** ## [[The Problem]] of difficulty - this leads to a problem when considering [[the aesthetics]] of user experience. [[The problem]] of difficulty! > [!NOTE] > [[How does]] difficulty level interact with aethetic user experience? - on the one hand we want to avoid arbritariness. - on the otherhand pure easyness does not seem right either. # Removed from the paper 23 Sep 2024 at 09:29:36 ** - [Nguyen’s work goes further than Montero’s in two ways. First, it encompasses [[more than]] just bodily movements, but also interactions with objects and people, and also mental actions. Second, and more importantly, it makes explicit what we might think of as the agentive aspect. What is aesthetically pleasing is [[not just]] movements but actions.] - Nguyen’s approach to games is also very close to [[the idea]] we propose here for design. Indeed, some of the games that Nguyen talks about might be better thought of in terms of experiences of interaction rather than action. [[Playing Tetris]] is quite similar to manipulating a Lowe-ian utensil: the joypad is being used to manipulate the blocks on the screen in real-time.  - [I am not sure whether more should be added here. Hopefully it will become clearer after drafting the [[next section]]] In the previous section, we argued that aesthetically pleasing use is a component of [[the aesthetics of design]]. We suggested that the experiences of [[using designed objects]] contribute to our [[aesthetic appreciation]] of them, and that the aesthetically pleasing nature of these experiences contributes to our overall appreciation of design. Having established the relevance of these experiences of use, we now turn to the task of characterising what makes these experiences aesthetically pleasing. Our aim in this section is to provide a characterization of the aesthetic agentive experiences that [[using designed objects]] can elicit.  To address [[the question]] of what distinguishes aesthetically [[pleasing interactions]] in design, we turn to Nguyen's work on the aesthetics of games. Nguyen's project bears some similarities to our own. He aims to characterise the unique aesthetic experiences that games can provide, particularly those related to agency and practical engagement. As Nguyen states: #### "Though games can offer some of the more familiar sorts of aesthetic experiences by telling stories, presenting striking images, and even making arguments, they can also do something else for us: they can provide designed experiences of our own agency." (p. 101) This focus on the aesthetic experiences of agency aligns closely with our investigation into the aesthetics of interaction in design. Just as Nguyen argues that games are "particularly well suited to providing aesthetic experiences of agency" (p. 101), we posit that designed objects can offer unique aesthetic experiences through use. Nguyen's approach is particularly relevant because it addresses aesthetic experiences arising from practical engagement: #### "Chess focuses us on thinking ahead down a chain of logical possibilities; Tetris focuses us on high-speed spatial reasoning. And those designed experiences of agency can be aesthetic." (p. 101) Similarly, we are interested in how interactions with designed objects can give rise to aesthetic experiences. The parallel between Nguyen's project and our own suggests that his ideas might be transposable to the aesthetics of use in design. ** # the following might be good ** ### 3.3 Harmony of Action and the Phenomenology of Agency in Design The harmony of action, which Nguyen describes as the aesthetic quality arising from how well an individual's actions fit the demands of a situation, provides a more promising starting point for our analysis. He illustrates this concept as follows: >"When you time a jump just so in Super Mario Brothers; or when you figure out, during a rock climb, that you need to slide your hips over just enough to balance on that tiny nubbin of rock, you're experiencing more than the harmony of solution. You're experiencing your agency and action as fitting the demands of the environment." (p. 108) This concept directly relates to the experience of interacting with an object and could explain why some objects feel good to use, beyond mere efficiency. Importantly, it allows for consideration of the user's agency in the interaction. However, when we consider the phenomenology of agency in using designed objects, we find our second key point of difference from game aesthetics. The experiential character of our interactions with designed objects is likely to differ from those with games due to the fact that these interactions are embedded in a much wider and deeper net of intentionality. Drawing on Horgan's analysis of the phenomenology of agency, we can identify several features that distinguish the experience of using designed objects from game play: 1. Purposiveness: While games often have clear, contained goals, our interactions with designed objects typically serve broader purposes that extend beyond the immediate action. 2. Chromatic illumination: The purposes informing our actions with designed objects often colour our experience implicitly, without being overtly represented in consciousness. 3. Means-ends structure: Our use of designed objects typically exhibits a more complex means-ends structure, with actions serving multiple nested purposes simultaneously. 4. Rational becausal aspect: When using designed objects, we experience ourselves as acting because of reasons that are often more diverse and interconnected than in game contexts. These features suggest that the harmony of action in design contexts may be qualitatively different from that in games. Our aesthetic experiences in using designed objects are likely to be shaped by this richer, more complex phenomenology of agency. In conclusion, while Nguyen's concept of harmony provides a useful starting point for understanding the aesthetics of interaction in design, our analysis reveals two significant points of departure. First, the relationship between difficulty and aesthetic satisfaction in design cannot be fully explained by the harmony of capacity. Second, the phenomenology of agency in using designed objects suggests a richer, more complex experiential landscape than that typically found in games. These differences highlight the need for a more nuanced account of the aesthetics of interaction specific to design contexts. ### 3.1 Ease of Use vs. Aesthetic Interaction In the previous section, we argued that a comprehensive account of the aesthetics of design must go beyond appearance or functionality. We emphasised that the experiences of using designed objects contribute to our aesthetic appreciation of them. Moreover, we suggested that the aesthetically pleasing nature of these experiences contributes to our overall appreciation of design. However, while we have established the importance of these experiences of use, we have yet to clarify what makes these experiences aesthetically pleasing. To do so, we must address a fundamental challenge: distinguishing between aesthetically pleasing actions and those that are merely easy or efficient. This challenge arises from an apparent conflict in our understanding of good design. On one hand, designed objects are often created to make tasks easier. Ease of use is generally considered a positive attribute in design, and for good reason. Objects that are easy to use reduce frustration, increase efficiency, and can make our daily lives more manageable. However, not all easy actions are aesthetically pleasing. Our lives contain many mundane actions that, while easy to perform, do not provide any particular aesthetic satisfaction. Consider actions such as pressing a button to call a lift, opening a kitchen drawer, or flicking a white switch. These actions are extremely easy but we rarely derive aesthetic pleasure from performing them. They are functional and efficient, but aesthetically neutral. Contrast these with actions that might be both easy and aesthetically pleasing: using a well-balanced chef's knife, writing with a high-quality fountain pen, or typing on a responsive keyboard. These actions, while not necessarily difficult, can provide a sense of satisfaction that goes beyond mere ease of use. They feel good to perform in a way that goes beyond their practical utility. This contrast brings us to the central question of this section: What distinguishes aesthetically pleasing interactions from those that are merely easy or efficient? How can we account for this distinction in our aesthetics of design? To address these questions, we will turn to Nguyen's concept of "harmony" in the context of games, examining whether and how these ideas might be adapted to illuminate the aesthetics of interaction in design. ### 3.2 Harmonies Nguyen describes the harmony of solution as the aesthetic quality arising from how well a solution fits a given problem or challenge. He writes: #### Here is a trap; there is an elegant resolution. Call this the harmony of solution. The harmony of solution is strictly a harmony between the solution and the obstacle; it makes no explicit reference to the actor or their capacities. The harmony of the solution is available to both spectator and player. (p. 102) This concept could apply to design in terms of how well a designed object solves a problem. It might explain our appreciation of clever or elegant design solutions. For instance, we might admire the elegant simplicity of a paperclip or the ingenious design of a Swiss Army knife. The harmony of solution bears some resemblance to Forsey's account of how use allows us to assess how well an object functions. As discussed in Section 2, Forsey argues that many qualities of a designed object can only be fully assessed through use. She gives the example of comparing two coffee pots, where certain virtues and flaws only become apparent through actual use. However, while Forsey's account focuses on use as a means of assessing functional excellence, the harmony of solution is more concerned with the elegance or fittingness of the solution itself. The harmony of solution, however, has limitations when it comes to explaining the aesthetics of interaction. It doesn't focus on the experience of using the object. As Nguyen points out, this harmony is available to both users and observers, making it not specific to interaction. While it may contribute to our overall appreciation of a design, it doesn't capture the specific aesthetic experience of interaction we're seeking to explain. The harmony of capacity, as described by Nguyen, is the aesthetic quality arising from how well one's overall capacities match the demands of a task, especially when pushed to their limits. Nguyen elaborates: #### This is an experience, not just of a particular action's fitting the requirements at hand. It is an experience of your whole self fitting the task. It is the experience of your abilities, worked at their maximum, just barely making it. (p. 109) Nguyen argues that this harmony of capacity is particularly rare in everyday life and is somewhat unique to games. He explains: #### Harmonies of capacity occur so rarely in ordinary life because so much of the world, and the tasks it forces on us, do not fit us well. There are things that we must do that are boring, because our abilities are too great for them, but we must do them (folding laundry). Then there are the things we must do that, though they are difficult, are also unpleasant (proofreading a book for the seventh time). There are things we must do that might start out as interesting challenges, but the world forces them on us in such mind-numbing volume that they lose all interest (grading). And then there are all the tasks we wish to do that are far beyond our capacities: curing cancer, fixing the politics of climate change, easing intercultural conflict. (p. 109-110) Nguyen uses the harmony of capacity to explain why we enjoy difficult games. The challenge of a game, when it matches our abilities perfectly, can provide a unique and satisfying experience. However, this concept doesn't seem particularly relevant when thinking about the question of ease of use vs aesthetically pleasing interactions in design. In the context of design, the harmony of capacity might explain the satisfaction of mastering a complex tool or interface. It might apply to professional-grade tools that allow for high-level performance, such as a professional camera or a complex piece of music production software. However, many designed objects aim for ease of use rather than pushing users to their limits. The harmony of capacity doesn't account for aesthetic experiences in everyday, non-challenging interactions, which make up the bulk of our interactions with designed objects. Moreover, it's difficult to quantify or standardise the "edge of ability" for everyday objects. While the harmony of capacity might be applicable to some specialised design contexts, it doesn't fully capture the range of aesthetically pleasing interactions we're interested in for everyday design objects. Finally, we come to the harmony of action, which Nguyen describes as the aesthetic quality arising from how well an individual's actions fit the demands of a situation. He illustrates this concept as follows: #### When you time a jump just so in Super Mario Brothers; or when you figure out, during a rock climb, that you need to slide your hips over just enough to balance on that tiny nubbin of rock, you're experiencing more than the harmony of solution. You're experiencing your agency and action as fitting the demands of the environment. (p. 108) Of the three harmonies, this one seems most promising for our purposes. It directly relates to the experience of interacting with an object and could explain why some objects feel good to use, beyond mere efficiency. Importantly, it allows for consideration of the user's agency in the interaction. The example of Super Mario Bros. is particularly illuminating. One reason that Super Mario Bros. is considered a classic video game is because of how good it feels to control Mario. He feels responsive to control, and the way in which he accelerates, decelerates, and gains inertia gives him a pleasingly intuitive 'weight'. This idea can be imported quite straightforwardly into an action-oriented aesthetics of design. A well-balanced kitchen knife, for instance, will feel good to use in a similar way. However, while the harmony of action provides a useful starting point, it doesn't fully resolve our central challenge. In and of itself, harmony of action does not tell us the relation between aesthetically pleasing actions and how difficult it is to perform them. We very often use designed objects to make things easier, and if a tool is defective in such a way as to make it hard to wield, we do not find using that tool aesthetically appealing. On the other hand, life is filled with quotidian actions towards which we are aesthetically indifferent. It is not often that we take pleasure in pressing the button to call the lift, or opening the kitchen drawer. Despite these limitations, the harmony of action provides the most promising foundation for developing an account of aesthetically pleasing interactions in design. It captures the crucial element of the user's agency and the fit between action and object that seems central to our aesthetic experiences with designed objects. It is In future work, it will be necessary, however, to refine and extend this concept to more fully address the specific context of design aesthetics and to provide a clearer distinction between aesthetic pleasure and mere ease of use in our interactions with designed objects. ### 3.3 Aesthetic Effortlessness We suggest that the best way of accommodating the relationship between aesthetically pleasing experiences of interaction and ease of use is through Montero’s ideas of aesthetic effortlessness. In her XXXX she aims to characterise what it is for something to appear effortless, and explain why effortlessness is aesthetically appealing.  Crucially, Montero does not equate something looking effortless with something looking easy, as can be seen in the following passage: #### “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.”  Other examples that she gives include X, X, and X. Music also provides good examples of effortlessness, in a sense Bach’s fugues seem, in a sense, *obvious*, despite their cleverness and complexity.  Montero adapts Herbert Spencer's idea of 'superfluity of fitness' to explain why we find this sort of quality aesthetically appealing:  #### "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." (p. 140) This can be understood as: [UNREFINED LLM PARAGRAPH] The concept of 'superfluity of fitness' illuminates why effortlessness is aesthetically appealing. When we perceive an action as effortless, we implicitly recognize that the actor possesses capabilities that exceed the demands of the task at hand. This surplus of ability allows for the execution of even complex actions with apparent ease, creating a harmonious relationship between the actor and the action. The aesthetic appeal of this effortlessness stems from its suggestion of mastery and control. When we observe a violinist effortlessly playing a challenging piece or an athlete gracefully performing a difficult maneuver, we experience a sense of admiration or awe. This emotional response arises not merely from the successful completion of the task, but from the perceived harmony between the actor's capabilities and the action's requirements. The pleasure we derive from witnessing such effortless performance may be rooted in our appreciation of human potential realized, where the boundaries between intention and action seem to dissolve. The same paper includes a defence of the idea that a quality like superfluity of fitness is something that can be perceived. Montero does this by invoking the concept of ‘proprioceptive sympathy’: we XXXXX. However, this aspect of her account is not relevant for present purposes. As we saw, in the previous section, Montero has argued that proprioception is an aesthetic sense, and we will now suggest that there is such a thing as proprioceptive effortlessness,. In the following subsection, we will show that proprioceptive effortlessness is just one type of agentive effortlessness. What do we mean by proprioceptive effortlessness? The first thing to note is that Montero understands proprioception broadly, in that she includes not only bodily location but also bodily movement *kinetic* sensations. This is apparent from her careful analysis of the aesthetics of *movements* rather than bodily locations: #### "Ask a dancer why he or she changed a certain movement to make it cover less space, or decided to move his or her wrist just so, and the answer will sometimes be that the dancer can feel that this particular way of movement is better than the other way: it is more exciting, or graceful, or brilliant, or any other number of aesthetic qualities that bodily movements can manifest." (p. 231) As well as kinetic and proprioceptive qualities, it also seems right to say that agentive phenomenology is included in the dancer’s experience of moving. She does not feel her body to simply be moving, but that she herself is causing her body to move, and that she has, at any moment, the option of moving her body in very many, subtly and not so subtly, different ways. Horgan refers to these two aspects of the phenomenology of agency as self as source, and core-optionality.  