Emotion In Product Design


Published on

A report on emotion in product design.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Emotion In Product Design

  1. 1. Executive summary is report will convey and investigate the knowledge regarding how emotions are related to products. It will communicate emotional; understanding, user influence and application in the design process. e theory is then investigated with a study of emotional responses to product appearance of a previously design product. Finally a reflective summary will be made regarding the theory to the application. 2.
  2. 2. 3.
  3. 3. Preface is report was initiated during a Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) involving De Montfort University (DMU), Filmlight ltd and the author, Luke Woolfson. e KTP project was to integrate an industrial design capacity within Filmlight. e intention was for Luke to design equipment to support Filmlight’s software and therefore enhance Filmlight’s market position. e Blackboard (fig. 1) and the Projector Probe (fig. 2) were both outcomes of this. e KTP project ended in January 2007, since then Luke has continued to work as an industrial designer at FilmLight, furthermore he was re-employed by DMU as a part-time lecturer. Filmlight creates high end equipment and software for the post production industry. eir customers do not only want to use the products that fulfil their visual aspirations, but ones that are on the bleeding edge of technology. e industry has an inherent want for desirable products as the post production workforce are focused on creating stunning imagery for their clients. Filmlight addresses these wants by delivering equipment that matches, in terms of quality, the films produced on them. Emotions manifest themselves between user and product in this market. For example the Northlight film scanner (fig. 3). Its product semantics convey stability in its marble surface, accuracy in its movement and simplicity in its controls. is promotes desire and inspiration in the user, as the product is an outcome of their wants; as a machine that will not damage their valuable film, will work consistency and is simple to operate. When the product matches the user’s goals the user is then satisfied, not only for the event of accomplishing their goals but also at Filmlight for matching these aspirations. 6.
  4. 4. 7.
  5. 5. Figure 1: Baselight Blackboard A control surface used to operate Baselight colour grading software. e controls are arranged on an arc to reduce stretching to reach. Keys are backlit as users would operate the Blackboard in the dark. ree axis trackballs in the centre of the panel permit fine adjustment of the image. A tablet at the front is used for drawing shapes to key images and operating the user interface. Colour screens around the edge provide key mappings for ‘soft keys’ and feedback values of adjustment. 8.
  6. 6. Figure 2: Truelight Projector Probe A colour measurement instrument used to calibrate digital projectors. It has a tri-stimulus sensor and a spectrometer to measure wide range of luminance. With a laser target the user can see what area of the screen they are measuring. It has two apertures of measurement, a fan angle of 6° for large measurements and a 2° aperture to adhere to film standards. With a small display means it can be operated as a standalone product or connected to a computer for detailed analysis. 10.
  7. 7. Figure 3: Northlight A film scanner used for digitising film. It scans each frame individually using its pin registration to hold the film. e image resolution of the frame is 8K (7,680 x 4,320 pixels) produced by splitting the image in to it RGB components. e dust on the film can be digitally removed by scanning the frame in IR light which only shows the dust on the frame. Its marble bed provides a thermal stable surface and means every Northlight is unique. 12.
  8. 8. Introduction In consumer behaviour there is a degree of emotional response to objects (Norman 2004). is is apparent in product purchase, operation and in ownership. e author wanted to find out how emotions are brought about, how they can affect the user and how this knowledge can be applied by the designer in to new product development (NPD). is study is therefore relevant to how products are designed today and in the future As markets become flooded with products, consumers are overwhelmed with choice. In an effort to maximise their market potential company’s have to satisfy the user’s inner emotions to provide an increased likelihood of product purchase. is fuels the current global economy and maintains capitalism (Curtis 2002, Kurtgozu 2003). To oppose this, there is a desire to re-establish and increase the consumer’s emotional attachment to a product. is is to decrease the wasteful nature of today’s ‘throw away’ society (Whiteley 1993). is in turn will ease the pressure on the world resources and give rise to products that are more sustainable (Chapman 2005). To be able to ‘design for emotion’ we need to understand how emotions are brought about; why different people feel different emotions towards a product, are there any factors which are applicable to us all, how are emotions measured? We also need to know how emotions influence the behaviour of the user; why are attractive things easier and more satisfying to use, what makes the user more emotional attached to one product than another, why do emotions cause the user to behave irrationally? Ultimately, we need to understand how designers can input and apply this knowledge in the design process; how can they understand the user’s concerns, what tools are available to them, how can they instil emotional value in to their design? In addition it’s relevant to investigate such theories in practice on one of Filmlight’s products. As emotion is an important factor for Filmlight, as they sell high value pieces of equipment. 14.
