-
Callie Neylan 3.22
Description:
In established design fields ? i.e., architecture, graphic design, and industrial design ? much has been written about what makes design under these classifications beautiful. Common design elements such as form, line, balance, unity, variety, rhythm, contrast, texture and color have been analyzed and presented to design students for decades, resulting in codified visual languages that constitute good design. But as system interactions that span two or more of these older disciplines become an increasing part of our everyday lives, what of the relatively new field of interaction design, the beauty of which is not generally confined to the visual? What are the design elements that make an interaction beautiful and to what human senses do they appeal? In what ways are these beauty-forming elements similar or different from other design disciplines? Which ones are new? Which are shared? Through cross-analysis of these related design fields and general notions of beauty throughout the world, I will define what makes an interaction beautiful and propose a theoretical framework for codifying design elements in interaction design.
Comments on this Talk
I should add that I think this endeavor--codifying aesthetics in IxD--is extremely important. Kudos to you for tackling it.
william,
16 Feb 02:50 AM
Enjoyed the talk; liked the mild shock value of the sex toy connection. (Last speaker on the last day? You need to wake up the crowd a bit.) The content was interesting; the "relationships" section was important but speaker rambled a bit; delivery was well paced and relaxed, but a little halting in places. A worthy topic choice in light of the event. Audience seemed engaged. Great slides - very clean.
Good presentation, interesting topic — though wasn't entirely sure about some of the sensory stuff (was that just speculation or actual research? If the latter why not referenced?) Found some topics a bit brushed over, and others a bit slow, and it may have been worth noting that other people have talked about this topic in IxD, but all up, pretty interesting.
Thanks for the feedback!
@Ambrose, given I'd just had that article published, I thought it appropriate to mention the human-center designed sex toy given the focus on aesthetics in my talk, even if the topic/image was a little shocking.
Also, I had a lot more content about Heidegger and Darwin but cut a lot out. I felt a mention of those two was important in order to provide context. One of the hardest things about prepping for this was editing to 20 minutes.
@vickytnz The sensory slide was personal speculation. My goal is to do further objective research, maybe working with a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins. This talk was meant to be a barometer of sorts about the topic, to see if it warrants deeper exploration. Given comments here and others in person, I think it does.
Carl Seglem,
28 Feb 08:21 PM
I've been interested in aesthetics and interaction/UX design for years and was hoping for more. I appreciated the matrix showing relative emphases to distinguish interfaces/experiences. I often felt like I'd lost the thread of the talk.
This talk created connections for me that weren't explicitly given. Thanks for that. Personally, not that I consider myself a prude or anything, I could do without the X-rated example. You could find many other ways to illustrate your point, and it didn't really do anything special for your talk. I also think you could make your points just fine without dragging Darwin and Heidegger into it--not enough evidence or rationale was given to effectively tie them in, IMO.