ANOTHER SENTENCE EXPLAINING THIS IDEA? These ideas combined allow us to make sense of proprioceptive effortlessness. When we are performing a skillful action, we sense ourselves as performing a difficult action with ease. Consider eating with chopsticks. Eating with chopsticks is an easy enough action if you know how to do it, but it is not easy in the way that pressing a button is easy. Whether you were born into a culture where chopstick use is commonplace or whether you learned how to use them with some difficulty as an adult, you manipulate the chopsticks with your fingers in the precise way required to pick up a piece of food, and are doing so effortlessly.  [UNREFINED LLM PARAGRAPH ON HOW EFFORTLESSNESS CAN BE WORKED OUT IN HORGANS’ TERMS HERE] Horgan's phenomenology of agency provides a framework for understanding the experience of effortlessness, particularly through the concepts of 'self as source' and 'core optionality'. In the context of a dancer's experience of her own movements, 'self as source' refers to the immediate sense of being the originator of the action. When a dancer performs a complex sequence with apparent ease, she experiences her movements as direct extensions of her intentions, without intervening deliberation or effort. This seamless connection between will and action contributes significantly to the feeling of effortlessness. Simultaneously, 'core optionality' manifests as the dancer's awareness of potential variations in her movement. Even as she executes a specific choreographed sequence, she maintains an implicit sense of alternative possibilities, enhancing her feeling of control and ease. This experience of multiple potential actions, coupled with the sense of being their source, creates a rich phenomenology of effortless agency. The dancer's implicit awareness of skill and the perceived absence of resistance can be understood as derivatives of these core experiences: her sense of being the immediate source of fluid, optional movements implicitly confirms her skill and precludes any feeling of resistance. Similarly, the altered temporal experience often associated with effortless performance may arise from this direct, option-rich engagement with action, where the boundaries between intention, decision, and movement seem to dissolve into a continuous flow of agency. Drawing on Evnine’s (2016) hylomorphic account of actions as constituted by an intentional form impressed on a matter that consists of bodily movements, we can conceptualise aesthetically valuable actions as involving a rewarding interplay of intentional form and bodily matter. Specifically, we can characterise the action’s intentional form phenomenologically, following Horgan, in terms of 'self as source' and 'core optionality'. Likewise, we can characterise the action’s bodily matter phenomenologically, following Montero, in terms of proprioception (including kinesthesia). From this perspective, moving beyond proprioception means considering actions that still have an intentional form but whose bodily matter is replaced with something else.  ## 4. Agentive Effortlessness: Beyond Proprioception  [HERE ON IT IS JUST SOME ROUGH BULLET POINTS] Introduction to Agentive Effortlessness - Definition: Agentive effortlessness refers to the experience of performing actions with a sense of ease, control, and fluidity, where the agent feels they are the direct source of the action and has multiple potential options available. - Expansion beyond proprioception: While previously discussed in terms of physical interaction with utensils, agentive effortlessness can be extended to perceptual and cognitive domains. - Relevance to design aesthetics: Understanding different forms of agentive effortlessness can provide insights into the aesthetic appreciation of various types of designed objects and systems. Perceptual Effortlessness in Graphic Design Skilled Perceptual Actions and Information Gathering - Definition: Skilled perceptual actions are learned techniques for extracting information from visual stimuli efficiently and effectively. - Examples: - Quickly scanning a newspaper layout to identify key headlines - Navigating a complex subway map to plan a route - Interpreting data visualizations to grasp trends and patterns - Relation to effortlessness: - When these actions are performed smoothly and without conscious effort, they contribute to a sense of perceptual effortlessness. - The agent experiences a direct connection between their intention to gather information and the act of perceiving it. Good Graphic Design and Perceptual Effortlessness - Principles facilitating effortlessness: - Clear visual hierarchy guiding the eye naturally through information - Consistent use of color, typography, and layout elements - Appropriate use of white space to reduce cognitive load - Intuitive organization of information reflecting natural thought patterns - Examples in design: - Well-designed infographics allowing quick comprehension of complex data - User interfaces with clear visual cues for navigation and interaction - Book layouts that guide readers smoothly through text and supporting elements Agentive Aspects of Perceptual Effortlessness - Self as source: - The viewer feels directly responsible for their efficient information gathering - The design facilitates but doesn't overshadow the viewer's sense of agency - Core optionality: - Well-designed visuals offer multiple entry points and paths through information - The viewer maintains a sense of choice in how they engage with the design - Aesthetic appreciation: - The experience of effortless perception can lead to aesthetic pleasure - This pleasure stems from the harmony between the viewer's perceptual abilities and the design's affordances Cognitive Effortlessness and Cognitive Artifacts Understanding Cognitive Artifacts - Definition: Tools or objects that aid in cognitive processes, extending or enhancing our mental capabilities. - Examples: - Calendars and planners for time management - Note-taking systems for organizing thoughts and information - Spreadsheets for data analysis and calculation - Mind mapping software for brainstorming and idea organization - Notation systems (musical, mathematical, scientific) for abstract thinking Cognitive Effortlessness in Using Cognitive Artifacts - Characteristics: - Smooth flow of thought processes when using the artifact - Reduced cognitive load in complex mental tasks - Intuitive extension of natural thinking patterns - Examples of effortless cognitive actions: - Quickly jotting down and organizing ideas in a well-designed note-taking app - Effortlessly planning a complex project using a familiar project management tool - Smoothly manipulating data and deriving insights using a well-designed spreadsheet interface Agentive Aspects of Cognitive Effortlessness - Self as source: - Users feel directly responsible for their cognitive achievements - The artifact enhances rather than replaces the user's sense of cognitive agency - Core optionality: - Well-designed cognitive artifacts offer flexibility in approach and execution - Users maintain a sense of choice in how they engage with the tool and process information - Relation to design: - The design of cognitive artifacts can significantly influence the experience of cognitive effortlessness - Effective designs align with and enhance natural cognitive processes Aesthetic Appreciation of Cognitive Effortlessness - Sources of aesthetic pleasure: - The experience of enhanced cognitive capabilities - The harmony between the user's thinking processes and the artifact's design - The satisfaction of efficiently completing complex mental tasks - Examples: - The pleasure of effortlessly organizing thoughts in a well-designed mind mapping tool - The satisfaction of smoothly navigating and manipulating complex data in a thoughtfully designed database interface Conclusion: Agentive Effortlessness and Design Aesthetics - Unifying thread: All forms of agentive effortlessness (proprioceptive, perceptual, cognitive) contribute to aesthetic appreciation in design. - Design implications: - Designers should consider how their creations can facilitate effortless agency across different domains of interaction. - The aesthetic value of a design may be partly measured by how well it enables effortless engagement. - Future directions: - Exploring other potential domains of agentive effortlessness in design (e.g., social, emotional) - Investigating how different forms of effortlessness might interact or complement each other in complex designed systems ** # Introduction – Old Version (removed 7th September) 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 very many 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, despite their focus on *function*, 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 Parsons’  theory of Functional Beauty as a means of explaining how function factors into our perceptual appreciation of good design. On theire account, a designed object which *looks* as if it functions well (looks “fit for function”) then it will, in virtue of this, have aesthetic meritlook beautiful. However, we will argue that a complete aesthetics of design cannot be entirely perception based. A laptop keyboard might look functionally beautiful, but not actually function very well once users begin to type. In particular, the perception-based aesthetics of designit cannot accommodate the idea that “good design is, or at least can be, invisible”.: a laptop keyboard might look functionally beautiful, but not actually function very well once users begin to type. In Section 2, we will examine Forsey's Kant-inspired view of design aesthetics, on which aesthetic appreciation of design is fundamentally a matter of making a judgement about how perfect it is as regards its function. Both perception and use can inform these judgements, meaning that this approach fares better at explaining how invisible design might be appreciated.  However, we argue that upon closer inspection Forsey’s account does not do justice to *experiences of use*: when we are deciding whether a designed object is a good specimen of its type, how well it works will certainly be a factor, but use need not just be a means of assessment, there are also cases when using an object is pleasurable and this also contributes to its aesthetic merit. in and of itself (EXAMPLES?) While tThe 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 explore how we should understand aesthetically pleasing user experiences.  We try to achieve this by answering the following question: how can we differentiate aesthetically pleasing user experiences from merely easy ones?  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 examine how we should understand aesthetically pleasing user experiences.  - Nguyen argues that the aesthetic core of games is their elicitation of pleasing actions from users.  - [give some examples here] - The claim we are making here is weaker. we are proposing that the aesthetics of design has an agentive component, but not that this component is primary/exclusive  in any way.  - Nevertheless, we might think that some aspects of the aspects of games might apply equally well for the aesthetics of design.  - [Something about why an aesthetics of design should have something equivalent]  - Are Nguyen's three harmonies applicable to design aesthetics? - The  first two do not seem to be what we are looking for.   - Harmony of Solution: not agentive, equally appreciated by spectators   - Harmony of Capacity: difficult to apply to real-world tool use - Harmony of Action: potentially applicable to tool use aesthetics  - This is where we might best apply typical aesthetic words ‘grace’, ‘elegance’ etc.  - However,  Harmony of Action: Constraints in Games vs. Tool Use - A key difference between games and act ion is to do with goals: - Aims in games are typically ‘useless’ arbitrary.  - Using designed objects is almost always with a goal in mind. We (usually) use tools to perform their proper function.  - Why is this difference so important.? - Because given that the aims of games are arbitrary, this allows game designers a lot of freedom when sculpting the actions of players - [explain how, go into detail about how the rules and the aims of games sculpt agency in a way so as to allow for aesthetic actions (e.g. graceful,  elegant, etc. actions] - In games, the aim might well be arbitrary, but with tool use it isn’t Aims of games are part of what is designed whereas goals of tools are rather a constraint on design.  - Why is this important? Because it seems important to goal use that it is goal-directed.  - How do we balance gracefulness etc. with goal pursuing?  - In a game we might perform an action just because it is aesthetically pleasing. - [think of an example of a game in which there is a sudden moment in which one does something silly partly because the sensation of doing this action is pleasant]  - perhaps hide and seek? - one way to make making coffee more enjoyable is to play a game of hide and seek while it is boiling, but a company couldn’t make the coffee machine more pleasurable to use by putting in extraneous games of hide and seek.  - in fact, any sort of arbitrary interaction seems annoying:   - Think about the difficulty you have using your phone in one hand, right now it is necessary, but you wouldn't want it arbitrary:  - right now this is an irritation in user experience,  - but one we can understand, as having to reach the top of the screen with one’s thumb is a necessary conequence of other choices which make the user experience of using a phone more convenient, such as being able to keep it in one’s pocket.  - Now, imagine that Tim Apple had discovered many years ago a seamless way of making the top of one’s screen more reachable, but was making an aesthetic choice. for whatever reason, he arbritrarily wants users to reach for the top of their phones with their thumbs. He has made a design choice in order to elicit a particular action from his users.  - If this were discovered, users would not stand for it.  - on the other hand it does not seem right to say that users find easy actions aesthetically pleasing. The viola player’s aesthetic experience is not tied in with it being easy.  Good design seems like something that we can aesthetically appreciate. For example we appreciate ‘design classics’ like the Swiss Railway Clock, the Bialetti, 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 outlet. An aesthetic account of design, however, should also consider whether it is possible to aesthetically appreciate what the designer Donald Norman calls invisible design, “design which fits our needs so well that the design is invisible, serving us without drawing attention to itself” (Norman XXXX). We will argue that the main aesthetic accounts find it hard to accommodate invisible design, and we propose a new account that can do so by casting agency and use as crucial to the aesthetic appreciation of design. We will show that such a strategy can lead to a more compelling aesthetic account not only of invisible design but of design in general.   In the first part of the paper, we examine what we take to be the two main approaches to the aesthetic appreciation of design in contemporary philosophy: Parsons and Carlson's Functional Beauty account, and Forsey’s Kantian account. We argue that, as it is a purely perception based account, Functional Beauty, is unsuitable for invisible design, and that this remains true even if we extend the account to non-visual perceptual modalities. Forsey's Kantian account fares better: appreciation on her account involves making a judgement of taste about an object's 'dependent beauty', and such a judgement incorporates not only perception but also use of the object. This suggests a way in which we can appreciate invisible design: a well-designed object will elicit aesthetically pleasing actions from users. However, it is here where another question emerges, one which Forsey does not focus on: what makes an action or interaction aesthetically pleasing? Forsey, indeed, tends to take actions to be relevant to the aesthetic appreciation of design mainly in the sense that  such actions enable one to assess the functioning of the object. In the second part of the paper, we will argue, instead, that the actions that a work of design affords can directly contribute to the aesthetic appreciation of that object in virtue of their own aesthetic qualities. . Despite its purported perceptual elusivity, it does not seem strange to think of occasions in which we aesthetically appreciate the use of artefacts. Think of a professional musician getting her viola back after a period of repair. When she plays it again for the first time, her appreciation will certainly involve what she hears, touches and sees, but it also seems right to say that she also appreciates the feeling of playing this viola with which she is so comfortable. It is at least not obvious that the feeling of playing (or doing, or using etc.) can be reduced to a cluster of perceptual experiences. Think of how her experience will differ playing her viola to playing a less familiar model, or a cheaper one. The idea that one can aesthetically appreciate one's own actions has been defended by Montero in the context of dance(REF), and also by Nguyen in the context of games(REF). While Nguyen does not talk about what aesthetically pleasing actions are, Montero makes very interesting points about that, Specifically, she insists on proprioception as the main road to appreciate the aesthetic properties of one’s own actions, and on aesthetic effortlessness as a prominent property of this kind.  Drawing on those notions, we will argue that part of our appreciation with designed objects concerns our aesthetically appreciating our interactions with these objects. From our perspective, interacting with a well designed object would be akin to playing or dancing with a technical object. Indeed, we can think of Steve Jobs getting close to saying something like this when he said the following: "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." A similar idea is also commonplace in reviews of consumer technology, or indeed any sort of technology. A  Say better The notion of appreciating invisible design extends to other domains. Car and consumer technology reviews often refer to how objects feel to use. Phrases like 'fun to drive' or 'smooth user experience' appear frequently in such contexts. These evaluations may not be reducible to descriptions of perceptual experiences alone. The iPod's click wheel interface provides an example. Users often described scrolling through music libraries as effortless and enjoyable. This appreciation seems to encompass more than just the tactile sensation of the wheel or the visual experience of the screen changing. