# 1. Introduction - Mention Design Classics like the Coca-Cola contour bottle and the [[Swiss Railway Clock]] which are aesthetically appreciated - [[The Aesthetics of Design]] is a fairly new field in analytic philosophical aesthetics - There have been two major works: [[Functional Beauty]] and [[The Aesthetics of Design]] - [[The Aesthetics of Design]] is entirely focussed on working out [[the aesthetics of design]]. - [[Functional Beauty]] has a broader scope but is very obviously amenable to design, and a focus of Chapter 4 of *[[Functional Beauty]]*. - Our primary focus will be on [[designed objects]] which are used –not [[engineering design]]. - Utensils in the Low–ian sense. Get clear on the scope of artifacts # 2. [[Aesthetic Appreciation]] of Design: Beyond Pure Perception ## [[Functional Beauty]] - [[Functional Beauty]] account (Parsons & Carlson) is a perception based account of [[design appreciation]] - The fact that it incorporates *function* allows for design to be appreciated as design - Core idea: knowledge of an object's function influences our perception and [[aesthetic appreciation]] of it - Beauty is not solely based on sensory properties, but also on how well the object is perceived to fulfil its function - Three specific ways function translates into aesthetic qualities: 1. Looking fit for function: object appears well-suited for its purpose - Has all standard features expected for its function and variable features that enhance functionality - Example: muscle car looks fast due to standard car features plus indicative variable features like spoiler, large engine 2. Elegance and streamlined appearance: object looks graceful, efficient - Has few unnecessary features, primarily consists of standard elements contributing to function - Example: sleek stainless-steel stove's elegance "emerges out of its function" as all visible features are standard for stoves 3. Pleasing visual tension: object looks able to perform function despite some features seeming to contradict it - Creates surprising, aesthetically pleasing effect - Example: large steel cranes look too slight to move massive loads, enhanced by tapering arm that appears it might snap ## The Problem of Invisible Design - However, even though it incorporates function, as a perception-based account, Functional Beauty struggles to accomodate what we might call "invisible design" - Norman (1988) characterizes good design as being often unnoticeable: > "Good design is actually a lot harder to notice than poor design, in part because good designs fit our needs so well that the design is invisible, serving us without drawing attention to itself. Bad design, on the other hand, screams out its inadequacies, making itself very noticeable." - It is easy to imagine on object which is fit for function/elegant but which is unpleasant or dissatisfying to use - Example: The butterfly keyboards of the 2015 MacBooks - Praised for making the laptop thinner in Apple's marketing: "Every component of the MacBook reveals a new innovation. From its fanless design, ultra-thin Retina display and full-size keyboard that's 34 percent thinner" - But faced criticism for poor typing experience: "like typing on a desk that was kind of clicky" and "one of the worst I've had the misfortune to type on" - Examples of invisible good design: - ***iPod here?*** - Well-designed computer operating system that makes tasks easy and intuitive - Car that is fun and natural to drive - Kitchen knife that is satisfying to cut with - In these cases, aesthetic appreciation arises from the experience of using the object, not just visually perceiving it - Perceptual accounts like Functional Beauty would judge these objects based on how they look in relation to their function - But the aesthetic pleasure primarily emerges from the feeling of using them, which may be separate from their appearance - An object can look fit for function but be unpleasant to use, or vice versa ## Roberts' Tactile Functional Beauty - One might think that the Functional Beauty account as it is presented by Carlson and Parsons is failing to account for invisible design because of its focus on the *visible* - Perhaps it would fare better if it were adapted to extend to other perceptual modalities? - Roberts extends Functional Beauty to include appreciation through haptic touch >Dynamic and exploratory activities such as these enable the perception of an array of properties that belong to material objects, such as rigidity, elasticity, weight, balance, solidity, tension, pliability, and smoothness...these are properties that can determine how well an object is formed for its function—including, for example, how well-suited it is for manual manipulation; for wielding, striking, or pulling; for cutting and slicing; for riding upon or driving in; and for performing activities such as