. It also draws attention to the structural obstacles that women in STEM areas have encountered and still face. This was even highlighted in the article, “It was 1960, not a time when women were encouraged to seek out high-powered technical work.” This article reminded me of the contributions of women to the first computer Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, ENIAC.

In the case of the ENIAC, it was programmed by six women: Kay McNulty, Betty Jennings, Betty Snyder, Marlyn Meltzer, Fran Bilas, and Ruth Lichterman. These women were integral to the operation and programming of the ENIAC, performing complex calculations and programming tasks that were critical to the computer’s success. Women’s entry into the industry was perceived as a means of freeing up males for more “skilled” work, as the field was not considered prestigious. Despite their essential roles and substantial technical accomplishments, their contributions were not widely recognized during their lifetimes, and the narrative of computing history often sidelined their efforts.

Question: What mechanisms are present today that either hinder or promote diversity and inclusion in tech and engineering?

RESPONSE: Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better

The theme that I could connect with was “the pleasure of use. As someone deeply invested in the intersection of design and user experience, I’ve always been captivated by products that deliver not just functionality but also the pleasure of use. Take, for example, the tactile feedback of a high-quality mechanical keyboard. Each keystroke produces a satisfying click, transforming the mundane task of typing into an enjoyable experience. It’s not just about the act of typing; it’s about how the device makes me feel while I’m using it.

“true beauty in product design is multi-dimensional, integrating functionality, ease of use, and pleasure”

Question: How can designers balance usability and aesthetics in product design, ensuring that neither aspect is compromised?

Norman’s article illuminates the complex interplay between attractiveness and usability in design, suggesting that emotional responses to design can greatly influence how users interact with and perceive functionality. This understanding dovetails with Hamilton’s story, as her work in programming not only required an astute technical foundation but also a profound understanding of the user experience—astronauts, in this case—where the emotional stakes were life-and-death rather than mere convenience or pleasure.

Both Norman and Hamilton disrupt conventional narratives in their fields. Norman challenges the notion that design’s utility is purely functional and devoid of emotional consideration. Similarly, Hamilton shatters the glass ceiling, showcasing that women, often relegated to supportive roles during the 1960s, were capable of leading and innovating in technology and engineering, changing the trajectory of history.

The meticulousness in Hamilton’s programming, her foresight in anticipating potential software errors, and her commitment to creating reliable and user-centric software systems reflect the synthesis of form and function that Norman advocates. Hamilton’s designs needed to be not only functional but also to inspire confidence and evoke a sense of security for the astronauts—emotional impacts that were critical to the success of the Apollo missions.

Norman posits that design should elicit positive emotions, which enhance creative thinking and problem-solving capabilities. Hamilton’s work embodies this ethos, where the software she created required imaginative solutions that had to consider the astronauts’ interactions with the technology. Her work went beyond mere function—it was critical in crafting a human-centric experience under extraordinary circumstances.

Margaret Hamilton’s career, while ostensibly in the realm of software engineering, was also deeply entwined with design principles. Her software had to be user-friendly and intuitive for the astronauts, a requirement that predated but is consistent with Norman’s advocacy for designs that account for human emotions. The alignment between Norman’s theoretical framework and Hamilton’s practical application underscores the importance of design thinking in technological innovation.

In essence, Norman’s essay and Hamilton’s narrative converge on a fundamental principle: whether in the form of a teapot or lunar software, good design respects the user’s emotional experience and cognitive processes. Both stories celebrate the potential of human ingenuity when it is applied with empathy and consideration for the user experience.

Through their respective lenses, Norman and Hamilton illuminate the intricacies of human interaction with technology. Norman does so by dissecting the role of emotion in design, while Hamilton does so by pioneering software that supported one of humanity’s most emotionally resonant achievements. Both exemplify how the integration of form, function, and feeling can result in extraordinary usability and transformative experiences.

