Attractive things and emotions

Positive emotion yields creative thinking and with creative thinking, complex problems are more easily resolved. If aesthetics stimulate postive emotions, then it stands to reason attractive things are more easily learned. However, Norman does qualify his statement because emotions triggered by visceral and affective behavior, and the reflexive nature of human systems, are sensitive to education, training and cultural settings. Thus, what is appealing to one individual could be rejected by another, regardless of functionality. It is one reason manufacturers choose to offer up an array of choices for their products. Simply "one size doesn't fit all."

I don't know if Norman's book touches on how consumer behavior affects design and functionality. If you think about it, this is perhaps one area that seems to defy logic. Manufacturers aren't alone in the endeavour to design products that are both appealing and functional. Marketers follow consumer behavior patterns very carefully and are an instrinsic part of the new product development process, often with a single purpose -- to sell. A product may be appealing and functional, purely functional, or pretty and completely useless. But if it sells, it will get manufactured, and it will hit the stores even though shelf-span may be short-lived. (Think pet rocks.)

Competition and the fierce battle for consumer attention also plays a critical role in design decisions. By offering an array of choices intended to assault the senses, products designed to scream "buy me," the manufacturer hopes to garner that all-valuable slice of marketshare.

Illogical necessity is my third observation. Apple is credited for being among the top innovators of design. Its OS clearly demonstrates superiority over Windows and is certainly more intuitive and easier for the user to learn and use. Yet, why is it the Silicon Valley computer company hasn't garnered the majority of the personal computing market? Why haven't MACS been flying out the door with the same frenzy as its iPods? If MACs are so much easier to use, why hasn't it produced the postive emotion that should attract average PC users to buy this tool, which is supposed to make their lives easier. Most people who have bought PCs running on Windows OS are those who use them at work. They did it because of a necessity borne from something totally illogical. By default, workers and professionals needed to learn how to use these tools no matter how difficult and irritatingly complex because the job required it. Windows continues to dominate the market, and continues to give its consumers a painful learning curve. And it also continues to be a necessity. If you want to land a job working in an office or business environment, you need to not just know MS Windows and Office, but have strong expertise in these systems. Never mind that MACS continue to offer even simpler to use office computing tools with compatibility across OS platforms. It's PC skills that are an employment necessity.

In the context of America having evolved into a consumer market-driven society, where choice among all aesthetically appealing products produces emotional angst because one can't make a decision, I think eventually we will turn to functionality as well as affordability as our basis for decision-making. I haven't tested or researched this observation to any great length. But it will be a fascinating area to explore.