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In sum, our aim is to highlight a dimension of design aesthetics that current philosophical theories have either not focussed on at all (in the case of Carlson and Parsons) or not focussed on to the extent to which it merits (in the case of Forsey). However, we are not arguing that use is the only way to appreciate design, suggesting that existing theories should be rejected because they do not in themselves, account for it. Rather, we consider the ideas we introduce in what follows as a supplement to existing theories, but an important and hitherto overlooked one. As we are developing an aesthetic account of design based on use, our focus is on objects that can be used, in the sense that they need to be acted upon by their user to perform their function. What we mean here is roughly the same as E.J. Lowe's distinction between utensils and machines. Utensils are objects that require our active engagement to fulfil their function, and include things like knives, bicycles, and keys: if the user takes their hands off a knife it will cease cutting, if they stop pedalling they will slow to a halt. Machines, on the other hand, can perform their function without need for constant contact with the user. A radiator keeps heating whether we look at it or not, an electric fan will keep spinning until it is switched off. While Lowe's distinction tracks our everyday understanding of utensils and machines for the most part, it does not always do so. We would not normally think of a mercury thermometer or a bookshelf to be machines, but the former will track temperature, and the latter will keep your books suspended above the ground without user involvement, and so would come out on Lowe's account as machines. There are also hybrid cases. The iPod, for example, is utensil-like in that users have to move their finger or thumb around the click wheel to select a track, but machine-like in that once the track is selected music will play without further input. Finally, it seems right to extend the notion of utensil to include objects which we make perceptual use of like signs, maps, books and websites. Although we do not manipulate these objects with our physical bodies, we nevertheless use them to gain information about the world. Our arguments concerning the aesthetics of use will apply to these things as well as knives, bicycles, and iPods. ** # Effortlessness through Mastery: How Design Makes Difficulty Disappear ## scraps from 14th June **We have just argued that an aesthetics of design should make room for our experience of using objects. According to Nguyen, the sorts of agentive experiences that a game elicits in its players play a central role in the aesthetics of games; we are suggesting that the experiences that a designed objects elicits in its users plays a similarly central role in the aesthetics of design. In this section we shall discuss ways in which the details of this claim can be filled in. That is, what sorts of agentive experiences are involved in design appreciation. [something signposting about what the rest of this section is about] It is tempting to think of the aesthetics of action in terms of ease and difficulty. A lot of the time, when there are multiple ways to realise a goal, we tend to go for the easiest option [EXAMPLE]. Does this mean that the aesthetics of interaction is simply a matter of easy actions being aesthetically pleasing and difficult ones displeasing? While it seems right to say that difficulty level has something to do with the aesthetics of design, we often choose objects which make things easier to do (e.g. electric tinopeners over ordinary ones), it cannot be this straightforward as we perform very many actions every day (pressing a button to call the lift, opening the kitchen draw etc.), but rarely take aesthetic pleasure in their easiness. (Footnote: this is not to say that it is impossible to appreciate these sorts of mundane experiences –mindfulness generally, Saito) ### 3. 2 Agentive Harmony Nguyen describes three sorts of aesthetically pleasing ‘harmony’ that playing a game might elicit: harmony of solution, harmony of capacity, and harmony of action. Examples of a harmony of solution would include a chess move which deftly avoids a trap while simultaneously applying pressure to one’s opponent, or a perfectly taken free kick that gracefully curves around the defending team’s players. In both cases there is something elegant about the perfect fit between the response to an obstacle. This harmony does not seem as though it will be a good fit for explicating the aesthetics of interaction. Nguyen makes it clear that this sort of harmony “makes no explicit reference to the actor or their capacities”. This makes the harmony of solution quite similar to Forsey’s way of understanding design aesthetics, we could think of using an object as evaluating how harmoniously a response to an obstacle a particular designed object. And, as with Forsey’s conception of the role of use, this sort of harmony “is available to both spectator and player”.  Neither does the harmony of capacity seem like an obvious fit for an aesthetics of interaction.  DESCRIPTION OF HARMONY OF CAPACITY.  #### "The sense that one's abilities are working perfectly in tune and performing actions right at the limit of one's capacities is, I think, a particularly special and profound experience of harmony between self and world. That specialness helps to explain why we might seek games that are difficult for us. We want the harmony of capacity because it offers us a feeling of fitting the world, practically speaking. An experience of beauty here, of harmonious fit, is something of a balm to the perpetual sense of friction between ourselves and the world." Nguyen is explicit that this sort of harmony is rarely encountered outside of games.  that is rarely found in the real (non-game) world. I will not consider, here at least, the possibility that this harmony plays any role in the aesthetics of design. We will not be exploring its applicability for design here.  Harmony of action seems like the most promising candidate to apply to design appreciation. Certain actions feel good to do. One reason that Super Mario Bros. is considered a classic video game is because of how enjoyable it is to move Mario around. The controls and Mario’s movements feel perfectly calibrated, and SOMETHING SOMETHING. The idea, we suggest, can be imported into an aesthetics of design more or less as is. A well-designed utensil, say a weighted cooking knife or SOMETHING SOMETHING, elicits aesthetically pleasing doings from users, in the same way that a well-designed game might.   There is certainly a place for harmony of action in an agentive aesthetics of design. However, there is still something missing. We still don’t know what it is to be an aesthetically pleasing action. This is made clear by the fact that we still have not made progress on the relationship between difficulty level and aesthetically pleasing actions.** This definition of design as "the intentional solution of a problem, by the creation of plans for a new sort of thing" suggests interesting parallels with games. Games also involve the intentional creation of plans (rules, goals, mechanics) to solve a specific "problem" - namely, the challenge posed by the game itself. The rules and structures that make up a game are carefully designed to create obstacles and guide the player's engagement with the game's challenge. In a similar way, the forms and structures of designed objects are developed as intentional solutions to practical problems, and are crafted to guide users' interactions with the object toward a resolution of those problems. In both cases, there is an artistry to shaping rules and structures that stage challenges and meaningfully shape practical activity. The notion of design as "translating a function into a structure" also has parallels in the world of games. A game's intended experiential function - the kind of play or struggle it aims to engender - is translated into the specific structure of its rules, components, and mechanics. Likewise, the practical functions of designed objects are translated into physical forms and structures that enable and constrain the objects' use in particular ways. Game designers and product designers thus both work to craft concrete structures that will give rise to intended patterns of experience and interaction. They shape the specific affordances and constraints that will translate their intended functions into reality through the engaged activity of players and users. ** This interplay between the appearance of effortlessness and the recognition of underlying difficulty is key to the aesthetic appeal of well-designed objects. As Montero puts it, "effortless movements are pleasurable because they are beautiful," and this beauty depends on both the "sympathetic proprioception" of graceful, efficient action and the sense that this gracefulness "reveal[s] a superfluity of fitness." In other words, we appreciate not just the surface ease of the movement but the impressive capacity it points to, the "superfluity of fitness" that enables difficult feats to be accomplished with such fluid mastery. Applied to design, this suggests that the most aesthetically compelling objects are those that enable challenging and complex tasks to be performed with a sense of effortless grace while simultaneously advertising their own "superfluity of fitness," their ample reserve of capability and responsiveness. The iPod's click wheel, for example, allows users to navigate vast music libraries with simple, intuitive gestures, providing an experience of fluid, effortless control. At the same time, the speed and precision with which it scrolls through long lists of songs reveals its impressive underlying capacity, its "superfluity of fitness" in managing such large and complex datasets. This combination of graceful, coordinated interaction and impressive reserve capacity is central to the aesthetic pleasure of using well-designed objects. It is not just about ease of use in a narrow sense, but about the experience of empowered, masterful engagement with a complex domain of activity. The well-designed object enables the user to feel that they are performing challenging tasks with the same kind of "smooth, coordinated, efficient" control that Montero associates with effortless bodily movement, while also conveying a sense of the "superfluity of fitness" required to make such effortlessness possible. Montero's analysis thus provides a rich set of concepts for understanding the aesthetic dimension of interaction design. By considering how the user's bodily engagement with an object can provide a pleasurable sense of vicarious performance, how the appearance of effortlessness can be deliberately constructed through design, and how the graceful ease of interaction can point to an impressive underlying capacity, we can develop an action-oriented framework for appreciating the beauty of well-designed objects. This framework goes beyond mere ease of use to consider the embodied, performative, and skill-based dimensions of aesthetic experience, illuminating the deep connections between the artful effortlessness of skilled movement and the graceful, empowering experience of interacting with well-designed tools and interfaces. ## The Aesthetic Impact of Overcoming Challenges with Ease - Montero highlights how our appreciation of apparently effortless performance peaks when we know the great difficulty actually involved - The starker the contrast between true challenge and experienced ease, the more aesthetically powerful the effect - We can extend this idea to the aesthetics of interactive design - We most value objects and interfaces that make genuinely demanding tasks feel doable with grace and mastery - Complex activities accomplished with fluid expertise rather than clumsy struggle - Daunting processes radically simplified through clever affordances and guides - Empowering novices to achieve proficiency in normally frustrating domains - The "magic" of a device that seems to dissolve difficulty and multiply our capacities - The aesthetics of interactive effortlessness, in this view, rest on a feeling of being unburdened, extended, and elevated - The object frees our action from normal limitations and clumsiness - Physical and cognitive friction melt away; motion feels smooth and supple - Enables focused, absorbed, flow-like states of skillful control - Sense of mastery and command, of being "one with" the activity - Makes the seemingly impossible suddenly possible, the unthinkable achievable - Expands the horizon of what we can make, do, and express ## Mechanisms of Effort-Reduction: Designing out Snags, Hitches, and Resistances - To create this feeling of effortless mastery, designers must eliminate the small frictions and resistances that normally frustrate action - Points of hesitation, discomfort, or confusion that break the flow - Awkward grips, abrasive textures, imprecise responses - Unclear labels, bewildering options, disorienting layouts - User never has to "switch gears" or consciously deliberate - just keeps smoothly rolling along - Always primed for the next step, never caught off guard - Achieve a tight coupling between intention, action, and outcome - What you want to do, what you actually do, and what happens as a result are closely aligned - Gives a sense of spontaneous control - think it and it happens ### The Nike GOFlyEase Shoe: A Case Study in Eliminating Inhibitions - Nike's GOFlyEase shoe uses a hinged design to allow hands-free entry - User can slip foot in and out without manual unlacing or adjustment - Solves difficulties faced by people with limited hand dexterity - Shoes "disappear from awareness" in use - totally intuitive and unobtrusive - No longer an obstacle to overcome in dressing and undressing - Transforms normally laborious process into a graceful, fluid motion - Stepping in and out becomes a single flowing arc, not a disjointed sequence - Difficulty of entry evaporates, leaving only the essential action and result - User experiences putting on shoes as basically effortless - a non-event ## False Effortlessness vs. Honest Effortlessness: Earned Ease and Sprezzatura in Reverse - Important that the feeling of effortless flow is won through astute design, not just a false surface effect - User senses the underlying difficulty honestly acknowledged and addressed, not simply papered over - Still appreciates the challenge involved, but as having been elegantly surmounted by the design - We could see this as Montero's idea of sprezzatura in reverse - Where sprezzatura masks tremendous effort behind a nonchalant veneer to keep up appearances... - Honest effortlessness in design reveals the great effort needed to make things feel genuinely effortless for the user - Concealing difficulty is not the point; the point is actually eliminating it ### Apple's Original iPhone: Sprezzatura and Achieved Effortlessness - When Apple released the original iPhone, its radical touchscreen interface seemed magically easy to use - Made the normally cumbersome process of mobile computing feel intuitive and free-flowing - Users could "flick through" menus, "pinch" photos, and "tap" their way around with unprecedented fluidity - This apparent effortlessness was the hard-won result of extensive research and design - Apple had to invent whole new interaction paradigms and define an entirely new gestural vocabulary - The iPhone condensed this immense effort into an experience of luminous simplicity for the user - Users sensed the underlying sophistication and craft, but as something enabling rather than overshadowing their experience - The difficulty was not hidden but honestly transcended, adding to the aesthetic effect # The Proprioceptive and Kinesthetic Dimensions of Interactive Effortlessness ## "Proprioceptive Sympathy": Feeling Effortlessness in Our Own Bodies - Montero suggests that we often appreciate gracefulness by imaginatively feeling the performer's effortless movements in our own bodies - A kind of "proprioceptive sympathy" where we seem to resonate with or even mirror the mover - The kinesthetic and proprioceptive sensations of interacting with an object likewise shape our sense of its effortlessness - The micro-arc and flow of our own bodily motions as we engage with it - Feelings of smoothness, precision, stability, lightness, etc. in the "hand-feel" of the interaction - Effortless interaction has a distinctive proprioceptive profile - Sense of being comfortably aligned with the object - no contortion or compensation needed - Feeling of unhesitating intentionality and fluid responsiveness in one's own motion - Firm but relaxed grip, poised but mobile posture, unbroken concentration - These sensations merge into an overall impression of dynamically "interlocking" with the object - Action and reaction forming an organic circuit, a kind of "micro-dance" ## "Kinesthetic Melody": The Aesthetics of Interaction's Temporal Flow - Montero also highlights the "kinesthetic melody" of graceful movement - The aesthetically tuned flow, rhythm, phrasing, and arc of the body's motion through space and time - We can extend this to the felt temporal shape of interacting with well-designed objects - The "action gestalts" we enact with the object have a pleasing composition and development - Exposition (grasping the object) - Complication (applying it to a task) - Resolution (successful outcome) - Elegantly paced buildups and releases of tension, alternations of resistance and yielding - Drama of the "will it work?" moment giving way to catharsis of fluid function - Sense of momentum and flow, of being gently swept along a natural current - Unifies discrete micro-actions into a coherent, satisfying experiential arc - Separate sensations and events integrated into a meaningful narrative - Enhances sense of holistic, "all of a piece" quality in the interaction - Each micro-action flows logically and seamlessly into the next ### The Fiskars X27 Splitting Axe: A Case Study in Kinesthetic Melody - Fiskars' X27 axe is designed to make splitting wood feel fluid and graceful - Well-balanced head maintains steady swing and strike throughout motion - Power-to-weight ratio and ultra-sharp blade make splitting efficient and non-jarring - Shock-absorbing FiberComp handle reduces strain and fatigue - Wielding the axe has a distinctive "kinesthetic melody" - Preparatory arc of the backswing flows smoothly into the accelerating downswing - Momentary anticipatory "catch" at top of swing resolves into fast, fluid release - Sharp strike meets momentary resistance then resolves into the yielding split - Recoil is absorbed and redirected smoothly into the next swing, and the next - Each action in the sequence has a clear motivation and completion - No movement feels wasted or out of place; every part contributes to the whole - Interaction assumes a "narrative" structure - setup, climax, resolution - with a sense of inevitability ## Effortlessness as Interactive "Kairos": Seizing the Opportune Moment - We could see