The reading of these two narratives, interwoven, culminates in an appreciation for the nuanced role that emotion and human-centric design play in the advancement and acceptance of technology. They advocate for a vision where technology and design do not merely serve human needs but also enrich the human spirit, a vision as expansive and hopeful as space itself.

Hamilton’s journey and the obstacles she faced, especially in an era when the field of software engineering was in its infancy (and dominated by men), is both inspiring and enlightening. The concept of “software” as crucial to the Apollo missions’ success was not just innovative; it was revolutionary. Her approach to creating error-preventing code that could literally handle unknowns in real-time was not only ahead of its time but also a critical factor in the success of landing humans on the moon and safely bringing them back to Earth.

One of the most eye-opening aspects of Hamilton’s story is the realization that the meticulous, problem-solving mindset required for such a monumental task came from someone who was largely self-taught in the field. It challenges the conventional wisdom about the pathways to innovation and highlights the importance of determination, intellectual curiosity, and the courage to venture into uncharted territories.

On the other hand while exploring Don Norman’s insights on the principle that “attractive things work better” has profoundly shifted my perspective on the aesthetics and functionality of objects around me. It’s a revelation to understand that the visual appeal of an object isn’t just about its looks but significantly influences its usability and, by extension, our efficiency and mood. This concept throws light on the many moments of interaction with tools and environments that are supposed to aid in learning and productivity but sometimes end up doing the opposite.

Norman’s discussion on how aesthetics can enhance functionality resonates deeply. It’s not merely about making objects or interfaces pleasing to the eye but about enhancing their effectiveness through design. This insight challenges the often-held belief that beauty and utility stand at odds, underscoring instead that they can, and ideally should, complement each other. This strikes a chord, considering the countless times I’ve grappled with study tools or campus interfaces that are functional but uninspiring or, worse, visually appealing but confusing to navigate.

The realization that our emotional response to an object’s design can significantly impact our engagement and performance illuminates the everyday design choices surrounding us. Norman’s argument has sparked a newfound curiosity in me to scrutinize the tools and spaces I interact with daily, from the elegance of a well-crafted note-taking app to the practical layout of a student lounge. It emphasizes the rarity of experiencing truly harmonious design, where form and function are in perfect alignment, enhancing both usability and delight.

This exploration of the intersection between aesthetic appeal and functional design has not only heightened my awareness of the design choices that shape our everyday experiences but also instilled an appreciation for thoughtfully designed objects and environments. It underscores the potential for design to transform mundane interactions into moments of joy and efficiency, urging a more critical and appreciative lens towards the designed world around us.

-Attractive Things Work Better 

In reflecting on the article “Attractive Things Work Better,” I have been intrigued by the intersection of aesthetics and usability in design and how it shapes our cognitive and emotional experiences. The piece profoundly highlights the influence of affect on cognition. It introduces the idea that positive affect, obtained by attractive, aesthetically pleasing design, can enhance creativity and flexibility in problem-solving, whereas negative affect can lead to a narrower scope of thought, suited for depth-first processing and focused tasks.

The article discusses three distinct teapots, each illustrating a different aspect of design. The teapot designed by Jacques Carelman, which is intentionally unusable, serves as a humorous critique of the functionality of everyday objects. Michael Graves’ teapot, while more practical, still places emphasis on aesthetic appeal. And then there is the Nanna teapot, which may not be conventionally beautiful but offers an intuitive design that caters to the brewing process and enhances the tea-drinking experience.

These examples lead to an essential realization: while usability is crucial, especially in high-stress situations where focus and efficiency are important, attractive design has its own merits. In more relaxed or positive situations, an attractive appearance can actually improve usability by making individuals more tolerant of minor inconveniences. This does not, however, diminish the importance of usability, rather, it suggests that usability and aesthetics are not mutually exclusive.

The argument extends beyond teapots to technology, like color monitors, which were initially dismissed as unnecessary but now are standard due to their positive affect. Norman’s earlier work, which seemed to prioritize usability at the expense of aesthetics, is now understood in a more nuanced light. Affect and design are not separate entities but are interwoven, influencing how we interact with and feel about the tools and objects in our lives.

