```tracker searchType: frontmatter searchTarget: weight folder: daily notes line: title: Weight Tracker yAxisLabel: weight lineColor: blue ``` - [[Rewriting the]] introduction - added the text I started with to [[Beauty in Use –Plans, Scraps, and Brainstorms]] - Now to work on it in flowstate - Aesthetics User Experience Draft of the introduction 27 Aug 2024 at 12:01:51 - Good design seems like something that we can aesthetically appreciate. - There are such things as 'design classics' like the Bialetti coffeepot, the 1994 Swiss Railway Clock, and the iPod. - There are also commonly agreed upon examples of bad design –TV remotes cluttered with meaningless buttons, phone chargers with plugs so heavy they slip from the socket. - In the [[first half]] of this paper we argue that current philosophical accounts of [[design aesthetics]] pay an insufficient amount of attention to experiences of [[using designed objects]]. - In Section 1 we will [[introduce Carlson]] and Parson's theory of [[Functional Beauty]] as a means of avoiding treating [[the aesthetics]] of [[designed objects]] like [[the aesthetics]] of sculpture. - However, we will see that [[functional beauty]] does not seem compatible with [[invisible design]]. [[Invisible design]] - In Section 2, we will examine Forsey's kantian view of good design. - While it fairs better than [[Functional Beauty]] at explaining how [[invisible design]] can be appreciated, it still fails to capture the role that experiences of use play in our appreciation of objects. - Having made the case that experiences of using the object play a role in its appreciation, the second half of the paper focuses on how we should understand aesthetic user experiences. - We do this by issuing a challenge: what separates an aesthetically pleasing interactions from a straightforwardly easy one. - Why is an answer to this question important for the aesthetics of use? - Because it helps understand the difference between actions which we perform only because of some end, and those we perform because they are aesthetically pleasing. - [use the example of opening a kitchen drawer to make the case vs playing the viola, or carefully XXX] - - what options do we have? - Montero's proprioception itself does not necessarily add all the details we would want, it does not say precisely what separates an aesthetic action for an easy one. - in the case of dancing she might be able to attach her view of what makes these movements graceful to why dancers look graceful - Neither do Nguyen's three accounts - Solution - Capacity - Capacity is explicitly about how to explain our pleasure in difficult video games, but it does not seem an appropriate way of thinking about our enjoyment of challenging action. - and then when we get to harmony of action we get back to the problem of saying why these things are aesthetically pleasing, and therefore a difficulty in differentiating the aesthetically pleasing and the easy