effortless interaction as having an almost "kairological" quality (from the Greek kairos) - Kairos = the opportune moment, the "right" or "ripe" time for something to occur - Well-designed objects make us feel that our actions are optimally timed and placed - Every motion we make feels like the right motion, in the right sequence, with the right pacing - Sense that the object is collaborating with us to seize micro-opportunity after micro-opportunity - The object primes and "cues up" our action so that we always begin each motion in the ideal state - Ergonomics of a handle make us instinctively grip it at the optimal angle for the task - Physical properties of materials and mechanisms feel maximally receptive at each juncture - We are proprioceptively "in phase" with the object and its affordances, never missing a beat ### The OXO Good Grips Peeler: Kairological Effortlessness in the Kitchen - The OXO Good Grips peeler's design helps the user deftly seize the right moment at each stage of peeling - Contoured handle promotes ideal grip for smooth, downward strokes - Sharp, flexible blade maintains contact with irregular surfaces - Non-slip feet stabilize peeler against cutting board without conscious effort - Eyer safely removes blemishes without interrupting flow - Each micro-action feels primed and enabled at just the right instant - Handle's form "tells" hand how to hold it just as hand is reaching - Blade finds its angle on the vegetable just as hand is beginning to push - Feet find their perch on the board just as vegetable is set down - Peeler seems to collaboratively generate and capture the kairological moment - Affords a feeling of being poised for each action, then nimbly "pouncing" with perfect timing # Intuitive Interaction and the Feeling of Oughtnessless ## How Good Design Guides without Seeming to Guide - Montero notes how truly skilled performers experience difficult actions as "obvious" or "inevitable" - The right next step presents itself "without thinking," as if the only natural way forward - We can see a parallel in how well-designed objects shepherd users to successful action without feeling overbearing - The object discretely leads users to the optimal interaction path, but in a way that feels self-driven - "Real options" (James Greco) - design selects a preferred action from many possibilities - But phenomenologically feels like one's own unforced choice - "just comes naturally" - The object's guidance is more "pull" than "push" - an invitation, not an imposition - User feels shepherded or conducted, but in a way that seems to emanate from their own agency - Achieves philosopher David Pye's ideal of "oughtnessless" - Design gets us to do what we ought, but without any sense of being instructed or corrected ### The Shun Chef's Knife: Oughtnessless in Action - The Shun chef's knife's design imperceptibly leads the user to an optimal cutting motion - Blade's curved belly encourages an efficient rocking chop - Slight angle of handle promotes a comfortable "pinch grip" - Layered Damascus steel provides pleasing sense of "bite" on contact - Tapered bolster and "D-shaped" handle prevent slipping and twisting - These elements synergistically prime the user for a masterful, meandering cut - Each design choice is a "hidden enabler" that silently sets up the next micro-action - Knife seems to be collaboratively generating the action rather than forcing it - User just surrenders to the "flow" of the motion without having to micromanage - Feels oughtnessless - user does what they "ought" to do, but as their own idea - Gentle "rails" of the design point the way, but agency remains with the user ## From Tool to "Ready-to-Hand": Disappearing into the Flow - As interaction becomes intuitive and effortless, the object itself tends to recede from conscious awareness - User no longer experiences the object as a separate "thing," but as a transparent extension of their own intentionality - Philosopher Martin Heidegger's concept of "readiness-to-hand" - Equipment withdraws into the background, subsumed into the flow of purposeful action - We engage the world through the object, rather than focusing on the object itself - The well-designed object fades into the "phenomenological background" during use - Its specific physical properties matter less than the way it conducts the action - User almost forgets they are using a tool at all; they feel that they are the tool - From Montero's perspective, this resembles how an expert performer ceases to experience their instrument as separate - Musician experiences notes as "playing themselves," dancer feels movement as their own - Boundary between self and object blurs as skill increases; dualism dissolves ### The Lamy 2000 Fountain Pen: Case Study in Readiness-to-Hand - Lamy 2000 fountain pen is prized by writers for "disappearing" during use - Brushed Makrolon body warmed by hand becomes barely distinguishable from skin - Ink flows smoothly and evenly without skipping or forcing - Nib glides across the page, responsive to both gentle and firm pressure - Sturdy, spring-loaded clip and lightweight cap enable swift, one-handed uncapping and posting - In skilled hands, the pen's physical presence melts away, leaving only the act of writing itself - No disruptive focus on gripping, uncapping, orienting the nib, coaxing out ink, etc. - Physical properties of the pen remain tangible, but as enabling rather than encumbering - Writer and pen form a unified intentional system, a kind of cyborg hybridization - From a clunky external tool, the pen transforms into a barely-noticed conduit for meaning-making - Its "objecthood" dissolves into pure, transparent function - becomes "ready-to-hand" - Allows meaning to flow unimpeded from mind onto page; closes the gap between ideation and inscription - An effortless merging of "the conceiving and the achieving" (Richard Sennett) ## The Paradox of Unachieved Effortlessness: Honesty and Sprezzatura Revisited - No design is ever perfectly transparent or infinitely masterful, of course; friction and "hitches" always remain - Every interaction reaches a point where the object/interface "chafes" against the user's intention - Especially true for expert practitioners highly attuned to subtle elements of resistance - But perhaps some small baseline of residual effort is desirable - even necessary - in designed interactions - Keeps interaction from feeling so automatic as to be meaningless or unearned - Preserves an "honorable sadness" (Richard Sennett) in grappling with worldly resistance - Total effortlessness in design may resemble sprezzatura in its potential for dissemblance - Risks becoming a mere "grace of the machine," as Sennett puts it - Hollow, superficial illusion of fluency; action so easy it means nothing - Some small remainder of effort reminds us of the underlying work needed to achieve results - "Magnificent failure to achieve effortlessness" more powerful than slick, unearned ease - The most resonant designed interactions may be those that make the impossible feel possible... - ...while still letting us feel that we've achieved the impossible meaningfully, not just automatically - Interactive effortlessness not as a "frictionless" absolute, but an "effort-ful" asymptote to strive for # Adapting Effortlessness from Art to Design Montero's analysis of effortlessness in art can be adapted to understand the first-person experience of effortlessness elicited by well-designed objects. The key is to consider how the qualities that make an artistic medium, process, or performance feel effortless to perceive might translate into qualities that make an object feel effortless to use. ## Effortless Interaction (Medium) For the artistic medium, Montero emphasizes efficiency of movement and lack of superfluous muscle tension. In design, this could map onto: 1. Efficiency of interaction - Each user action achieves maximal effect with minimal effort 2. No unnecessary complexity - No superfluous steps, buttons, options, visual clutter 3. Direct manipulation - Interacting feels unmediated, like an extension of the body ### Example: iPod Click Wheel - Simple circular motions quickly scroll through huge lists - Minimal, uncluttered interface puts content first - Touch interaction feels intuitive and bodily ### Quotes > For Spencer, grace is exemplified by movements "performed with comparatively little effort"... Effortless motion achieves "economy of force" with no superfluous muscle tension... > > Efficient bodily movements in dance, then, cannot be understood as moving with the minimum number of motions or in the most direct way possible from one point to another. Rather, in this context, it seems that an efficient movement is one that involves no superfluous muscle tension. ## Concealing Difficulty (Process) Montero discusses how we attribute effortlessness to impressive artistic feats based on the appearance of ease. For objects, this could translate to: 1. Making complex functions easy through great design 2. Giving an impression of simplicity even for powerful tools 3. Hiding difficulty "behind the scenes" to avoid user confusion ### Example: iPod Simplicity - Hid complexity of managing huge music libraries - Simple, friendly exterior - Users could operate effortlessly without confronting underlying intricacy ### Quotes > We attribute effortlessness to mediums/movements that are actually difficult... It's the accomplishment of something challenging with apparent ease that impresses us... Our perception of effortlessness depends on believing the underlying action is hard ## Apparent, Acquired, and Intentional Ease (Representation) Montero distinguishes "apparent, objective, and intentional ease" in art - is effortlessness real for the performer, or just skillfully represented? For objects, this suggests: 1. Interfaces that become genuinely automatic to use, not just apparently simple 2. Designing for skill acquisition, with effortlessness as a learned end state 3. But also crafting intentional "guises" of effortlessness to impress the user ### Example: iPod Automaticity - So intuitive that use quickly became unthinking - But also impressive sprezzatura in hiding power behind simplicity ### Quotes > Do we admire when something difficult has truly become easy for a skilled performer?... Or just the appearance of ease, even if it remains effortful for them?... The author argues we appreciate the mere appearance, the "guise of effortlessness"... > > On top of admiring apparent effortlessness, we may appreciate the deliberate, effortful construction of that appearance (sprezzatura) ## Proprioceptive Resonance Montero connects effortlessness to Bergson's idea of "proprioceptive sympathy" - a feeling of bodily resonance with graceful movements. For objects this could mean: 1. Interfaces that map intuitively onto the user's physical gestures 2. Designing for sensorimotor fluency and tactile pleasure 3. Translating effort and resistance between user and device ### Example: iPod Wheel Physicality - Responds instantly to touch, creating pleasing sense of control - Scrolling acceleration matches finger speed - Feels like an effortless merging of body and device ### Quotes > Bergson thought we perceive gracefulness via "proprioceptive sympathy," feeling in our own bodies an attunement to the graceful person's movements... > > The author is unsure but suggests effortless motion is pleasurable because... We proprioceptively relate to it ## Superfluity of Fitness Montero suggests artistic effortlessness is pleasing because it reveals "superfluity of fitness" - impressive reserves of ability. In objects, this could mean: 1. Designs that advertise surplus power and capability 2. Interfaces that feel exceptionally responsive and robust 3. Confidence that the device can handle any task effortlessly ### Example: iPod Responsiveness - Effortless scrolling through thousands of songs - Projects satisfying sense of underlying power and speed - No list too long to navigate fluidly ### Quotes > 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. ## Principles of Effortless Design In summary, an aesthetics of effortless user experience could focus on: 1. Efficiency and directness of interaction 2. Simplicity that hides underlying complexity 3. Genuine cognitive ease as an aspirational end state 4. Proprioceptive resonance between interface and body 5. Surplus capability and responsiveness The iPod is a paradigmatic example that brought all these elements together into a compellingly effortless user experience at both sensorimotor and cognitive levels. Designers can adapt the aesthetic principles behind effortlessness in art to craft similarly graceful interactions with objects. # 1. On David Pye's Concept of "Oughtnessless" ## Uncertainty About Pye's Usage of the Exact Term - I could not find a direct textual source confirming that Pye used the word "oughtnessless" verbatim - It's possible I misremembered or conflated it with related concepts in his work - Will need to do a more thorough review of Pye's writings to determine if and where he used this phrasing - However, the underlying idea seems closely aligned with Pye's design philosophy ## Resonance with Pye's Notion of "Doing Things Right vs. Doing the Right Thing" - Pye often emphasized the difference between: 1. Designing objects to constrain/guide users toward "correct" actions 2. Trusting users' judgment and allowing them to determine the "right" actions - He was wary of design that imposed too much prescriptive "oughtness" on user behavior - Wanted to create possibilities for "right action" without rigid enforcement - "Oughtnessless" evokes this idea of implicitly suggesting rather than explicitly mandating - Designing objects to subtly nudge users in fruitful directions - But leaving space for autonomy, improvisation and skill development - Avoiding a heavy-handed, "schoolmarmish" tone (Pye's phrase) ### Example: Pye's Concept of "Forgiving" Design - Pye praised "forgiving" tools/objects that tolerated a range of user actions - E.g. a "forgiving" chisel can be used at many different angles/pressures - Whereas an "unforgiving" chisel only works if held in a very precise way - Forgiving design guides by implicit constraints, not explicit instructions - User can discover the "right way" through exploratory action - Facilitates learning and growth of skill rather than simple rule-following - "Oughtnessless" could be seen as a kind of "macro-forgiveness" - Designing to allow multiple pathways to a goal - Suggesting optimal actions implicitly rather than prescribing them ## An Important Concept Even if Not Pye's Own Phrasing - Regardless of whether Pye coined the term, "oughtnessless" points to key concerns in design philosophy - How to shape behavior non-coercively and non-paternalistically - Balancing guidance and freedom, constraint and creativity - Respecting user agency while still fostering "good practices" - Worth unpacking further in relation to other thinkers like: - Langdon Winner's politics of artifacts - Madeleine Akrich's notion of scripting users - Carl DiSalvo's adversarial design - Could generate productive insights even if not directly attributable to Pye # 2. Adapting Effortlessness to Graphic Design and Typography ## Typefaces and Layouts that "Disappear" During Reading - Montero described how a skilled performer's instrument seems to vanish from awareness - Dancer is not conscious of her body as a separate entity - Musician feels at one with his instrument, not wrestling with it - Similarly, well-designed typefaces and layouts can become "invisible" to the reader - Enable such fluid, frictionless reading that the visual medium melts away - Meaning seems to flow unimpeded from page to mind, without perceptual effort - This effortless legibility and readability arises from fine-tuned typographic details like: - Ample letterspacing and line-height to avoid crowding - Consistent rhythm and proportion of letterforms - Avoidance of awkward gaps, collisions or rivers of whitespace - Even color and texture of body text - Appropriate font size and column width for comfortable eye movement - Well-set type "does its job and gets out of the way," allowing content to shine through unobstructed ## Intuitive Visual Organization and Flow - Montero highlights how graceful, effortless-seeming movement has a predictable, easy-to-follow quality - Each phase of motion flows naturally into the next - Viewer can anticipate where the dancer is heading based on preparatory cues - In graphic design, effortless-feeling compositions lead the eye smoothly through the content - Require minimal effort to scan, parse and navigate the information - Employ clear visual hierarchies and groupings to convey structure intuitively - Relative size, placement and contrast of elements signifies their relative importance - Proximity and alignment signifies which items are related - Guide attention through "plot points" of headers, images, pull quotes etc. - Create a coherent "kinesthetic melody" as gaze moves around the layout - Avoid distracting visual "noise" or abrupt structural shifts that impede flow ### Example: Irma Boom's Book Designs - Dutch designer Irma Boom is renowned for highly intuitive book layouts - Organizes complex content into effortless-feeling visual sequences - Consistent formal motifs and subtle grid structures lend a sense of rhythmic continuity - Typographic details like indents, line-lengths, and page proportions pace the reader's progress - Results feel orderly without being rigid, dynamic without being chaotic - Eye absorbs information almost unconsciously, without having to work hard ## Deft Interplay of Consistency and Variation - Effortlessness in typography involves a mix of: 1. Consistency that avoids jarring the reader 2. Meaningful variation that sustains visual interest - Too much uniformity and repetition can feel monotonous and lulling - Eye glazes over, attention wanders - But too much variation and inconsistency can feel chaotic and incoherent - Constantly changing type styles, sizes and spacings exhaust the reader - The sweet spot is a sense of reliable structure punctuated by periodic "events" - Consistent, even pacing of body text interwoven with surprising "grace notes" of contrast - E.g. a bold, colorful headline or an elegant drop cap to draw the eye in - Or a well-timed subhead or image to relieve long spans of gray text - Like choreography that balances soothing repetition with invigorating change - Leads the "eye-as-dancer" through effortful leaps and effortless glides ## The Sprezzatura of Intentional Artlessness - Montero discusses the Renaissance ideal of sprezzatura: a cultivated nonchalance that masks effort - Performers and artists deliberately concealed their exertions to appear naturally brilliant - Studied carelessness, making the difficult look easy and spontaneous - In typography, we might see an analogue in designs that affect an unstudied, "accidental" look - Asymmetrical, deconstructed, or "vernacular" compositions that seem casually tossed off - Simulate the naive charm of an untrained hand while actually involving great skill - Swiss designer Wolfgang Weingart pioneered this