throwing, writing, eating, knitting, or running...When we weigh in our hand the perfect snowball, ride a well-engineered and well-oiled bicycle, wield a clean-flowing fountain pen, or test the bounce of our new sports shoes, we can derive aesthetic satisfaction from the fact that the item has been manifestly well-formed for its function. - We might then say that when it comes to a *well-designed* laptop keyboard, we can't see this design but we can feel it. Haptic touch allows the user to feel whether it has properties that make it fit for the function of typing. - However, Roberts' account does not fully capture invisible design - First, many experiences of good design, like using an intuitive app interface or reading a well-composed newspaper layout, have no significant tactile component - Second, consider Roberts' description of riding a bike: >spatial and organizational properties are equally accessible to haptic perception: the dimensions and orientation of the bicycle’s parts can be revealed by running one’s hands over its fabric only marginally less easily than they can be seen. And there is, secondly, a range of functionally relevant material qualities that are available to haptic touch alone. These include the lightness and flexibility of the steel frame and the firm bounce of the tyres, plus mechanical properties such as the free-flowing ease with which the chain runs through the derailleur and the friction- less operation of the gears. The bicycle feels fit for its function when qualities like these are disclosed through haptic exploration, even though they are contributors to functional beauty that remain inaccessible to vision. >"A bicycle can be said not only to look beautiful, but to ride beautifully, where this is a matter of how it feels to the user." - But Roberts thinks this experience of use is to be worked out in terms of tactile perception - So while Roberts valuably expands Functional Beauty beyond the visual, his haptic model remains too perceptually narrow # 3. Forsey's Kantian Account: Use and Appreciation ## The Promise of Forsey's View - Steve Jobs emphasizes the importance of how a designed object works, not just how it looks: > "Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it's this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, 'Make it look good!' That's not what we think design is. It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." ## Use as Distinct from Perception - Roberts' phrases "Riding beautifully" and "how it feels to the user" also suggest an experiential dimension beyond tactile sensation - However, Roberts would likely flesh out this idea in tactile terms - Similarly, Saito mentions use in the context of the appreciation of doing, but seems to understand it in terms of perceptual properties and sensations: > "Laundry is sensually pleasing, with its snowy, sweet-smelling suds, warm water, and lovely look and feel of fabric folded or ironed, smooth and gleaming." > "The transformation of wrinkled, shapeless cloth into the smooth and gleaming folds of a familiar garment pleases the eye. The good scent of ironing is the most comfortable smell in the world." - But some things feel good to use, and it is not obviously a matter of perceptual experience - iPod here? ## Forsey's Kantian account - Forsey's Kantian account is more promising for invisible design because it factors the user's interactions and use into aesthetic judgment - Core ideas in Forsey's view of how we aesthetically appreciate designed objects: - Judgments of beauty are based on "perfection", how well an object fulfills its purpose - Unlike Functional Beauty, not just a matter of perceptual appearance - Involves appreciating the particular, contingent way the object achieves its function - What Forsey calls "teleological style" - Imaginatively comparing the actual design to other possibilities - Requires background knowledge of the object type and its range of instantiations - Culturally and historically situated standards of functionality - So a more expansive, contextualized notion of aesthetic appreciation than pure perception ## The Importance of Use in Forsey's Account - For Forsey, actually using an object is crucial for judging its perfection and beauty - > "This judgement of perfection cannot be made by looking at the coffee-pots alone. Designed objects are meant to work, but to ascertain whether they do, and whether they are good things of their kind, requires us to use them or put them to the test: is the coffee any good? Can we lift the lid to serve it? Does the pot leak or the metal corrode? Some of these virtues and deficiencies will not be apparent to the eye alone" - The coffee pot example illustrates how use reveals aesthetic qualities: - Brass pot's flaws (hot handle, hard to unscrew, hard to clean) detract from beauty but are hidden until used - Author's pot's virtues (cool handle, easy to unscrew, easy to clean) contribute to beauty but only evident through use - So on Forsey's view, engaging an object in its intended function is integral to aesthetically judging it - Perceptual properties still matter, but as part of a broader experience of purposive use - The beauty of design lies in feeling how form enables and enhances function ## The Broad Meaning of "Use" for Forsey - For Forsey, an object's "perfection in fulfilling its function" has multiple components beyond just effectiveness: 1. Ease, comfort and safety in using the object - E.g. cool handle, easy unscrewing, on author's coffee pot 2. Ease of maintaining the object in good functional condition - E.g. wide opening for cleaning author's pot 3. Durability and resistance to functional deterioration - E.g. stainless steel of brass pot vs. corroded aluminum of author's 4. Effectiveness in performing core function - Both pots make good coffee, but this alone is not enough for perfection and beauty - So "use" on Forsey's account is not just about an object working, but the whole experience of engaging with it - Includes ergonomic, practical, and long-term considerations - Justifies seeing ease of cleaning as part of a coffee pot's function - Necessary for ongoing use and enjoyment over time - Fits domestic kitchen context, realistic maintenance demands - This broad notion of "use" helps capture the holistic, interactive nature of invisible design # 4. But what is an aesthetically pleasing action? - Recently popularized by Nguyen, but he does not delve into what makes an action beautiful or elegant - "When I swerve around an unexpected obstacle in the road, I might delight in the elegance and beautiful, swift precision of my response. When I finally figure out the solution to a philosophical puzzle that has been plaguing me, I can do so through clumsy, ugly, brute-force reasoning, or I might alight directly on the solution with a wonderfully precise turn of mind." - Need a more sophisticated way of understanding what these sorts of actions are - One possibility is that pleasing actions are simply easy actions - Forsey does seem to agree with Saito that ease of use is important for the aesthetics of design - Endorses Saito's claim that a knife's aesthetic value "consists not only of its visual qualities but also of its feeling in my hand . . . [and] how smoothly and effort- lessly I can cut an object" - The "sensuous aspects converge and work together to facilitate the ease of use" – Saito - However, we perform many easy actions with objects without aesthetically appreciating them - Pressing an elevator button, flicking a light switch, turning a doorknob - These actions are experientially neutral, not savored for gracefulness or beauty - So while ease of use is a factor for Forsey, it does not fully capture aesthetically pleasing action - An object can be easy to use in a bare practical sense without being beautiful to use - The full implications of aesthetically pleasing "ease" are not developed - More could be said about the specific qualities that make an action feel aesthetically rewarding ## Saito Stuff Here ## Montero's aesthetic effortlessness as a better understanding - Aesthetic effortlessness is about performing challenging things with graceful, elegant ease - Efficiency, economy and elegance in skilfully tackling difficult tasks without apparent strain - This is different from things that are simply easy to do in a mundane, trivial way - Montero's principle example is in the aesthetic pleasure we get from watching dancers, she says: >effortless movements are pleasurable because they are beautiful. And it may be that we recognize them as beautiful because we both sympathetically proprioceive them and see them as revealing a superfluity of fitness. - What is superfluity of fitness? - Excess capacity that makes hard things seem easy - Proprioceptive sympathy is how we recognise superfluity of fitness >I think Spencer’s (1852/1892) view, however, might have something to recommend it. If the movements we dub as effortless are movements that would be for us difficult to perform yet appear to be performed with reduced effort, then part of the reason why effortless action is attractive could be that it reveals a superfluity of fitness. Of course, proprioceptive sympathy could be part of the reason we admire effortless movement as well. Whether this is in part because proprioceptive sympathy makes us feel as if we were attuned to our fellow human beings, as Bergson seemed to think, I am not so sure, but it does seem that upon watching effortless movement, one of the things we enjoy is the feeling of performing difficult movements in a smooth, coordinated, efficient way (and this, perhaps, can be experienced even if we know great work was put into creating this coordinated