  9. 9. 15.
  10. 10. How are emotions established and measured? To understand how consumers are influenced by emotions we must first understand how they differ from other affective states and how they are brought about. Affective states can be characterised by the conditions that give rise to them. In this approach there are two defining factors; 1) whether the state involves a relation between the person and the object or not, i.e. intentional or non-intentional and 2) whether the state is acute or reference is made to a more or less enduring disposition, i.e. acute versus dispositional (Desmet 2002). Intentional Non-intentional Acute Emotions Moods Diapositional Sentiments Emotional Traits Table 1: Affective states (Frija 1994). Emotions (as shown in table 1.) are defined as an acute and intentional state. An intentional state involve a relationship between the person and the stimulus, while a non-intentional state is not directed at a specific stimulus but the “the world as a whole” (Frijda 1994). An acute state is one that is limited in time which is opposed to a dispositional state which is a personality characteristic. For example “I’m afraid of dogs” is a sentiment (our attitude) while “I’m frighten by the dog” is an emotion (Desmet 2002). Emotions not only differ to moods by there intention they also differ in terms of time and a physiological effect. I.e. emotions elicit a sharp change with a physiological change, while moods are longer and less intense (Carlson 1997). Within emotions Forlizzi et al (2003) combines Dewey (1971) and Carlson’s (1997) model’s where they identify two emotional responses: Emotional statements and emotional experiences. 16.
  11. 11. 17.
  12. 12. An emotional statement can be seen as less representative view of the environment and more dependent on information specified about the self, it is impulsive, momentary and autonomous. An example of this would be a baby crying – responding to a physiological need. In contrast an emotional experience is less dependent on the self and more representative of the environments stimulus, it is sustaining, controllable and may reference prior experience. An example of this would be a veteran weeping at a war memorial. To summarise emotional statements are instinctive or visceral and emotional experiences are reflective (Norman 2004) Forlizzi et al (2003 p30) refers to Dewey (1971) “...no single formal attribute (such as material, shape or colour) can be attributed to causing a specific emotional response. Only when the formal attributes of an object come together to act as a medium for an emotion does an object become expressive” i.e. the colour red is seen as danger and also as a symbol of luck.1 is leads to wanting to able to understand the reasoning for emotional responses in greater detail (Forlizzi et al 2003). Due to this, it is relevant to look further into models which explain emotional responses for products, such as Desmet (2002) model for product appearance. It is also apparent to appreciate the different levels of design, be they visceral, behavioural or reflective, and this knowledge has been realised by Norman (2004). Once we understand the structure and levels of emotions, how can we measure the emotions elicited. ankfully Desmet has created such a tool, the ‘Product Emotion Measurement Instrument’ (PrEmo). 1 In Chinese culture and Chinese symbolism, red is the colour of good luck and success, and is used for decoration and wedding attire (during the traditional half of the wedding ceremony, while the bridal attire in the modern half is usually white). Money in Chinese societies is traditionally given in red. (Wikipedia 2007) 18.
  13. 13. Desmet’s model of emotions for product appearance Emotion Appraisal Concern Product Figure 4: Desmet’s model of product emotions (Desmet 2002). ere are three key variables to Desmet’s model (see fig. 4): product appraisal, product concern and product focus. ese three variables, and their interplay, determine if a stimulus elicits an emotion, and if so, which emotion is experienced (Desmet 2002). Product Appraisal Appraisal is core to the product emotion model as “All emotions are preceded and elicited by an appraisal” (Roseman & Smith 2001). An appraisal is a judgement of the significance of a product for our concerns. It is a non- intellectual in the sense that is automatic and unconscious (Desmet 2002). What specific emotion is experienced depends on the appraisal type, of which there are four. Appealingness is the appraisal of our attitudes. Motive compliance is the appraisal of our goals Legitimacy is the appraisal of our standards Novelty is the appraisal of our knowledge and expectations 19.