approach in the 1970s - Rejected the tightly-controlled precision of high modernism - Introduced apparently slapdash, handmade elements and rough gestures into his typography - Created a false sprezzatura: a highly constructed impression of uncontrived effortlessness - More recently, designers like David Carson have cultivated a "grunge" typography of layered, fractured, blurred elements - Capturing the raw vitality of the street, the nightclub, the rock concert - Anti-polish, anti-poise - but intentionally so, leveraging dishevelment for effect # 3. Further Expanding Earlier Ideas on Effortless Interaction ## Maximizing Efficiency to Minimize Effort - Interactive effortlessness arises in part from an optimal effort-to-effect ratio - Each user action achieves the greatest possible impact with the least possible input - Designers can make interfaces feel more effortless by: - Reducing the number of steps/clicks/taps to complete core tasks - Streamline task flows by eliminating non-essential intermediary screens - Minimize "friction" that slows users down or interrupts their momentum - Offloading effort from user to system whenever possible - Automate low-level tasks like data syncing, formatting, saving etc. - Provide smart defaults and suggestions to minimize decision-making - Putting key functions "at the user's fingertips" - Make high-priority controls easiest to access/manipulate - Minimize visual clutter that obscures frequently-needed tools ### Example: Slack's Keyboard-Centric Interface - Slack's messaging UI is optimized for power users who keep their hands on the keyboard - Nearly every function is triggerable via mnemonic shortcuts - Quick switcher for jumping between channels/DMs: Ctrl + K - Formatting toolbar for rich text styling: Ctrl + Shift + F - Universal search for finding messages and files: Ctrl + F - Once learned, these shortcuts make navigating Slack feel nearly instant - Each keystroke achieves outsized effect, no mouse required - Slack also reduces effort by suggesting contextually relevant actions - Displays recent channels and unread messages in quick switcher - Pre-fills search box with current channel name - Offers one-click completions for usernames and emoji - But hides this power behind a clean, unintimidating UI for newcomers - Advanced functionality revealed progressively as user gains proficiency - Accrues effortlessness over time rather than expecting it right away ## Direct Manipulation and Embodied Intuition - Interfaces feel effortless not just when they're fast, but when they're body-friendly - Allow users to act on the digital world in ways that mirror natural physical interactions - Leverage ingrained sensorimotor expectations and intuitions - Direct manipulation interfaces connect input gestures to on-screen effects in tight perceptual loops - User should feel like they're grasping and manipulating data/content itself - Rather than issuing abstract commands and then waiting for results - Sensory feedback (visual, auditory, haptic) should be: - Temporally instantaneous - no perceptible lag or delay - Spatially proportionate - match direction and magnitude of physical motion - Qualitatively congruent - "look and feel" like real-world phenomena - This visceral sense of causality makes the UI feel like a tangible, cooperative part of the user's body - What Heidegger called "ready-to-hand" - an extension of the self, not a separate entity ### Example: iPad Multitasking Gestures - Apple's iPadOS uses direct manipulation gestures to make multitasking feel effortless - Swipe up with one finger to reveal the Dock - Swipe left/right with four/five fingers to switch between apps - Pinch inward with five fingers to return to Home Screen - Each gesture mirrors a physical action users already associate with its effect - One-finger swipe = "nudge this UI element upward" - Four/five-finger swipe = "slide this view offscreen" - Five-finger pinch = "put everything away" - Muscle memory from performing these gestures in other contexts (e.g. on trackpads) transfers instantly - Spatial mapping is one-to-one; interface responds like a physical object - Quick, fluid, satisfying - no need to think, just act - Familiar gestures and predictable physics make the UIs manipulable surfaces feel "actual, not virtual" (Apple's phrase) - Effortlessness through embodied realism and sensorimotor resonance ## Designing for Meaning-Making, Not Just Ease-of-Use - While important, ease-of-use is a "low bar" form of effortlessness - Merely eliminating surface-level barriers to basic operation - Necessary but not sufficient for fluid, fruitful interaction - Fuller effortlessness emerges when a tool feels: 1. Transparent - receding from awareness as we focus on the task 2. Generative - opening up new possibilities for action/creation 3. Meaningful - deepening our understanding and connection to the world - These factors make using the tool not just easy but self-actualizing - The "joyful, ennobling ease" of unalienated labor (Richard Sennett) - A feeling that the tool is augmenting and empowering us to realize our projects ### Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad as an Effortless Meaning-Maker - Ivan Sutherland's 1963 Sketchpad system was the first interactive graphical design tool - Allowed designers to construct virtual 3D objects using a light pen and GUI - On one level, Sketchpad made drawing technical diagrams much easier than with pen/paper - Point-and-click construction avoided painstaking manual drafting - Primitive shapes, grids, and snap-to alignment sped up layout - Iterated versions and overlays enabled rapid prototyping - But more profoundly, Sketchpad expanded the expressive and cognitive possibilities of visual design - Dynamic view manipulation allowed structures to be examined from any angle - Designers could "walk around" and "play with" their creations in real-time - Sparked insights through shifts in visual perspective - Parametric and procedural drawing enabled exploration of generative forms - Designers could specify relationships and behaviors, not just static geometry - Boosted "computational thinking" - envisioning rules that give rise to pattern - Direct, interactive construction tightened feedback loops between eye, mind, and hand - Seeing became inextricable from thinking and making - all part of one fluid process - Narrowed gulf between imagination and manifestation - Using Sketchpad didn't just feel easier than hand-drafting - it felt different, revelatory, mind-expanding - Interaction achieved a kind of effortless flow, but in service of meaning, not just facility - Tool faded into background as user focused on evolving and exploring ideas - Created a feeling of unforced yet generative play - serious work that didn't feel like work ## Effortlessness as an Emergent Quality, Not an Absolute State - Effortlessness isn't a binary property that an interface simply has or lacks - Arises in degrees, ebbs and flows, varies with context - Less a fixed attribute than a situated experience in a given user's hands - We can identify at least three levels/types of effortlessness: 1. Novice effortlessness: feeling enabled rather than encumbered when first using a tool - Interface makes basic tasks easy to figure out and perform - User can achieve simple goals without feeling intimidated or stymied - But still requires conscious attention and effort to operate 2. Practiced effortlessness: feeling of smooth, automatic mastery with experience - Repeated use builds muscle memory and ingrained familiarity - Skill acquisition gradually tightens perception-action couplings - Using the tool starts to become second nature, cognitively offloaded 3. Generative effortlessness: feeling of open-ended possibility and potential - Tool presents a "complex invitation" to creative expression (Andrew Blauvelt) - Offers abundant opportunities and resources without prescribing their use - Interaction feels improvisational yet purposeful - structure meets serendipity - These levels are cumulative and self-reinforcing - E.g. generative effortlessness both depends on and spurs further practice/skill (level 2) - Whereas clumsy, confounding tools stunt development by inhibiting initial use (level 1) ### Example Trajectory: From Novice to Generative Effortlessness in Photoshop 1. Novice effortlessness: GUI makes basic image editing approachable for newcomers - Toolbar icons visually suggest function (e.g. lasso for selection, eyedropper for color sampling) - Tooltips and contextual menus orient user to available actions - "How To" panels guide user through common workflows - But user must still consult documentation, fumble with settings, consciously deliberate moves 2. Practiced effortlessness: Adroit, semi-automatic manipulation emerges with repeated use - User starts to internalize keyboard shortcuts, hidden gestures, interface quirks and affordances - Hands fluidly dance between tools, panels, and palettes without hesitation or hunting - Brush dynamics, layer blend modes, and filters are summoned without conscious thought - Image editing feels more like sculpting malleable material than wrestling stubborn software 3. Generative effortlessness: Open-ended experimentation and creative "dialogue" with the app - User plays with Photoshop as an infinitely combinatorial medium, not a finite toolset - Explores unexpected juxtapositions, "off-label" techniques, and emergent effects - Discovers new styles, workarounds, and shortcuts in a spirit of improvisation - Perception and imagination entrained to Photoshop's "adjacent possible" (Steven Johnson) # The Epistemological Problem The epistemological problem for design concerns how designers can have rational, justified confidence that their designs will work. Carlson puts it thusly: >Design is not merely the act of producing a solution to a problem: rather, it is essential that the problem guide the formulation of the solution in some rational way... a good Designer has a justified belief that, given the nature of the problem and the solution he proposes, his solution will work. (p. 9) Why wouldn't a designer be justified in their belief that what they have designed will work? Designers usually have training and experience in their field, which gives them a solid understanding of what sorts of solutions tend to succeed or fail for given problems. Additionally, the design process itself often involves iterative testing, prototyping and refinement. Moreover, designers often create artifacts of which there are already existing examples, and can therefore use the success of these artifacts to justify their prediction that their new design will succeed: if I am designing a new type office chair, which is somewhat similar to other, successful, office chairs, my expectations of success can therefore piggyback on these already existing products. The problem becomes acute, however, when we consider the design of *radically new* artifacts, products which "showing a very weak family resemblance with the population of existing artifacts or even lacking precedents of any kind in that population." (Vega-Encabo & Lawler p. 106). A radically new artifactual kind will, by definition, be without precedent, and so its designer cannot find justification in the work of others; nor can she draw on her knowledge and experience. The designer of the radically new thus faces a justificatory challenge. They must find a way to rationally ground their confidence in a proposal that goes beyond existing categories and principles. In the absence of an inductive base of similar artifacts to draw on, the designer needs some other source of justification for their belief that the novel solution will work. But it's unclear what this source could be, or how it could be as epistemically robust as the empirical track record underlying normal design. So the designer of the radically new seems to be making an unjustified leap, relying on intuition or luck rather than well-grounded reasoning. While there are various responses that could be made to the Epistemological Problem of Design (see Carlson 2015), here we suggest a way in which the problem might be *dissolved*. As we have seen, the full force of the epistemological problem is only really felt when we consider the designing of radically novel artifacts. But, should we accept Vega-Encabo and Lawler’s claim that such true newness really exists? They argue that the the light bulb, the electric motor, steam engine or microchip are examples of artifiact types which “lack [a] recognised lineage”. But how literally should we take this idea? Steam power, for example, had been utilised before the Newcomen engine, and Newcomen himself would have known of at least some of his engine’s precursors. Before the electric lightbulb there were XXX bulbs. Secondly, we suggest that what makes at least some of these innovations so innovative is their incorporation of *recent scientific discoveries*. The microchip became possible because XXX, the disocvery of electricity allowed society to move from XX bulbs to electric bulbs. The first line of response contends that even when designing radically new artifacts, designers can draw on background knowledge to help justify their proposals. This includes the "folk physics" of everyday experience - our intuitive understanding of how ordinary objects behave. While less precise than scientific theory, this folk physics provides a generally reliable basis for navigating the physical world. Designers can use this tacit knowledge to reason about the likely properties and behaviours of novel artifacts, even without direct precedents. For instance, an inventor proposing a radically new flying machine can draw on common sense notions of balance, air resistance, structural integrity, etc. to think through the design, even if they lack formal models.   Additionally, as noted above, designers of novel artifacts can draw on scientific knowledge. While their specific proposal may be unprecedented, the underlying materials and principles usually are not. Empirically-confirmed theories from natural science can inform reasoning about even radically new designs. The flying machine inventor may lack prior examples of their exact design, but they can still apply the laws of aerodynamics, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. to derive and justify it. On this view, radical novelty is more a matter of reconfiguring existing elements and principles in innovative ways than positing entirely unprecedented ones. And scientific understanding of those elements and principles is often robust enough to rationally constrain and guide such reconfiguration. The second response pushes back on the very notion of radical novelty. Even the most innovative designs, it claims, still arise from and relate to a historical context of previous artifacts. The steam engine, for instance, while dramatically innovative, was still constructed from familiar materials like metal and wood, and employed existing mechanisms like gears and valves, just in a novel configuration. Likewise, the Wright Flyer, though groundbreaking, built on established components and techniques like bicycle chains and gliders. If this is right, then the threat of radical novelty to design epistemology may be exaggerated. While designers may lack specific precedents for some innovations, there are still significant continuities and commonalities with existing artifacts that can help ground their reasoning. Careful analysis of these contextual connections can allow designers to extrapolate from the known to the new in a rationally constrained way. ** # Old version of Epistemological problem of design - How can designers have rational, justified confidence in their novel proposals? - Designers often propose unprecedented artifacts and configuration, but justification seems to require some prior basis for evaluating likely success > Design is not merely the act of producing a solution to a problem: rather, it is essential that the problem guide the formulation of the solution in some rational way... a good Designer has a justified belief that, given the nature of the problem and the solution he proposes, his solution will work. (Philosophy of Design, p. 9) - If designers are making an artifact type of which there are already tokens, designers can use the success of these artifacts to justify their predictions of success. - But the problem becomes more acute when it comes to novel artifacts. > Of course, novelty can be said or elicited in multiple ways. In most cases, new artifacts bear strong resemblances to existing ones, being variations of previous artifacts, modified in their material or functional structure to adapt to new artifactual niches. But often artifacts are genuinely new , namely, original productions showing a very weak family resemblance with the population of existing artifacts or even lacking precedents of any kind in that population. (Vega-Encabo & Lawler p. 106) > Nonetheless, an innovation could also be a radical novelty, in which case we are in the presence of an artifact that cannot be understood as a modification of an existing kind and has no relationship to the current set of artifacts. (Vega-Encabo & Lawlerp. 