In conclusion, as a student with keen interest in design, this has reshaped my understanding that to enhance the quality of life through design, we must integrate usability with desirability, ensuring that products not only serve their purpose efficiently but also bring joy and satisfaction through their aesthetic appeal. 

-Her Code Got Humans on the Moon

Margaret Hamilton’s story is a profound reminder of the immense impact one individual can have on technology and history. As a young mathematician working at MIT in the 1960s, she was pivotal in developing the onboard flight software for the Apollo missions, which ultimately enabled humans to land on the moon.

It’s striking to consider that she did this in an era when software engineering was not even recognized as a discipline. Her foresight to advocate for rigorous error-checking in the software, despite skepticism from her peers, was crucial, particularly evident during the Apollo 8 mission when an astronaut’s mistake could have been catastrophic without her code.

Her contributions went beyond the Apollo program, they laid the groundwork for modern software development. Her story is not just about technical brilliance but also about breaking barriers and defying expectations, which is especially meaningful in the continuous fight for gender equality in STEM fields. Her legacy inspires me to approach problems with determination and a forward-thinking mindset.

I remember when I first pledged my allegiance to the iOS subsystem, denouncing Android once and for all. I recall my uncle, a staunch supporter of Android, berating me for my lack of evidence supporting the superiority of iOS. All I had to say to defend myself was that iOS displays simply looked better. I was 13 at the time and I pondered whether I simply wasn’t tech-savvy enough. 10 years later, I still hold the same opinion and have never considered leaving the iOS cult. Aesthetics are, indeed, an important complement to usability, as Norman says. I am less likely to yell at my iPhone when it lags than I am at an Android. Its seamless design is enticing enough to suppress the negative affect of the anxiety of working through the occasional lags and confusion of working with technology.

This also reminded me of the invention of a GUI in place of the regular terminal. There is no inherent usability or advantage of using a GUI as an interface over the terminal. In fact, I would argue that for certain needs, the terminal may provide faster access to data and processes on the user’s computer in addition to greater control. To be fair, terminal commands do require a bit of learning but they could be easily learned by beginners. I would argue the attractiveness of the GUI makes the experience of interacting with a computer more pleasant, more seamless, and less stressful, potentially contributing to more productivity and, perhaps even, enhanced usability.

GUI Terminal Interface

I, especially, loved the second reading on the story of Margaret Hamilton’s contributions to the Apollo mission to the moon. What was exceptional about the story, in addition to highlighting an important female figure who has made critical contributions to one of the most important human achievements – all while being a mother, but also the meta-process of coding and creating code. To learn that the bare bones of what software is was formulated with the help of a powerful woman is also a great testament to the valuable contributions of women to technology and innovation – an insight to be considered in a time and age where the technology field is male-dominated and could oftentimes be hostile to women.

The concept that “attractive things work better” suggests that when users find an object attractive, they tend to perceive it as more user-friendly, which can enhance their overall interaction with it. It argues for a balance between functionality and beauty in design, suggesting that products should not only be practical and easy to use but also evoke positive emotions to enhance user experience. The reflection on personal experiences with teapots suggests a deeper, perhaps unspoken critique: that the essence of design transcends its physical form or function, tapping into the user’s emotional and situational contexts. This perspective invites us to reconsider the role of affect in design, not as a secondary aspect but as a central component of usability.
The narrative around three distinct teapots illustrates varied design priorities — usability, aesthetics, and practicality — and how these elements impact user preference depending on context and mood. It raises implicit questions about the prevailing biases in design philosophy — do we undervalue the emotional impact of aesthetics due to a hyperfocus on functionality? This challenges us to think beyond traditional design paradigms, advocating for a more nuanced approach that incorporates affect as a fundamental aspect of design thinking.