  14. 14. Product concern Human concerns are ‘desired end-states’ and every emotion hides a concern. According to Frida (1994), “concerns can be regarded as points of reference in the appraisal process.” us the significance of a stimulus to our wellbeing is determined by an appraised concern match or mismatch. ere are both general concerns, that of respect, safety and love, and there are personal concerns, such as getting to the office on time. Concerns relevant to products are attitudes, goals and standards. Knowledge & expectations is not a concern type but is relative to the appraisal of novelty (Desmet 2002). Attitudes are our dispositional likes (or disliking) for certain objects or attributes of objects; they are our tastes for things. Attitudes can be manipulated by personal meaning due to the significant personal experience they have with the product. For example “I like my ring because it was a gift some someone special”. A product that matches an attitude will be appraised as appealing; this will result in an emotion such as desire. A product that conflicts with our attitudes will be appraised as unappealing; resulting in an emotion such as disgust (Desmet 2002). Goals are something we want to obtain; it is how we would like things to be. Humans have various goals that relate to consumer products; we buy or own products because we believe they can help us achieve something, or because they fulfil a need. Goals are relevant for our personal well-being. For example “I want to get a faster car”. A product that satisfies a goal will be appraised as motive compliant; resulting in an emotion such as satisfaction. A product that obstructs a goal will be appraised as non-compliant; resulting in an emotion such as dissatisfaction (Desmet 2002). Standards are our beliefs, norms or conventions of how we think things should be. Whereas goals refer to the state of affairs we want to obtain, standards are the state of affairs we believe ought to be. Standards are relevant for the preservation of our social structures For Example “I believe that we should respect our parents”. A product that meets our standards is legitimate; resulting in an emotion such as admiration. A product that conflict with our standards is illegitimate; resulting in an emotion such as contempt and indignation (Desmet 2002). 20.
  15. 15. Knowledge and expectations are not a particular concern type but is our reference to which we know is fact. It is developed throughout our life from our experience and education. For example “I know the inside of a fridge is cold” A product that obeys our knowledge or an expectation is appraised as un-novel; resulting in an emotion such as boredom. A product that deviates from our knowledge or an expectation is appraised as novel; resulting in an emotion such as a pleasant surprise (Desmet 2002). Product focus Product can evoke emotions in various ways, and it is not only the product per se but the meaning that is interpreted from the product. I.e. the product can act as a proxy. As we focus our attention to different aspects of the product, in turn each aspect can induce a different emotion. According to Ortony (1988) there are three aspects which we can focus: events, agents and objects. Although a product is an object it is worth noting events and agents are no less important (Desmet 2002). Events are the focus on anticipated or past consequences of using or owning the product. An example of an anticipated consequence is “A Ferrari will increase my social status”. Each time we see a product we anticipate what goals it may enable us to achieve. ese anticipations, however, can be created or enhance by advertisements. An example of a past consequence is “Seeing a skateboard reminds me of the fun times when I was young”. Here the product is a symbolic meaning of past event. Also note that these may be personal or based in society (Desmet 2002). Agents are the focus of what the product represents. ese may be the product; designer, company, impacts or a user group. ese again can be shaped by personal experiences or can be based in society. An agent focus is linked to our standards and our expectations. An example of an agent focus is this: “I dislike mobiles that are loud, as I believe people should be discreet in public” (Desmet 2002). Objects are the focus of the product its self, its visual semantics or technological qualities, and it can be linked to all concerns. An example of an object focus is “I desire an iPod as I like simple forms”, which is based on an attitude of form. Not only can the product be a focus but associated 21.