108) - What grounds designers' confidence in their solutions? - How can this confidence be justified given the radical novelty of the proposals? ## How scientists and engineers justify their proposals - Appeal to established laws of nature and scientific theories - Draw on accumulated empirical data from past experiments and observations > One suggestion might be to consider again the case of scientific hypotheses. As mentioned above, scientific hypotheses are formulated in a context of discovery, not of justification, and so need not be known to be true, or even probable. But, on the other hand, scientific hypotheses are also not completely random guesses: scientists strive to come up with “good guesses” that at least fit the known facts. Unfortunately, however, this analogy does not help the Designer, since the features that make for a good scientific hypothesis – one that “fits the known facts” – are not applicable to the products of Design. For example, good scientific hypotheses have high explanatory power: a hypothesis that can explain various empirical data is viewed as superior to one that leaves such data mysterious.18 Design products, not being representations but objects for practical use, cannot be assessed in these terms. # The Possible Role of Folk Knowledge in Design ## Designers' reliance on tacit "folk physics" - Intuitive understanding of everyday physical interactions and behaviors - Heuristics about how materials and objects typically behave in familiar situations ## Examples of folk physical principles - Symmetrical structures tend to be more stable than asymmetrical ones - Smooth, streamlined shapes usually produce less air resistance than irregular ones - Wider bases typically provide better support and balance than narrower ones ## How folk knowledge could guide design - Constrain the space of plausible design proposals - Provide rough rules of thumb for estimating feasibility of novel ideas - Suggest heuristics for improving proposals (e.g. "try making it more symmetrical") # Limitations of Folk Knowledge for Design Rationality ## Insufficiency for justifying radical novelty - Folk heuristics only apply within the scope of familiar, precedented experience - Genuinely innovative designs involve configurations and behaviors beyond this scope ## Lack of systematicity and rigor - Folk physics is coarse-grained, imprecise, limited in explanatory and predictive power - Contrast with the quantitative precision and reliability of scientific laws ## Inability to resolve uncertainty - Novel design proposals involve venturing into the unknown, beyond scope of folk understanding - Tacit physical intuitions cannot reliably predict the behavior of radically new configurations # Relation to the Nature of Artifactual Novelty ## The problem of defining radical novelty > Since newly created artifacts cannot be placed within actual lineages or understood by reference to these lineages, it seems impossible to determine their identity and persistence conditions in these terms. That is, we cannot establish their ontological nature by reference to the identity conditions of other artifacts. Newly created artifacts establish identity conditions for objects that are added to our ontology. (Artifacts Text, p. 109) ## Connection to the epistemological problem - Both issues stem from lack of pre-established criteria for individuating and evaluating unprecedented artifacts - Radical novelty seems to resist definition and justification in terms of existing kinds and knowledge Aesthetics and Design ### Kroes' Account: Engineering Design Without Style? - Kroes characterizes engineering design differently than Hamilton - Focuses on the development of technical artifacts to serve practical functions - Does not mention aesthetics or style as key components > Engineering design is primarily focused on making changes in our physical (material) world as opposed to changes in our social world ... We will focus on values in relation to what engineering design is about, its object matter. - For Kroes, engineering design is about altering the physical world to meet functional objectives - Social and (presumably) aesthetic considerations are not central - Values in engineering design are discussed instrumentally, not aesthetically > Engineering design is considered primarily an intellectual activity: in a nutshell, it is about proposing and working out new ideas and plans for technical artifacts. - Kroes portrays engineering design as a fundamentally intellectual activity- conceiving technical solutions to practical problems - No mention of perceptual properties, decoration, or embellishment as essential elements - Suggests that for Kroes, an engineering design could lack the 'style' Hamilton sees as crucial and still be a successful design ### Implications: Much Engineering Design May Not Be 'Design' for Hamilton - If style (in Hamilton's sense) is essential to design, then many products of engineering design would not qualify as true design - E.g. purely utilitarian tools and machines that are optimized for function without regard for aesthetically pleasing properties - Kroes' characterization suggests that engineering design is often concerned solely with technical problem-solving, not style - An effective but unstylish solution would seem to count as good design for Kroes but not Hamilton - Hamilton's view risks categorically excluding much of engineering practice from the realm of design ## Function - A theory of artifact function aims to provide an analysis or explanation of what it means for an artifact to have a function, and under what conditions it can be said to have that function. - At first glance, as is often the case in philosophy this, question might seem to have an obvious answer: an artifact's function is whatever its maker intended it to be: the function of my chair is for sitting in because the makers or designers of that chair intended to make something to sit in. - As is often the case in philosophy, the simplest, most obvious-seeming, answer runs into difficulties: - I might nail a few planks of wood together and intend that they function as a time-machine, but have clearly built no such thing (not even a broken one); - The designers of Bubble Wrap intended to make a textured wallpaper, yet it is used as a packaging material to protect fragile items during shipping. - These sorts of issue invite a more thorough investigation into artifact function. - Vermaas and Houkes propose four desiderata for artifact function theories: 1. D1 - Maintaining proper-accidental function distinction 2. D2 - Accounting for malfunctions 3. D3 - Accounting for physical structure-function relationships 4. D4 - Ascribing proper functions to novel artifacts - The time machine and Bubble Wrap examples illustrate how the simple intentionalist view fails to meet two key desiderata for artifact function theories: - The time machine case shows it doesn't guarantee a link between physical structure and function (D3), since the maker's intention alone doesn't ensure the artifact can actually perform the intended function. - The Bubble Wrap case shows it doesn't maintain a distinction between proper and accidental functions (D1), since using Bubble Wrap for packaging would count as a merely accidental function on this view, contrary to intuition. - A more sophisticated intentionalist theory, the ICE theory developed by Houkes & Vermaas, aims to overcome these limitations while preserving the core intentionalist insight. - The ICE theory analyzes artifact functions in terms of the intentions and beliefs of designers and users, appealing to the notion of "use plans" - conceived sequences of actions that specify how to use an artifact to achieve a goal. - Houkes & Vermaas argue that by incorporating the technical knowledge and beliefs of designers, the ICE theory ensures a link between physical structure and function, satisfying D3. - They also hold that it can distinguish proper from accidental functions and allow for malfunctioning, thereby meeting D1 and D2, while still ascribing functions to novel artifacts (D4). - So in their view, the ICE theory satisfies all four desiderata for artifact function theories. - Beth Preston's pluralist theory of function, by contrast, explains proper functions in terms of the evolutionary or selection history of an artifact type, while allowing that artifacts can also have accidental system functions. - According to Houkes & Vermaas, the main weakness of Preston's theory is that by relying on history of reproduction to establish proper functions, it cannot ascribe proper functions to novel artifacts that lack such a history (D4). - Preston agrees that her theory does not fully satisfy D4, but argues this is not a serious problem, because being able to ascribe proper functions to novel artifacts is far less important than maintaining the proper-accidental function distinction (D1). - She argues that artifacts are essentially social and historical entities, so a theory of artifact function must be responsive to their social nature and the history of their reproduction and use. - Prioritizing D4 over D1 amounts to embracing an overly individualistic theory of function that ignores how artifacts only have functions in the context of social practices. - Moreover, Preston argues, the ICE theory does not actually satisfy D1, because its apparatus of use plans and designer intentions doesn't suffice to draw a principled distinction between proper and accidental functions in all cases. - So in Preston's view, the ICE theory's ability to ascribe functions to novel artifacts comes at the unacceptable cost of losing the proper-accidental distinction. - Something about how the concept of proper function might not be the best way to think about artifacts. # Judging Design: Forsey vs. Parsons and Carlson on Functional Beauty Recent work by Jane Forsey and Glenn Parsons and Allen Carlson has drawn attention to the aesthetics of design, an area long overlooked by philosophical aesthetics. While these authors agree that function is crucial for the aesthetic appreciation of design, they differ in their accounts of how function figures into aesthetic judgment. Forsey, in her book The Aesthetics of Design, argues that design objects are "meant to be used rather than contemplated" (Forsey, 28) and so we must engage with them over time, comparatively assessing how well they fulfil their purposes. Aesthetic judgment of design is thus grounded in actual, extended use that goes beyond the merely visual. Parsons and Carlson, in contrast, focus on how an object's functional category shapes our visual perception of it, making function "a part of the content of our perception" (Parsons and Carlson, 68). On their view, design objects exhibit "functional beauty" when they perceptually appear to fit their function, either through elegant simplicity or striking visual tension. While use may confirm these judgments, it is not necessary for perceiving an object as functionally beautiful. These divergent emphases can be seen in considering some examples. Take the Bialetti Moka Express stovetop espresso maker. Forsey discusses this famous design to illustrate her claim that actual use over time is essential to aesthetic assessment, since "Some of these virtues and deficiencies will not be apparent to the eye alone" (Forsey, 183). She stresses how the Bialetti's "teleological style" emerges through comparative use - the way it feels in the hand, how smoothly it turns, the quality of the coffee it produces. Parsons and Carlson, in contrast, would categorize the Bialetti as exhibiting the functional beauty of "simplicity, gracefulness, or elegance" (Parsons and Carlson, 65). Seeing it as a "stove-top espresso maker", they would regard its visible features like the octagonal aluminum body and black plastic handle as all standard for its category, lacking any "contra-standard" elements. This elegant fittingness of form to function would ground a positive aesthetic judgment without necessarily requiring use. Similar points apply to more innovative designs like the Dyson DC07 vacuum cleaner. For Forsey, appreciating the Dyson would demand understanding its place in the historical development of vacuums and how its bagless, cyclonic suction performed in comparison to earlier models. She would locate its aesthetic success in how it "fulfi lls its function by means of the individual skill at creating it from a given raw material" in a singular way (Forsey, 179). Parsons and Carlson, meanwhile, would see the Dyson's transparent, bagless design as "contra-standard" features for its category "vacuum cleaner", yet ones that still allowed it to manifestly perform its function. This combination would yield the functional beauty of "visual tension" through a "pleasing dissonance in its sensory elements" (Parsons and Carlson, 66-67). Again, while sensitive to historical context, Parsons and Carlson ground aesthetic judgment primarily in category-relative visual perception rather than actual use. These examples point to a key difference between the two accounts: the divergent roles of judgment, perception, and use. For Forsey, aesthetic judgment is central and irreducibly involves both perceptual and functional considerations accessed through hands-on engagement. We utilize designs, gathering comparative information to judge their "perfection" in fulfilling their purposes (Forsey, 144). Perception alone is insufficient, since "we cannot fully determine design excellence if we do not perform [user] actions and engage at least some of our proximal senses when we do" (Forsey, 208). For Parsons and Carlson, in contrast, perception is primary: "Functional categories... [structure] perceptual appearance, making function a part of the content of our perception" (Parsons and Carlson, 68). Aesthetic judgment consists in perceiving an object's functional "look", whether of elegant fittingness or striking visual tension. While use may enrich this, it is not essential, as perceptual sensitivity alone can ground judgments of functional beauty. Given these differing emphases, could the two accounts ever yield flatly divergent aesthetic judgments? While unlikely, we can imagine some possibilities. An espresso maker that brewed excellent coffee but was visually unappealing - misshapen, asymmetrical, garishly colored - might be judged as dependently beautiful on Forsey's view, its functional success trumping its form. For Parsons and Carlson, however, its aesthetic demerits - those "contra-standard" visual features conflicting with its function - could potentially outweigh its utilitarian merits. Conversely, an elegantly minimalist but concretely dysfunctional espresso maker might fare better on their view, with a functionally "fitting" visual form potentially compelling positive aesthetic judgment. For Forsey, though, such perceptual considerations would likely be secondary to functional failure revealed through actual use. While such cases would be exceptions rather than the rule, they highlight how the two views weigh perception and function somewhat differently in aesthetic judgment. This can be seen, finally, in considering another of Parsons and Carlson's examples, muscle cars. They analyze these as exhibiting the functional beauty of "looking fit": While lacking any essential "contra-standard" features, muscle cars possess "to a high degree, certain variable features that, though not strictly required for speed, are indicative of it (for example, having a spoiler, or a large engine)" (Parsons and Carlson, 63). This combination generates their characteristic "look of speed" as a category-relative perceptual gestalt. Forsey's account would approach muscle cars rather differently. She would likely assess particular models in terms of how effectively their concrete design innovations - in engine power, suspension, aerodynamics, etc. - coalesced to convey speed and power in a distinctive "teleological style". This historical, comparative analysis would depend heavily on actual driving to discern functional success; merely visually "indicating" speed through features like spoilers would not suffice aesthetically if unmatched by tangible performance. In conclusion, while Forsey and Parsons and Carlson concur that function is integral to design aesthetics, they construe the relation between function and form somewhat differently. Forsey privileges actual use and comparative assessment in judgments of dependent beauty, while Parsons and Carlson emphasize category-relative perception of visual fittingness or tension. In most cases, these approaches would yield harmonious assessments, as elegant form and effective function often go together. But the conceptual differences between them - the relative priority of perception and use, the stance on merely "indicative" visual features - could lead to divergent judgments in certain cases. Appreciating these differences can enrich our understanding of the complex interplay of form and function in the everyday aesthetics of design. # Aesthetics and Design ## Jane Forsey's Account of the Aesthetics of Design ### The Ontology of Design - Design is distinguished from art and craft in being: - Functional: Design objects are "meant to be used rather than contemplated" and are "defi ned by their function" (p. 28) - Immanent and familiar: Design objects are "ubiquitous" and "deeply embedded in the lives of contemporary individuals" (p. 8) - Mass-produced: Designs are "not unique particulars" like artworks but are "multiple" (p. 50-51) - Mute: Design objects are "uncommunicative" - they "say nothing" and lack the expressive content of art (p. 66) - The ontology of design requires considering both the object and the activity of designing: - "An ontology of design simply seeks to describe the phenomenon; how we evaluate it is another matter... To be a candidate for aesthetic appreciation, then, a design must have apparent or perceptual features, and must be a manufactured product of some kind rather than a proposal or sketch." (p. 68-69) ## The Aesthetics of Design - Aesthetic judgments of design are judgments of dependent beauty in the Kantian sense - They presuppose a concept of the object's purpose and "consequently of its perfection" (Kant, quoted on p. 144) - Aesthetic judgments of design have both subjective and objective aspects - Subjectively, they involve the free play of the faculties and a feeling of disinterested pleasure - Objectively, they refer to the purposive form of the object - Key features of aesthetic judgments of design: 1. "We have to know what they are, and what they are meant to be" (p. 182) 2. They are "not directed at the content of the object" like art (p. 183) 3. They essentially involve "actively engaging with the object, using it" not just perceiving it (p. 183) 4. Knowledge of the designer's identity is irrelevant (p. 183) 5. They appreciate how the object realizes its function through its "teleological style" - "the contingent way it fulfi lls its function" (p. 185) 6. They are comparative, appraising this style in light of "a backdrop of past attempts or a projection of future modifications" (p. 184) 7. They are tied to the familiar and everyday (p. 185) 8. They involve a close integration of form and function (p. 185) - The aesthetics of design shows the relevance of beauty to everyday life and human self-understanding ## Parsons and Carlson's Functional Beauty Account ### Knowledge of Function - Knowledge of how an object fulfills its function, not just what its function is, affects aesthetic appearance - "Cases where the two sorts [of knowledge] can be separated, we think, make it apparent how this question ought to be answered. For, in such cases, knowledge of the identity of an object's function seems insufficient to alter the object's perceptual appearance." (p. 60) - Knowledge of function provides a "functional category" that structures perceptual appearance - "Functional categories that incorporate at least some understanding of how the object performs its function, in contrast, often do involve such knowledge, and as such are capable of changing the object's perceptual appearance." (p. 60) ### Three Kinds of Functional Beauty 1. Looking fit - An object has no "contra-standard" features and possesses "to a high degree, certain variable features that are indicative of functionality" (p. 63) 2. Simplicity, gracefulness, or elegance - "For instance, consider an elegant-looking stove, perhaps a sleek stainless-steel model. Its elegance can be said to 'emerge' out of its function, in the sense that it is elegant insofar as its visible features (for example, a glass door, a set of burners) are all standard for the functional category in which we perceive it (namely, 'stove'). " (p. 65) 3. Pleasing visual tension - An object has some "contra-standard" features relative to its functional category yet still looks capable of performing its function (p. 66) - "The resulting aesthetic quality might be described as a surprising, vibrant look, or an aesthetically pleasing 'visual tension'." (p. 67) ### Responding to Skepticism - Parsons and Carlson argue against skepticism that "looking