efficiency). (p. 190) >When we attribute effortlessness to bodily movements in dance, it seems that at least in many cases we also see the work as, in some sense, difficult; we see it as difficult, yet appearing easy. Osipova's effortless leaps are certainly difficult." ## Appreciating Our Own Effortlessness - We appreciate aesthetic effortlessness kinesthetically - feeling the quality of our own effortless actions - Sense of unencumbered, maximally efficient and graceful motion - Savor the feeling of fluidly performing complex physical tasks - **Not haptic *alla* Roberts, but kinesthetic** - the aesthetics of kinesthetics Contrast with merely easy actions lacking aesthetic dimension: - Pressing an elevator call button is easy but experientially neutral - Requires no skill or economy of motion, just simplistic - No sense of gracefully navigating a complex task - Pushing the button doesn't feel like an aesthetically refined action - Aesthetic effortlessness is about more than ease - about feeling one's own skillful, unencumbered mastery - Kinesthetic pleasure of acting with maximal elegance and efficiency - Compare with games that need to be challenging Trying to pin point a particualrr aspect of the aesthtics of design. not talking about the whle thing. Peculiar to design - noughts and crosses has too narrow a logical space ## Moving onto Designed Objects - This captures a central aesthetic dimension of good interaction design - The sense of gracefully economical, unencumbered, masterfully easy action - Interfaces that enable users to achieve complex tasks with fluid, efficient elegance - We can aesthetically appreciate the effortlessness of our own actions enabled by good design - The kinesthetic delight of feeling one's own deft, graceful, optimally efficient action - Performing sophisticated operations with a nimble, unencumbered naturality - Proprioceptively appreciating the aesthetic qualities of one's own masterfully economical engagement - Addresses gaps in Nguyen's account by providing a richer phenomenology of aesthetically pleasing actions - Designers can aim to elicit a feeling of effortless action in users - Enable performing difficult actions with ease, a feeling of "superfluity of fitness" - A well-designed app interface doesn't just make it easy to press a button, but gives an overarching sense of fluid, economical, masterful action in navigating its sophisticated functionalities - The aesthetics of invisible design lie in this higher-order effortlessness, not just simplicity - Contrast with simply pressing an elevator button - easy but lacks the economical elegance and mastery connoted by aesthetic effortlessness # Case Study: iPod Scroll Wheel ## From Haptic to Kinetic (contrast with Roberts) This creates the visceral sensation of skillfully transferring one's own kinetic energy into the UI object - Rather than just clicking a button, you feel like you're imparting momentum and setting something in fluid motion - Creates the sensation that user movements are directly powering the UI's motion. - similar to spinning a globe ### How natural interactions support aesthetic effortlessness Natural UIs leverage intuitive gestures and metaphors to allow imprinting existing bodily grace. They tap into intrinsic, practiced capacity for elegant physical motion. When UI responds to embodied finesse with fluidity, it creates sensation of abundant grace pouring in: - Familiar gestures make controlling UI feel as easy as controlling own body - Casual mastery transfers from physical to digital - Tossing document or stretching image as automatic as real-world motions - Natural mappings allow expressing real-world grace through UI without translation - Interface obeys existing vocabulary of skillful movement - Joy of speaking "native tongue" of elegant motion - Interfaces that obey physics allow manipulating with same learned finesse as tangible world - Knacks for gracefully navigating matter apply seamlessly to pixels - Feeling of overabundant skill ready to deploy - Naturalness minimizes wrestling with artificial control schemes - Embodied wisdom flows into UI without friction - Using innate physical genius heightens sense of exceeding task demands ### The feeling of superfluity of fitness - Performing potentially challenging task (finding song in thousands) with fluid ease - Seems trivially simple - Far more browsing capacity than actually needed - Small, quick thumb gestures cover luxurious amount of content - Barely tapping reserves - Could keep scrolling forever without breaking a sweat - Single flick or spin sends list gliding with magical efficiency - Amplifying and extending physical grace - High-fidelity responsiveness makes you feel like a virtuoso - Executing subtle movements with expert timing and touch - UI perfectly obeying commands and elevating input into sweeping motion