  16. 16. products can elicit emotions. Such as, a key chain can be associated with a car model. is differs to agents as the focus is on the associated object not the representation (Desmet 2002). Emotions elicited Emotions towards a product are not a special type of emotions. e disappointment you elicit towards a product focus is that same as a human focus. (Desmet 2002) Desmet’s model is created for the emotions experienced for a pre-purchase context. It includes 14 emotions, 7 pleasant and 7 unpleasant. He doesn’t insist on these being the only emotions experienced but they are the most common. Desmet refined 347 emotions down to 14 through several studies. e aim was to realise a manageable set of emotions that where distinct and relative to the context. e emotions also needed to be understood across various cultures, due to the purpose of measurement. Pleasant: Inspiration, desire, pleasant surprise, amusement, satisfaction, admiration and fascination Unpleasant: Boredom, disgust, unpleasant surprise, dissatisfaction, disappointment, indignation and contempt e main structure behind the emotions is based upon Russell’s (1980) circumplex of emotions (fig. 5). Where there are two axes in the circumplex which represent the dimension of ‘pleasantness’ (horizontal) and ‘activation’ (vertical). From Desmet’s studies of his measurement tool of an animated character displaying a specific emotion, he discovered that people perceive emotions as either pleasant or unpleasant. is enabled him to focus on the single axis of ‘pleasantness’ for his model. Examples Different people experience different emotions to the same object, but the way in which they experience emotions will be universal (Desmet 2002). e best way to understand the model is to present some examples from real users. e following examples are taken from one of Desmet’s study. In this study the participants had to photograph a product that caused a specific emotion and explain why the emotion was experienced. Desmet then determined the focus, concern and appraisal using a systematic word rational approach. I.e. words 22.
  17. 17. Activation Tense Excited Upset Happy Pleasure Displeasure Sad Contented Lethargic Placid Deactivation Figure 5: Russell’s (1980) circumplex of emotions. used by the participant such as should, ought to, tight, wrong, and justified refer to a standard concern. Example 1: Product: Peugeot 406 coupe Emotion: Desire Participant’s comment: I think this car is very cool. I look at this car and wish that I was like that; I guess I wish I were as cool as this car. Focus: (Product as) agent; the products personality Concern: Goal; I want to be cool Appraisal: is car is as cool as I would like to be myself Example 2: Product: Lemon squeezer Emotion: Dissatisfaction Participant’s comment: is is a really nice squeezer. I am dissatisfied however because it is probably very difficult to clean. Focus: Event; the anticipated experience of using this squeezer Concern: Accomplishment goal; I want a squeezer that is easy to clean Appraisal: e difficulty to clean this squeezer is unacceptable 23.
  18. 18. Norman’s three levels of design Norman (2004) breaks down emotional responses into three levels of design which are applicable to everyone. e three levels come from; within our instincts, visceral, from use, behavioural, and from outside influence & aspirations, reflective. As Norman (2004 p65) states “Each is as important as the other, but each requires a different approach by the designer.” 24.
  19. 19. Figure 6: An example of visceral design, Met cycle helmet. Visceral Design At the visceral level it is evoking our inner instincts, our human drives; it’s at a foundation level of product emotions. As Norman (2004 p67) states “e principles underlying visceral design are wired in, consistent across people and cultures.” When something triggers an emotion at a visceral level it’s has an immediate unknowing impact to a person. An example would be when a consumer takes one look at something and says “I want it”, before asking “what does it do” and “how much does it cost?” At the visceral level, physical features – look, feel and sounds dominate (Norman 2004). Product movement can also been seen as a physical feature (Desmet 2005). Attractiveness is a visceral- level phenomenon “…the response is entirely to the surface look of an object.” (Norman 2004 p87) e visceral level is similar to Jordan’s (2002) Physio-pleasure. “Which is the pleasures of the body; sights, sounds, smell, taste, and touch.” (Norman 2004 p105) Physio-pleasures are a merge of the many aspects of the visceral level with some of the behavioural level. (Norman 2004) 25.