fit" is not an aesthetic quality - Skeptics claim the pleasure taken in looking fit is actually satisfaction that the object will fulfill desires - They cite Adam Smith's example of the pleasure taken in an extremely precise watch, beyond any practical benefit - "The difference in precision between a thirty-dollar quartz watch and a thousand-dollar Swiss watch is to be measured in seconds per year or less, and as such confers no practical advantage whatsoever. Yet far greater pleasure is taken in the more finely wrought watch." (p. 74) - This shows that at least some pleasure in looking fit is disinterested aesthetic pleasure ### The Aesthetics of Dysfunction - Just as looking fit is an aesthetic merit, looking unfit can be an aesthetic detriment - "It does appear, then, that as we can take aesthetic pleasure in things that appear fit for their function, we can also take aesthetic displeasure in things that appear unfit." (p. 78) - Apparent counter-examples like high-heeled shoes are cases where function is not attended to - "What admirers of fashion items such as the shoes described above admire is, perhaps, the pleasing shape of the shoe, continuing as it does the curve of the wearer's foot, or its attractive colours, or perhaps not the shoe at all, but the look of the foot or leg that it produces. But when they admire them in this way, they are not really considering the shoes in their actual functional category: that is, as covers to protect the foot during walking." (p. 79) ## Comparison Through Examples ### Bialetti Espresso Maker #### Forsey's Account - Forsey discusses the Bialetti as an example of how designs are "meant to work" and judging their beauty "requires us to use them or put them to the test" (p. 183) - She notes that "Some of these virtues and deficiencies will not be apparent to the eye alone" (p. 183), indicating that actual use over time is essential to aesthetic assessment - The Bialetti's "teleological style" - the particular way it achieves its purpose - involves not just its visual appearance but "material, texture" and how it "turns as easily as a nut in a wrench, whether wet or dry" in use (p. 185) - Comparatively, Forsey suggests the Bialetti's combination of form and function "will be more comfortable, or more stable" than some other espresso maker (p. 183) - So on Forsey's view, appreciating the Bialetti as well-designed requires extended, comparative use that goes beyond the merely visual #### Parsons and Carlson's Account - For Parsons and Carlson, the Bialetti would exhibit the second kind of functional beauty: simplicity, gracefulness, or elegance - They would analyze it using the "functional category" of "stove-top espresso maker" which provides a background understanding of how such devices standardly work - Against this background, the Bialetti's "visible features (for example, a glass door, a set of burners) are all standard for the functional category in which we perceive it" (p. 65) - Having no visible "contra-standard" features, just the expected parts elegantly arranged, the Bialetti would appear functionally fit and elegant - While using it might confirm this judgment, the functional beauty analysis does not depend on actual use but on category-relative visual perception ### Dyson DC07 Vacuum #### Forsey's Account - From Forsey's perspective, appreciating the Dyson requires understanding its innovative bagless, cyclonic functionality in comparison to other vacuums - She would stress how use over time reveals its "superior suction and maneuverability compared to earlier models" and how the transparent bin shows when it needs emptying (p. 184) - The Dyson's "teleological style" lies in how these functional innovations - the bagless design, clear bin, ball pivot - are seamlessly integrated with its striking visual appearance - Forsey would locate its aesthetic success in how it "fulfi lls its function by means of the individual skill at creating it from a given raw material" in a "singular" way (p. 179) - As with the Bialetti, Forsey's account implies that appreciating the Dyson requires actual, comparative use and an understanding of its place in the historical development of vacuum cleaners #### Parsons and Carlson's Account - Parsons and Carlson would likely classify the Dyson under their third type of functional beauty: pleasing visual tension - They would analyze it using the historically-situated functional category "vacuum cleaner", in which certain features like bags and opaque casings are standard - Against this category, the Dyson's transparent bagless design would stand out as "contra-standard" features that seem to conflict with its function - Yet it simultaneously still looks capable of fulfilling the central vacuuming function, creating "an aesthetically pleasing visual tension" (p. 67) - The Dyson's aesthetic appeal lies in how it "displays a pleasing dissonance in its sensory elements" by appearing strikingly modern yet manifestly functional (p. 66) - While the functional category is historically informed, the judgment of beauty is primarily perceptual and does not require actual use ### Muscle Cars #### Parsons and Carlson - Parsons and Carlson discuss muscle cars as an example of their first type of functional beauty: "looking fit" - They argue that appreciating a muscle car requires perceiving it under the functional category "car" with its associated standard features like "inflated tyres, etc." (p. 63) - Against this background, muscle cars exhibit "to a high degree, certain variable features that, though not strictly required for speed, are indicative of it (for example, having a spoiler, or a large engine)" (p. 63) - This combination of lacking any "contra-standard" features while possessing apparently speed-enhancing variable features is what gives muscle cars their characteristic "look of speed" - Parsons and Carlson stress that this emerges from a category-relative visual assessment: "These are features that we find attractive in a muscle car would surely detract from the appearance of, for instance, a golf cart or a hearse" (p. 63) #### Forsey - Forsey does not discuss muscle cars specifically, but her general account of design aesthetics can be extended to capture key aspects of their appreciation - She would likely start by specifying the function in question, e.g. to convey a sense of speed and power while remaining street-legal - Appreciating a muscle car would then involve assessing how well particular models achieve this purpose through their "teleological style" - the particular combination of mechanical and formal features employed - This assessment would be comparative, judging this model against others past and present - how does its engine power, suspension, spoiler design etc. stack up? - Actually driving the car would be crucial for this judgment, since "an attempt at a purely activity-based approach to design may return us with more sympathy to... a proposal, not a fi nished work" (p. 53-54) - A well-designed muscle car would be one whose particular functional innovations - in engine, aerodynamics, etc. - coalesce in an overall style that distinctively and effectively conveys speed and power - However, Forsey would likely resist Parsons and Carlson's emphasis on variable features "indicative of speed" (like spoilers), instead focusing on whether those features actually enhance performance The key difference in approach here is that Parsons and Carlson seem content to let visually compelling "indicators" of speed ground an aesthetic judgment of "looking fit", whereas Forsey would demand evidence from actual use that the car really performs its speedy function distinctively well. Features like spoilers would not be aesthetically meaningful in themselves, but only insofar as they actually contributed to functional success. So in judging muscle cars, Forsey would emphasize comparative use and engineering innovation, while Parsons and Carlson would focus on category-relative perception of functional "look". The judgments might often coincide, but could potentially diverge if a perceptually compelling "look of speed" were not matched by distinctive functional performance. ## Judgment, Perception, and Use ### Forsey - For Forsey, aesthetic judgment is central - we judge designs as dependently beautiful by reflecting on their "perfection" in fulfilling a purpose (p. 144) - However, this judgment cannot be purely intellectual but involves perception: designs "must have apparent or perceptual features" to be proper objects of aesthetic appreciation (p. 69) - Yet even perception alone is insufficient - Forsey stresses that fully appreciating a design aesthetically requires using it, since "we cannot fully determine its design excellence if we do not perform these actions and engage at least some of our proximal senses when we do" (p. 208) - Use over time and in comparison to other designs is crucial for judging both functional and formal aspects: "we need to actively use designed artifacts to appreciate and appraise them" (p. 205) ### Parsons and Carlson - For Parsons and Carlson, category-relative perception is the heart of aesthetic judgment - They argue that "functional categories" provide background knowledge that structures perceptual appearance, making function "a part of the content of our perception" (p. 68, 62) - Judgment consists in perceiving an object under a functional category and discerning whether it exhibits standard, contra-standard, or variable features relative to that category (p. 63-67) - While they grant that use or "interaction" with an artifact can play a role in aesthetic appreciation, it is not necessary for perceiving functional beauty (p. 70, 62) - Instead, perceptual sensitivity to the various "looks" of fittingness and visual tension suffices to ground aesthetic judgment ### Divergent Judgments It is difficult to construct a clear case where Forsey's view and Parsons and Carlson's would render opposing aesthetic judgments on a designed object. This is because both views: a) Agree that function is central to design aesthetics b) Allow that both visual appearance and knowledge of function inform aesthetic judgment c) Recognize that function and form interact to generate beauty in different ways The key differences are ones of emphasis and conceptual framing rather than clearly divergent judgments. Forsey emphasizes actual use and comparative assessment over time, while Parsons and Carlson focus more on category-relative perception of fittingness and visual tension. However, this difference in emphasis could lead to divergent judgments in extreme cases. Consider an espresso maker that brews excellent coffee but is visually quite unappealing - misshapen, asymmetrical, garishly colored. Forsey's strong emphasis on use and function might lead her to judge it as dependently beautiful, since it achieves its purpose so well. But for Parsons and Carlson, the object's aesthetic demerits - its contra-standard visual features that seem to conflict with its function - could potentially outweigh its functional success, leading to a negative judgment. Conversely, an elegantly minimalist espresso maker that consistently malfunctions might fare better on the functional beauty account, where its simple, functionally "fitting" visual form could make a strong positive impression. Forsey, however, would likely reject it as a failure of design because actual, repeated use would reveal its functional shortcomings. Such divergent judgments would be rare given the broad similarities between the accounts. But contrived examples like these reveal how a difference in emphasis - function/use vs. category-relative perception - could lead to opposing assessments in extreme cases. The functional beauty account seems to weigh perception more heavily, while Forsey treats function as trumping form. ## old but useful? # Old versions of Comparing the Accounts ## Example 1: The Bialetti Moka Espresso Maker  - Forsey discusses this famous Italian stovetop espresso maker designed by Alfonso Bialetti in 1933 (p. 181) - On Forsey's account, appreciating it as well-designed requires knowing what it is meant to do (brew espresso) - Its aesthetic appreciation essentially involves actually using it to make coffee and judging how well it performs - Its "teleological style" lies in its simple, sturdy aluminum construction and its octagonal shape that allows easy unscrewing - In comparison to other coffee makers, its design stands out in both form and function - On Parsons and Carlson's account, the Bialetti would exhibit functional beauty of the simple, elegant type - Its visible features (octagonal shape, black plastic handle, aluminum body) are all standardly recognizable as parts of a coffee maker - It has no nonfunctional or "contra-standard" features that detract from its look of functionality - Using it isn't essential to appreciating its functional beauty, which is readily apparent in perceiving it - The accounts agree that function is central to aesthetic appreciation but differ on the necessity of use and comparative assessment ## Example 2: The Dyson DC07 Vacuum  - The Dyson DC07, released in 1993, was the first bagless, cyclonic vacuum cleaner - Forsey's account directs us to consider its actual use and performance compared to previous and subsequent vacuums - Using it would reveal its superior suction and maneuverability compared to earlier models - Its transparent collection bin makes its inner workings visible and shows when it needs emptying - These functional innovations are integrally tied to its striking visual appearance - Parsons and Carlson would likely see the Dyson as exhibiting a pleasing visual tension - Its transparent bin and lack of a bag are "contra-standard" features for a vacuum in 1993 - Yet it still clearly looks capable of performing its central function of sucking up dirt - The visual tension between these non-standard elements and its still apparent functionality makes it aesthetically striking - So while Forsey emphasizes comparative use, Parsons and Carlson focus on the tension between its innovative appearance and recognizable functionality ## Example 3: Modernist Architecture - Farnsworth House  - Farnsworth House, designed by Mies van der Rohe in 1945, is an icon of modernist architecture - For Forsey, its beauty is inseparable from its intended function as a weekend retreat home - Its simple, open-plan glass and steel structure is both visually striking and perfectly suited to its purpose of communing with nature - Appreciating it requires imaginatively engaging with how it would be used - its flow between inside and outside, its feeling of openness and lightness - Compared to other homes, its radical purification of form in service of function stands out - On the functional beauty account, Farnsworth House exhibits a complex interaction of fittingness and visual tension - Its simple geometric structure and floor-to-ceiling glass walls are in one sense perfectly fitted to the category "house" - everything you expect is there - Yet the extreme minimalism and transparency also produce contra-standard features for a house - no visible roof, no interior walls, barely visible support - So it exhibits both a stark fittingness of form to function and a challenging visual tension in its radically stripped down appearance - The two accounts both capture how the home's beauty arises from the relation between form and function, but parse that relation somewhat differently </answer> In summary, while Forsey and Parsons and Carlson share the view that function is integral to aesthetic assessment in design, they differ in the conceptual frameworks they employ and the factors they emphasize. Forsey provides a more encompassing account that highlights the comparative and contextual aspects of design appreciation, while Parsons and Carlson offer a structured taxonomy of different modes of functional beauty. Working through examples reveals that the two approaches often converge in assessing particular designs but get there via somewhat different routes. ## Old parts of the Forsey part - Design is distinguished from art and craft in being: - Functional: Design objects are "meant to be used rather than contemplated" and are "defi ned by their function" (p. 28) - Immanent and familiar: Design objects are "ubiquitous" and "deeply embedded in the lives of contemporary individuals" (p. 8) - Mass-produced: Designs are "not unique particulars" like artworks but are "multiple" (p. 50-51) - Mute: Design objects are "uncommunicative" - they "say nothing" and lack the expressive content of art (p. 66) - The ontology of design requires considering both the object and the activity of designing: - "An ontology of design simply seeks to describe the phenomenon; how we evaluate it is another matter... To be a candidate for aesthetic appreciation, then, a design must have apparent or perceptual features, and must be a manufactured product of some kind rather than a proposal or sketch." (p. 68-69) - Aesthetic judgments of design are judgments of dependent beauty in the Kantian sense - They presuppose a concept of the object's purpose and "consequently of its perfection" (Kant, quoted on p. 144) - Aesthetic judgments of design have both subjective and objective aspects - Subjectively, they involve the free play of the faculties and a feeling of disinterested pleasure - Objectively, they refer to the purposive form of the object - Key features of aesthetic judgments of design: 1. "We have to know what they are, and what they are meant to be" (p. 182) 2. They are "not directed at the content of the object" like art (p. 183) 3. They essentially involve "actively engaging with the object, using it" not just perceiving it (p. 183) 4. Knowledge of the designer's identity is irrelevant (p. 183) 5. They appreciate how the object realizes its function through its "teleological style" - "the contingent way it fulfi lls its function" (p. 185) 6. They are comparative, appraising this style in light of "a backdrop of past attempts or a projection of future modifications" (p. 184) 7. They are tied to the familiar and everyday (p. 185) 8. They involve a close integration of form and function (p. 185) - The aesthetics of design shows the relevance of beauty to everyday life and human self-understanding. - For Forsey, the aesthetics of design centers on appreciating the dependent beauty of artifacts in light of their intended purpose - Aesthetic judgments of design: - Refer to how well the object's perceptual features realize its function - Essentially involve actually using the object over time, not just perceiving it - Are comparative, assessing the design's "teleological style" against other artifacts - On this view, even simple tools could be aesthetically appreciated for their dependent beauty if using them reveals an elegant functional synthesis of material, shape, texture, etc. ### Parsons and Carlson's Functional Beauty Account ### Knowledge of Function - Knowledge of how an object fulfills its function, not just what its function is, affects aesthetic appearance - "Cases where the two sorts [of knowledge] can be separated, we think, make it apparent how this question ought