I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation towards Norman’s Emotional Framework. Was rather intrigued by this assignment, as I did some research on the web and was really enriched by the extensive materials acquired on Norman’s ideology. Why the sudden urge of emotions? You might have asked. I personally appreciate very much this framework, as it somewhat expressed extensively and concretely what I’d always previously sensed and/or experienced about design and aesthetics, but always can’t seem to really visualize and pin it down to words, with my ideas often floating around haphazardly. Norman’s framework somehow gave me a sense of guidance and enlightened me, and it was really inspiring.
Back to assignment proper. In the presentations, we can notice consumer’s diversity: which stretches from just seeking operational effectiveness, to aesthetical magnetism, and prestige. What I really wanted to imply is that, I felt that designers in these fields really did their homework, applying design frameworks such as Norman’s in their product design, and that is the appreciation I personally endorsed, having seen these design theories at work. Emotional framework doesn’t seem that hard to apply, it’s actually something that seems just so intuitive, based on individual’s desires.
In this assignment, what I have noticed pretty obviously is the terms that were used. They are often distinguishable, often used to fit into one of the 3 emotional attributes. For instance, ‘Sleek’ and ‘vibrant’ are often used in visceral, ‘effective’, ‘workhorses’ and ‘long-lasting’ are for behavioral aspect, and ‘opulent’, ’symbolic’, ‘prestige’ are for reflectivity appraisals. I’ve also realized that its pretty hard, but possible to discover product that’s visceral, behavioral AND reflective. For instance, Apple, whose products are undoubtedly viscerally pleasing, operational, and symbolic of trendiness. It also demonstrates that if your design is really all-encompassingly good, that exhibits all 3 attributes, it would be a really huge potential money tree.
Other sentiments observed is that branding & affordability often comes hand-in-hand with visceral & relectivity but not necessarily behavioural. For instance, small and handy, at the expense of visibility, does not necessary equates to a good design. Some victims of this are miniature MP3 players and radio, as well as swiss knives (hard to aim, hard to see and press).
Also, different people are attracted to different attributes. Spendthrifts focus on behavioral. Fashion chics have preferences for visceral, while high-class and opulent individuals seeks reflectiveness. Generally, visceral-level people are more focused on aesthetical outlook, while behavioral-level people are more inclined towards functionality, usability, and how much control they could possess during use. Lastly, reflective-level people (who would seldom admit to be one – unless they are really rich and not-so-humble), are heavily biased by brand name, by prestige, and by the value a product brings to their self-image.
I was not really convinced with some peer’s elucidation in their evaluations. Some of the products are not really reflective but more of visceral. However, Mr. Reddy cited out a pointer that made sense: UX itself is not defined, still rather a grey area. As such, there’s no apparent right or wrong to design and evaluation appropriateness. Moreover, people have different sense of aesthetics, opinions and perspectives, as such, its always going to be personal, disparaging and subjective.
What I personally FEEL is that: outlook (visceral aspect) ultimately gets ‘numb’ over time, I do feel that reflective and behavioural aspect are the real traits that could retain a product’s standing. Not sure about how true it might be, just my personal thoughts though.
