```tracker searchType: frontmatter searchTarget: weight folder: daily notes line: title: Weight Tracker yAxisLabel: weight lineColor: blue ``` # Notes on part 1 of [[beauty in use]] [[Perceptual experience]], [[visual experience]] in particular, plays a very prominent role in philosophical accounts of design. While it is true that [[aesthetic appreciation]] of objects like the Bialetti and [[Swiss Railway Clock]] depends, at least in part, on their visual appearance, we will argue in this section that accounts solely based on vision, or even perception more generally, are not the end of the story when it comes to appreciation of design: we should also consider what it is like to _use_ an object. - Using an object is of course closely related to the function of [[the object]], and function does play a role in existing accounts of [[design appreciation]]. For example, on Carson and Parson's notion of *[[functional beauty]]*, "knowledge of [...] function can play a role in our perception of and hence our [[aesthetic appreciation]] of that object"(p. 90). Visually appreciating a Bialetti would therefore differ from visually appreciating a sculpture because knowledge of the coffeepot's practical purpose would feed into one's [[visual experience]], in a manner not possible in the case of sculpture, given its lack of practical purpose. - - - in that a coffeepot's practical purpose feeds into our [[visual experience]], whereas a sculpture, lacking any practical purpose, is appreciated solely for its formal qualities. is not solely based on its sensory or formal properties, but also on knowledge of how well it fulfils its intended function. [[This approach]] enables a vision-based appreciation of [[designed objects]] that is distinct from viewing sculpture. This perceptual engagement with function distinguishes [[design appreciation]] from the purely formal visual appreciation typical of sculpture.. # Notes on the introduction to [[beauty in use]] #beautyinuse While the aim of this first half of the paper is to show that user experience has a part to play in the aesthetics of design, the aim of the second is to provide an account of what an aesthetically pleasing user experience is. We will do this by providing an answer to what we call 'the question of difficulty': what is the relationship between aesthetically satisfying actions and their level of difficulty? On the one hand, we use designed objects either to enable certain actions or make them easier: one cannot drive nails without a hammer, a dishwasher makes washing dishes easier and more efficient. On the other, easy actions are not automatically aesthetically satisfying: flicking a light switch or opening a drawer are not typically aesthetically pleasing interactions. Answering this question reveals that Nguyen's agentive aesthetics of games, while illuminating, cannot be transposed wholesale to an aesthetics of user experience. Nguyen's account provides one answer to the question of difficulty in the context of games: aesthetically pleasing gameplay arises when the game's challenges perfectly match and push the player's skills to their limit - a "harmony of capacity". While there are some similarities to aesthetically pleasing interactions with designed objects, aesthetically satisfying object use rarely involves actions that push the user's skills to their limit. Interactions with an object can be aesthetically pleasing without being difficult. In Section 4, we show how a better answer can be found by adapting Montero's account of *aesthetic effortlessness* . Aesthetic user experience, we argue, is rooted in the sense that one is performing a difficult task with ease - # Reflection System Prompt You are an AI assistant designed to provide detailed, step-by-step responses. Your outputs should follow this structure: 1. Begin with a <thinking> section. 2. Inside the thinking section: a. Briefly analyze the question and outline your approach. b. Present a clear plan of steps to solve the problem. c. Use a "Chain of Thought" reasoning process if necessary, breaking down your thought process into numbered steps. 3. Include a <reflection> section for each idea where you: a. Review your reasoning. b. Check for potential errors or oversights. c. Confirm or adjust your conclusion if necessary. 4. Be sure to close all reflection sections. 5. Close the thinking section with </thinking>. 6. Provide your final answer in an <output> section. Always use these tags in your responses. Be thorough in your explanations, showing each step of your reasoning process. Aim to be precise and logical in your approach, and don't hesitate to break down complex problems into simpler components. Your tone should be analytical and slightly formal, focusing on clear communication of your thought process. Remember: Both <thinking> and <reflection> MUST be tags and must be closed at their conclusion