  20. 20. Figure 7: An example of behavioural design, Wii steering wheel. Behavioural Design At the behavioural level it’s entirely about the use of the product, appearance is less relevant. However the appearance in context of the use is a contributing factor. As the product appearance can imply an expectation of how the product should be operated, and what this will feel like. As Norman (2004 p70) states, referring to the behavioural level, “What matters here are four components of good behavioural design: function, understandability, usability, and physical feel.” e behavioural level is similar to Jordan’s (2002) Psycho-pleasure. “is deals with people’s reactions and psychological states during the use of products.” (Norman 2004 p105) Norman (2004 p80) states “Designers of many computer based products are restoring in th e natural, affective pleasures of the real, tangible world”. is would be seen as designers trying to increase the behavioural response of the software. See figure 7, which is a Wii steering wheel to control the computer game Mario Kart. 26.
  21. 21. Figure 8: An example of reflective design, Alessi garlic-squeezer. Reflective Design At the reflective level it points to our culture and about the meaning of a product or its use (Norman 2004). It’s how we see the product reflecting our self-image and aspirations to others. is is due to products playing an important roll in the statements they make to others. Additionally it can be in relation to the personal meanings of products, our memories or associations. “While attractive ness is a visceral level beauty comes from reflective level.” (Norman 2004 p87). Which can be understood as:”Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” (Hungerford 1878) e reflective level is similar to Jordan’s (2002) Ideo-pleasure, which is where one appreciates the aesthetics, or the quality, or perhaps the extent to which a product enhances life and respects the environment. (Norman 2004) In addition to this there are Jordan’s (2002) Socio-pleasures, which are derived from interaction with others. Norman (2004 p105) states “many products play an important social role, either by design or by accident.” is interaction can be seen as a combination of both reflective and behavioural levels of emotional response. 27.
  22. 22. Measuring Emotions (PrEmo) How can we measure emotional responses to a product and why is it important? If we understand why a set of emotions is elicited for a given product then this knowledge would allow a designer to start a project with an ‘emotion strategy’ (Desmet 2002, p100). e ability to measure emotions in this instance would allow the designer to emotionally profile a design concept and compare it to their emotional strategy. us assisting the designer to reach their goals and assess whether their design is appropriate. Desmet created a tool, PrEmo (fig. 9), specifically for measuring the emotions elicited for a product appearance. His objective was that the tool would be able to: • Work in different cultures, i.e. be language independent • Not require extensive equipment or technical expertise • Measure product appearance emotions • Measure mixed emotions Figure 9: e PrEmo interface. 28.
  23. 23. PrEmo user interface (UI) is comprised of the previously mentioned 7 pleasant & 7 unpleasant emotions with a small picture of the product to be assessed. Each of the 14 emotions is communicated through an animated character. When the participant selects one of the emotions the character displays the emotion through facial expressions, bodily movements and a characterised sound. e participant then rates the emotion on the three point scale. e scale represents the follow ratings I do not feel the emotion expressed (lower part of the scale) I somehow feel the emotion expressed (middle part of the scale) I do feel the emotion expressed (upper part of the scale) e rating the character is expressed as the background of the emotion. e participant can only move on to the next product once all the emotions have been rated. e facial expressions, movements and sounds produced help focus and objectify emotions (Csikszentmihalyi 1993). is bridges cultural differences, reduces misinterpretation and lowers the need for the participant’s emotional knowledge. e participant might not be familiar with certain names of emotions but they will be able to relate to these expressive cartoons. 29.
  24. 24. Summary From Desmet’s model we can attain that product emotions are; 1) Personal; as our concerns are personal thus our appraisals differ, hence so do our emotions. 2) Temporal; as in time our attitudes, goals, standards and our focus on products change. 3) Mixed; they can be construed as relevant for more than one concern (Desmet 2002). Overall Desmet (2002 p122) states “Different people experience different emotions towards a given product because people differ, both in their concerns and in their product focus.” Desmet also explains that the model was developed for one type of interaction and that other type’s interactions of appraisals might exist. Additionally our concern types are intertwined as “Our standards influence our goals and out goal influence our expectations.” (Desmet 2002 p123) Every product will cause an emotional response on each of Norman’s (2004) three levels, visceral, behavioural and reflective. e levels could be seen as time relative, with visceral reactions happening in a products first encounter, behavioural, after a period of product use, and reflective, after it has been used in an event. However it’s not this independent, as again the levels are intertwined. e reflective level, due to our product aspirations, will affect our response on a first encounter e PrEmo tool provides designers and researchers with a tool to emotional map a design. is can be used to test the product to establish if the design responds as intended. is as Lundahl (2006 p28) states referring to emotive measurements, “ey have the potential to change the product development paradigm, refocusing development away from product features to product experiences, from liking drivers to emotive levers, and from optimization to harmonisation.” 30.