to be answered. For, in such cases, knowledge of the identity of an object's function seems insufficient to alter the object's perceptual appearance." (p. 60) - Knowledge of function provides a "functional category" that structures perceptual appearance - "Functional categories that incorporate at least some understanding of how the object performs its function, in contrast, often do involve such knowledge, and as such are capable of changing the object's perceptual appearance." (p. 60) ### Three Kinds of Functional Beauty 1. Looking fit - An object has no "contra-standard" features and possesses "to a high degree, certain variable features that are indicative of functionality" (p. 63) 2. Simplicity, gracefulness, or elegance - "For instance, consider an elegant-looking stove, perhaps a sleek stainless-steel model. Its elegance can be said to 'emerge' out of its function, in the sense that it is elegant insofar as its visible features (for example, a glass door, a set of burners) are all standard for the functional category in which we perceive it (namely, 'stove'). " (p. 65) 3. Pleasing visual tension - An object has some "contra-standard" features relative to its functional category yet still looks capable of performing its function (p. 66) - "The resulting aesthetic quality might be described as a surprising, vibrant look, or an aesthetically pleasing 'visual tension'." (p. 67) ### Responding to Skepticism - Parsons and Carlson argue against skepticism that "looking fit" is not an aesthetic quality - Skeptics claim the pleasure taken in looking fit is actually satisfaction that the object will fulfill desires - They cite Adam Smith's example of the pleasure taken in an extremely precise watch, beyond any practical benefit - "The difference in precision between a thirty-dollar quartz watch and a thousand-dollar Swiss watch is to be measured in seconds per year or less, and as such confers no practical advantage whatsoever. Yet far greater pleasure is taken in the more finely wrought watch." (p. 74) - This shows that at least some pleasure in looking fit is disinterested aesthetic pleasure ### The Aesthetics of Dysfunction - Just as looking fit is an aesthetic merit, looking unfit can be an aesthetic detriment - "It does appear, then, that as we can take aesthetic pleasure in things that appear fit for their function, we can also take aesthetic displeasure in things that appear unfit." (p. 78) - Apparent counter-examples like high-heeled shoes are cases where function is not attended to - "What admirers of fashion items such as the shoes described above admire is, perhaps, the pleasing shape of the shoe, continuing as it does the curve of the wearer's foot, or its attractive colours, or perhaps not the shoe at all, but the look of the foot or leg that it produces. But when they admire them in this way, they are not really considering the shoes in their actual functional category: that is, as covers to protect the foot during walking." (p. 79) - Parsons and Carlson also tie the aesthetics of design to function, but in a more perception-centric way - They argue that perceiving an artifact under a "functional category" that specifies its purpose can make function "a part of the content of our perception" - Three key types of functional beauty emerge: 1. "Looking fit" - lacking dysfunctional features and having many functional ones 2. "Simplicity, gracefulness, elegance" - having only standard functional features, well-integrated 3. "Pleasing visual tension" - some 'contra-standard' features but still looking functional - Actual use is not required - category-relative perception of functional "look" is sufficient for aesthetic judgment ### Style-Less Aesthetics of Design? - Both Forsey and Parsons & Carlson offer ways of locating the aesthetic value of design in the relation between perceptual form and practical function - They avoid Hamilton's reliance on 'style' as a separate, sensuous supplement to function - Instead, they propose that even the most utilitarian artifacts can exhibit a kind of dependent beauty if: - Their "teleological style" elegantly integrates material and form to fulfill a function (Forsey) - They possess a "look" of fittingness, elegance or pleasing tension relative to their functional category (Parsons & Carlson) - These accounts suggest that 'style-less' engineering designs could be aesthetically appreciated as long as their form and materials serve their function in a perceptible way - Contra Hamilton, purely functional designs need not be aesthetic failures ## Comparison Through Examples ### Bialetti Espresso Maker #### Forsey's Account - Forsey discusses the Bialetti as an example of how designs are "meant to work" and judging their beauty "requires us to use them or put them to the test" (p. 183) - She notes that "Some of these virtues and deficiencies will not be apparent to the eye alone" (p. 183), indicating that actual use over time is essential to aesthetic assessment - The Bialetti's "teleological style" - the particular way it achieves its purpose - involves not just its visual appearance but "material, texture" and how it "turns as easily as a nut in a wrench, whether wet or dry" in use (p. 185) - Comparatively, Forsey suggests the Bialetti's combination of form and function "will be more comfortable, or more stable" than some other espresso maker (p. 183) - So on Forsey's view, appreciating the Bialetti as well-designed requires extended, comparative use that goes beyond the merely visual #### Parsons and Carlson's Account - For Parsons and Carlson, the Bialetti would exhibit the second kind of functional beauty: simplicity, gracefulness, or elegance - They would analyze it using the "functional category" of "stove-top espresso maker" which provides a background understanding of how such devices standardly work - Against this background, the Bialetti's "visible features (for example, a glass door, a set of burners) are all standard for the functional category in which we perceive it" (p. 65) - Having no visible "contra-standard" features, just the expected parts elegantly arranged, the Bialetti would appear functionally fit and elegant - While using it might confirm this judgment, the functional beauty analysis does not depend on actual use but on category-relative visual perception ### Dyson DC07 Vacuum #### Forsey's Account - From Forsey's perspective, appreciating the Dyson requires understanding its innovative bagless, cyclonic functionality in comparison to other vacuums - She would stress how use over time reveals its "superior suction and maneuverability compared to earlier models" and how the transparent bin shows when it needs emptying (p. 184) - The Dyson's "teleological style" lies in how these functional innovations - the bagless design, clear bin, ball pivot - are seamlessly integrated with its striking visual appearance - Forsey would locate its aesthetic success in how it "fulfi lls its function by means of the individual skill at creating it from a given raw material" in a "singular" way (p. 179) - As with the Bialetti, Forsey's account implies that appreciating the Dyson requires actual, comparative use and an understanding of its place in the historical development of vacuum cleaners #### Parsons and Carlson's Account - Parsons and Carlson would likely classify the Dyson under their third type of functional beauty: pleasing visual tension - They would analyze it using the historically-situated functional category "vacuum cleaner", in which certain features like bags and opaque casings are standard - Against this category, the Dyson's transparent bagless design would stand out as "contra-standard" features that seem to conflict with its function - Yet it simultaneously still looks capable of fulfilling the central vacuuming function, creating "an aesthetically pleasing visual tension" (p. 67) - The Dyson's aesthetic appeal lies in how it "displays a pleasing dissonance in its sensory elements" by appearing strikingly modern yet manifestly functional (p. 66) - While the functional category is historically informed, the judgment of beauty is primarily perceptual and does not require actual use ### Muscle Cars #### Parsons and Carlson - Parsons and Carlson discuss muscle cars as an example of their first type of functional beauty: "looking fit" - They argue that appreciating a muscle car requires perceiving it under the functional category "car" with its associated standard features like "inflated tyres, etc." (p. 63) - Against this background, muscle cars exhibit "to a high degree, certain variable features that, though not strictly required for speed, are indicative of it (for example, having a spoiler, or a large engine)" (p. 63) - This combination of lacking any "contra-standard" features while possessing apparently speed-enhancing variable features is what gives muscle cars their characteristic "look of speed" - Parsons and Carlson stress that this emerges from a category-relative visual assessment: "These are features that we find attractive in a muscle car would surely detract from the appearance of, for instance, a golf cart or a hearse" (p. 63) #### Forsey - Forsey does not discuss muscle cars specifically, but her general account of design aesthetics can be extended to capture key aspects of their appreciation - She would likely start by specifying the function in question, e.g. to convey a sense of speed and power while remaining street-legal - Appreciating a muscle car would then involve assessing how well particular models achieve this purpose through their "teleological style" - the particular combination of mechanical and formal features employed - This assessment would be comparative, judging this model against others past and present - how does its engine power, suspension, spoiler design etc. stack up? - Actually driving the car would be crucial for this judgment, since "an attempt at a purely activity-based approach to design may return us with more sympathy to... a proposal, not a fi nished work" (p. 53-54) - A well-designed muscle car would be one whose particular functional innovations - in engine, aerodynamics, etc. - coalesce in an overall style that distinctively and effectively conveys speed and power - However, Forsey would likely resist Parsons and Carlson's emphasis on variable features "indicative of speed" (like spoilers), instead focusing on whether those features actually enhance performance The key difference in approach here is that Parsons and Carlson seem content to let visually compelling "indicators" of speed ground an aesthetic judgment of "looking fit", whereas Forsey would demand evidence from actual use that the car really performs its speedy function distinctively well. Features like spoilers would not be aesthetically meaningful in themselves, but only insofar as they actually contributed to functional success. So in judging muscle cars, Forsey would emphasize comparative use and engineering innovation, while Parsons and Carlson would focus on category-relative perception of functional "look". The judgments might often coincide, but could potentially diverge if a perceptually compelling "look of speed" were not matched by distinctive functional performance. ## Perception vs. Judgment ### Forsey - For Forsey, aesthetic judgment is central - we judge designs as dependently beautiful by reflecting on their "perfection" in fulfilling a purpose - However, this judgment cannot be purely intellectual but involves perception: designs "must have apparent or perceptual features" to be proper objects of aesthetic appreciation - Yet even perception alone is insufficient - Forsey stresses that fully appreciating a design aesthetically requires using it, since "we cannot fully determine its design excellence if we do not perform these actions and engage at least some of our proximal senses when we do" - Use over time and in comparison to other designs is crucial for judging both functional and formal aspects: "we need to actively use designed artifacts to appreciate and appraise them" ### Parsons and Carlson - For Parsons and Carlson, category-relative perception is the heart of aesthetic judgment - They argue that "functional categories" provide background knowledge that structures perceptual appearance, making function "a part of the content of our perception" - Judgment consists in perceiving an object under a functional category and discerning whether it exhibits standard, contra-standard, or variable features relative to that category - While they grant that use or "interaction" with an artifact can play a role in aesthetic appreciation, it is not necessary for perceiving functional beauty - Instead, perceptual sensitivity to the various "looks" of fittingness and visual tension suffices to ground aesthetic judgment ### Key Differences and Divergent Cases - While Forsey and Parsons & Carlson both emphasize function's role in design aesthetics, they differ in the relative priority given to use vs. perception: - For Forsey, actual use over time is essential to making an aesthetic judgment, as it reveals how well the object fulfills its function - For Parsons & Carlson, informed perception alone can be sufficient, as functional beauty involves the object's "look" relative to its category - This difference can lead to divergent aesthetic assessments in some cases: - An attractive but dysfunctional object might be judged positively on the functional beauty view (based on its perceptual "look of fit") but negatively on Forsey's account (as use would expose its functional failings) - Conversely, an unattractive but highly effective tool could be aesthetically approved by Forsey (due to its perfection in use) yet rejected by functional beauty standards (due to its perceptual misfit with its category) - The case of objects that look fit for their function but do not actually perform it well illustrates this potential divergence - Parsons & Carlson allow that something can exhibit functional beauty based solely on its apparent fittingness, even if it turns out to be dysfunctional - Forsey would reject such an object as an aesthetic failure once its functional shortcomings are revealed through use, regardless of its initial appearance of fitness for purpose So while both accounts importantly link aesthetics and function, they can reach conflicting judgments due to their different weightings of the perceptual and practical dimensions of design appreciation. For functional beauty theorists, looking right is the key; for Forsey, working right is indispensable. # to do for the design paper - spend a couple of paragraphs to enrico on the ethics part. - a paragraph or two on affordances, use the Norman book.... - either as a compliment to Carlson and parson or as a self standing - Pye? - Maybe look at the following paper. The artful mind meets art history: Toward a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation - idea for the conclusion - in a sense designed objects can be games to play in the ngyuen sense. it is a script perform (like tennis) - trace design appreciation to appreciation of games. and installation art Eliza's view. # Meta-thought #prompts The aim of writing above is to provide a prompt I can put into claude along side the beginning of the introduction. he has to make a paragraph or two out of it. \ # 2024-08-30 17:18 ## The Problem of difficulty - this leads to a problem when considering the aesthetics of user experience. The problem of difficulty! - CALLOUT How does difficulty level interact with aethetic user experience? - on the one hand we want to avoid arbritariness. - on the otherhand pure easyness does not seem right either. # 2024-08-30 17:22 ```tracker searchType: frontmatter searchTarget: weight folder: daily notes line: title: Weight Tracker yAxisLabel: weight lineColor: blue ``` # Difficulty and Aesthetic user experience #beautyinuse #draft - Nguyen seeks to show that the aesthetic core of games is that they elicit pleasing actions from their users. - We are not going as far as saying that this is the *core* of aesthetics of design, but we are definitely trying to say that it is a significant component. - However, here, we find a difficulty: Included in Nguyen’s account is his description of three harmonies, that is, three qualities of actions that games might elicit from users. They are: - Harmony of Solution - Harmony of Action - Harmony of Capacity - However, if we look at these components it does not seem as though they will be suitable for fleshing out the aesthetics of use. -Harmony of Solution: Nguyen is explicit that this is not agentive (not about something the player *does*), and is equally well appreciated by spectators. Example, a cool move in chess. - Harmony of capacity: Nguyen is explicit that this something the real world does not provide, and it is true, it is hard to think of examples when take pleasure in working tools to our capacity. - Harmony of Action: this is more promising, we might just be able to say that using tools is aesthetically pleasing in the same way that playing games or doing a ballet is. - Harmony of action is not a perfect fit. - In games, the aim might well be arbritary, but with tool use it isn’t - Why is this important? Because it seems important to goal use that it is goal-directed. - How do we balance gracefulness etc. with goal pursuing? - In a game we might perform an action just because it is aesthetically pleasing. - [think of an example of a game in which there is a sudden moment in which one does something silly partly because the sensation of doing this action is pleasant] - perhaps hide and seek? - one way to make making coffee more enjoyable is to play a game of hide and seek while it is boiling, but a company couldn’t make the coffee machine more pleasurable to use by putting in extranious games of hide and seek. - in fact, any sort of arbritary interaction seems annoying: - Think about the difficulty you have using your phone in one hand: - right now this is an irritation in user experience, - but one we can understand, as having to reach the top of the screen with one’s thumb is a necessary conequence of other choices which make the user experience of using a phone more convenient, such as being able to keep it in one’s pocket. - Now, imagine that Tim Apple had discovered many years ago a seamless way of making the top of one’s screen more reachable, but was making an aesthetic choice. for whatever reason, he arbritrarily wants users to reach for the top of their phones with their thumbs. He has made a design choice in order to elicit a particular action from his users. - If this were discovered, users would not stand for it. - on the other hand it does not seem right to say that users find easy actions aesthetically pleasing. The viola player’s aesthetic experience is not tied in with it being easy. ## The Problem of difficulty - this leads to a problem when considering the aesthetics of user experience. The problem of difficulty! - CALLOUT How does difficulty level interact with aethetic user experience? - on the one hand we want to avoid arbritariness. - on the otherhand pure easyness does not seem right either. Design Paper –Plans, scraps, and brainstorms