Category: Spring 2024 – Aaron (Section 001)

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.

Before purchasing my current laptop, I spoke with a computer expert about which gadget I should purchase. He informed me that if I want it look nice, I should purchase a MacBook, but if I care about the “inside” of it, I should get something different. This is the same idea that the author discusses in this reading. Sometimes we choose things just for aesthetic purposes.

I think we can all remember the dispute between Android and iOS users. Even today I see people arguing about who can take the prettier picture of the moon and often times the android users are better at it. However, iOS still wins with most sales. Why? Because they have a prettier design .

This concept of design is called “Attractiveness Bias” which means that people tend to assume that people/objects who are physically attractive/ appealing, based on social beauty standards, also possess other desirable  traits.

Overall, I believe that design is truly a “make or breake” factor that influences the user experience a lot. I think that creators should think about that in advance in order for it to be successfull.

For me, as a design oriented person, I will always choose the aesthetically pleasing products.

 

(here I attached two pictures: the first one is an Asus ZenBook and the other one is a MacBook Pro)

In my reflection, when reading “attractive things work better” I understood how design is more than just about making things work well or look good. It’s about bringing these aspects together to enhance our experiences with technology, as our emotional reactions to a design are as important as its functionality. This broader view makes me appreciate how both practicality and our emotional responses matter in design.

When reading, I stumbled across a certain idea, where I was thinking that the color of a smartphone is a big deal when people decide what to buy. In general, black or white phones might look professional or classic, but a phone in a bright color like blue or red can make one feel excited or bold. These colors can attract customers who want to show their personality through their devices.

Personally, my phone is blue because that’s my favorite color. When I was choosing, the blue phone immediately stood out to me.

This experience shows how crucial emotional aspects, like color preferences, are in design. They can make technology more enjoyable and meaningful for us every day. By considering both function and emotion, design can really enrich our daily technology use, making it more satisfying and personal.

While reading, I noticed that the author was creating a symbiosis between the design’s appearance, utility, and the emotional response associated with it. It was interesting to see how the author defined the balance between these aspects, and I believe it is a healthy way for them to exist. I have always thought that utility should take precedence over design, which I believe is a practical approach. However, the author appears to infer that good effects in design can improve usability and problem solving. Although I believe in the value of good design, here’s another perspective: if we have a problem and are designing a tool to help us solve it, why go the extra mile to make it attractive or visually appealing? While answering this question, I came to the conclusion that an aesthetically pleasing design is the result of properly implementing all of the necessary functionality in the tool.

I think it can be best explained with the modern kitchen designs. Consider the trend of open-plan kitchens that blend effortlessly with living spaces. This design choice is not purely aesthetic; it stems from the functionality of wanting a kitchen that supports not just cooking, but also social interaction and entertainment. The central kitchen island often serves multiple purposes: it is a prep area, a dining table, and a social hub, all in one. Its design—sleek, with clean lines and often featuring visually appealing materials like marble or polished wood—enhances the kitchen’s utility by making it a more inviting space. The aesthetics of the island, from its material to its positioning, are integrated with its function, creating a space that is both beautiful and highly functional. By contemplating this — approach to kitchen design, I mean that aesthetics and utility go hand in hand.

Thinking about the document’s ideas in a broader context, I’m drawn to look into how they relate to digital interfaces and even services. In a society increasingly mediated by screens, the emotional impact of design aesthetics on usability is even more important. I’ve experienced websites and apps whose gorgeous design increased my patience while navigating difficult functionality. This notion is supported by the document’s explanation that ‘Positive affect broadens the thought processes making it more easily distractible,’ which validates my experiences with digital interfaces. The emotional impact of design aesthetics on usability is critical, especially in our increasingly screen-mediated society. However, the document’s emphasis on the universal benefits of good effect in design fails to account for individual and cultural variations in aesthetic tastes. This error makes me think about the worldwide nature of design work nowadays. Products and interfaces developed in one cultural context may not elicit the same emotional responses in another, thereby affecting usability across user groups. This intricacy adds to the difficulty of attaining truly universal design—a goal that appears to be becoming increasingly relevant in our interconnected society.

Now about Margaret Hamilton, I believe her story shows how individual determination and intellectual bravery can redefine the possible, even against the backdrop of societal and professional norms. In a time when the professional landscape marked differently for women, bringing her daughter to work at the MIT lab is a powerful moment. It shows us how she balanced being a mom and working on the Apollo missions at a time when most people didn’t expect women to do such jobs. This story is special because it’s about more than just making software for the moon landing. It’s also about Hamilton showing that women can be both caring mothers and brilliant scientists. She didn’t let the rules of her time stop her from doing great things in technology. It also made me think about how personal life and big achievements can mix together. Hamilton’s story is really inspiring because it shows that, how anyone can break barriers and make a big difference, no matter what others might expect.

Often times we can see beautiful designs which overwhelm us, which don’t really have any practicality or are not usable at all. At the same time we can often see practical and useful designs being ugly and really not pleasing to the human eye. Let me show you some examples:

Disco Truck? What do discos and cement-trucks have in common? Looks cool though.

Sushi Chairs….Okay they have the usability of a chair, I’ll give them that but the design man, it doesn’t add anything.

There are many other examples like this which we can see in our everyday life. A really good one is USB Sticks. I always have a problem with USB sticks, I try to put the stick into the port, doesn’t go in, okay, let’s try the other side, doesn’t go in again, wait what? I try the first side again, IT WORKS, how? magic! Jokes aside, USB sticks are just very weird, at least for me.

A design I really really like is Water Taps with sensors. They just save so much time, are much more hygienic and much better for the environment. Triple the benefit!!

Cars! Cars are a thing I love. As a young person that is transitioning from a teenager to a young man in his twenties, everyday I get more and more interested into cars. Let me show you my favorite design in a car. It offers amazing design and at the same time, it is one of the most aerodynamic cars in the world.

Say hi to the McLaren Speedtail. The speedtail is a perfect example of what happens when we combine beauty and usability (and a lot of money).

All in all, as the heading says, the best combination of beauty and usability (usually when they’re both balanced) will result in something we like to call “Good Design”.