Summary And Critique On The Article Attractive Things Work Better By Don Norman

In his article “Attractive Things Work Better”, Norman sets in the context of correlating beauty and function through the title. This intrigues us, and pits our affection and cognition against each other, while making us think “do they”? This is where he brings in “emotion” as an important influence in human decisions. Norman says that, aesthetically pleasing objects are positive valence, they change our emotional state and this in turn changes the way cognitive system operates. The positive emotions make people think creatively; thus, people are more receptive of minor problems in design of objects. In contrary to this, negative emotions make people work depth first into problems which makes them more anxious and frustrated.

So, Norman brings together affect and cognition as a powerful team and projects that visually appealing objects leverage the way humans work with it. Through his research on evolutionary biology, Norman also brings light on how our reflective level and visceral level are influenced and impacted by one another. He explains the top-down and bottom-up manner of human brain’s functioning and how neural impulses sent by neurotransmitters alert the brain leading humans to act. Whether an impulse is initiated by thought, or by perception, ultimately includes both cognition and affect as complementary components forming that action. He emphasizeson focus as a by-product of negative emotion, that essentially helps human to narrow down and resolve a problem. In the end Norman proposes that it’s crucial to accommodate both focus and creative thinking in design of objects. This enables people to effectively use the object. As much as positive affect invoked by aesthetics, lets the user have fun with the product, similarly, right amount of focus through negative affect can be really helpful to use it in a situation which requires attention.

CRITIQUE

Norman addresses the importance of aesthetics in designing of an object, and how it can help in informed design decisions to enable the users to work efficiently. In agreement of Norman’s view point, I would like to bring in the principle of ‘aesthetic’ from Dieter Ram’s “Good Design Principles” which says – “The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful”. It is essential to recognize aesthetics more than just a consideration, because a lot is compromised if it sits like a decorative, instead of being a key ingredient. Taking cue from this same principle it also interests me, that Ram specifies about the aesthetics of a product being directly proportional to its usefulness, but not its functionality. Reflecting upon the title of Norman’s article, what remains a question is how effectively does attractive design supplement the functionality of a product. Perception shapes how we judge an object, and aesthetics enhance creativity, but it does not strengthen the object’s performance.

The “Walkie-Talkie” skyscraper of London - even though was a visual treat and one of the first commercial skyscrapers, its concave design caused solar-glare problem, by concentrating sunlight directly onto the streets, as a result melting down bodyworks of a parked car in 2013. A building’s sole functionality is primarily housing people, but it is also responsible for the social welfare of its surroundings, which had been compromised in the context of “Walkie-Talkie” building. There is no definite argument that establishes the connection between attractive design of an object and the measure of its functional efficiency. Hence, in my opinion, a well-designed interactive environment should strike a subtle balance between both visceral beauty and core functionalities.