The second reading of Margaret Hamilton’s journey from a young MIT programmer to a pioneer of software engineering for the Apollo missions encapsulates a story of groundbreaking achievement amidst societal and professional challenges. Her innovative work in developing flight software was pivotal in landing men on the moon, highlighting her role in transforming software development into a critical component of modern technological endeavors. Hamilton’s perseverance and ingenuity not only broke gender barriers in a male-dominated field but also laid the foundational principles of software engineering, influencing countless future innovations and establishing her legacy as a trailblazer in both technology and gender equality in STEM.

Written on my dorm wall, there is a manifesto that reads “Aesthetical Practicality Manifesto…There is no right or wrong, only what is practical and what is not…Anything which is not of utmost practicality, intense beauty, or ideally, a blend of both, is bullshit, and must be always avoided.”

Reading through Norman’s “Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better,” to me, was like I heard a harmonic echo of my thoughts. Juxtaposition by Norman to show the weaving of practicality and aesthetics in design, is what I so strongly support. In short, my life is super simple. I just follow the following with almost everything in my life.

First up, Norman’s opening on affect and design captures a simple truth: “Advances in our understanding of emotion and affect have implications for the science of design.” This one has always resonated with me. In my quest to blend the roles of a engineer with an artist, I understood that emotion is not a byproduct but the guiding force in the process. Norman words that nicely, “Positive affect can make complex tasks feel easier; negative affect does the opposite. His story of the color displays in computers, which was once thought to be superfluous but later turning out to be very necessary and practical, though not making any practical benefit at all, was absolutely representative of this principle. I still think about his words whenever I try to beautify my computer terminals with themes and eveything, while in reality, there is nothing of practical value… but having a Batman/Ironman like computer User Interface improves my motivation to work by hundredfold.

Norman’s teapot examples are a treasure trove of insights. The pot by Carelman, unus unusable teapot by Nanna, and a tilting pot by Ronnefeldt represent, in a nutshell, the whole spectrum of design philosophies: from functionally unpractical, through aesthetically awkward and unwieldy but serving its purpose, all the way to functional sophistication. Just the way Norman believes, I think form is function.

I do not see aesthetics and usability in opposition but as dance partners. One reinforces the other’s strength. When Norman poses, “Why not beauty and brains, pleasure and usability?” I find myself nodding in agreement. This mirrors the core tenet of my manifestoᅳthat of the achievement of practicality so palpable but in the most beautiful aesthetic way possible. Such is very key in my work at the intersection between technology and art. For example, take the development in software engineering for user interfaces. A visually appealing interface that confounds the user is as ineffective as a drab but functional one.

We really need interfaces that are pleasant to the eyes, at the same time taking the user around effectivelyᅳbasically, nice skeuomorphic designs that I have always admired.

Another very deep reflection I like is Norman’s argument about affect in design. He shows how our emotions and fears make us change our minds altogether about the difficulty of the task, using the example of the plank at different heights. In the professional world, I have seen firsthand that the right emotional design can make the use of even a complex piece of software feel approachableᅳor perhaps even actually fun. Norman’s statement, “Positive affect can make it easier to do difficult tasks,” exactly supports my belief in the attractive design improving the interaction with the product and hence letting the difficulty of the task be gone. But if anything, that’s a critique I might level against Norman: It would be how he treats the friction of usability against aesthetics. While he does fully grasp said friction, I think there’s leeway for a much more intricate exploration of how the two can be married together more cohesively in the design process.

My manifesto demands that once tangible practicality is demonstrated, achieving aesthetics is paramount.

This is where the art of design truly lies – in not just balancing but synthesizing function and form. Norman reflecting on the importance of good human-centered design in stressful situations is something I absolutely agree with. He underscores the importance of empathetic designs that take into account the emotional state of the user. This principle can be transferred from physical products to digital interfaces, where ease and clarity in navigation can do a lot not to stress users. In summary, the discourse of Norman reinstated to me what I had believed all along: aesthetic and practicality is basically a conglomeration.