  25. 25. 31.
  26. 26. How do emotions influence the user? “Emotion, and its positive or negative influence, shapes how we relate ourselves to the real or imagined state of the world.” (Forlizzi et al 2003 p31) Emotions are enduring; they impact on our thoughts and actions consistently without in many situations us being aware of them. “Any emotion, if it is sincere, is involuntary.” (Mark Twain 1835-1910). is influence in relation to products is evident in product; purchase; why people desire something, use; why attractive things work better and attachment; how personalisation affects or emotions towards the object. 32.
  27. 27. 33.
  28. 28. e X-factor: “I want it and I don’t know why?” Desire in its various forms is a strong driving factor for a consumer want. Frijda (1986 p283) states the essence of desire is the “…readiness to approach or bring about situations of satisfaction”. According to Desmet (2002) desire can be brought about in three different ways; desire of consequence, desire of presence and the desire of identity. is can be attributed to the three central appraisal types of motive compliance, appealingness and legitimacy. Desire of consequence is the focus on the anticipated event of using the product which may fulfil a goal, and is the appraisal of motive compliance. For example “e thought of playing with the kangaroo ball3 makes me desire to have fun” (Desmet 2002 p153) Desire of presence is the focus of the object it’s self, this matches an attitude of aesthetics, and is the appraisal of appealingness. is can come from inherently pleasant stimuli such as bright colours and sweet tastes; as this is to appeal to our senses. For example “I desire the vase for its sensual form” (Desmet 2002 p153) Desire of identity is the focus of the products agent (the products personality) which matches a self ideal standard or a goal, and is the appraisal of legitimacy. is is seen as a ‘social desire’ through a personal identification with the product. Desmet (2002 p154) states “we can ‘resonate’ with products as if they were somehow people.” For example “is jeep is as relaxed I would like to be myself. (Desmet 2002) When all three of these desire types are exerted, the ‘buy now’ or ‘X-factor’ influence is brought about. is is due to as Desmet states (2002 p186) “…the product resonates with what we want to be or become, want to experience or own, and want to achieve or obtain.” is power of desire is overwhelming and has changed society, from a need to a want basis. is change dates back to the 20’s after World War One. By Edward Bernays4 who first originated the notion; that not to sell a product on its function, but to sell it on the feelings it would evoke, i.e. you will feel better if 34.
  29. 29. you own this car. is is in essence the first idea of emotionally connecting the consumer to a product or service. (Curtis 2002) An example of how Bernays made people desire something, and thus behave irrationally, was by changing women’s view of the day that if they smoked, which was a taboo at the time, they would be powerful & independent. is was instigated with the phase ‘Torches of freedom’ being placed in papers after Bernays made the first PR stunt. Curtis states: “It made him (Bernays) realise It’s possible to persuade people to behave irrationally if you link products to their emotional desires or feelings. e idea that smoking actually made women freer was completely irrational, but it made them feel more independent. It meant that irrelevant objects could become powerful emotional symbols of how you wanted to be seen by others.” Curtis, A. Happiness Machines: Part 1, e century of the self, (2002). [time 13:50] At this time corporations were worried about market saturation worries and wanted to maintain their high production rates, which had been increased during the war. Bernays techniques interested American corporations who realised they needed to change the way customers thought about products (Curtis 2002). An example of this instigation can be found in the following quote: “We must shift America from a needs, to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire, to want to want new things even before the old had been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America, mans desires must over shadow his needs” Paul Mazer – American Banker Curtis, A. Happiness Machines: Part 1, e century of the self, (2002). [time 16:45] 35.
  30. 30. Why attractive things work better. A less powerful influence than desire but one which is interesting is the notion that attractive things work better. Norman (2004 pp17-18) cites an example of a study by Kurosu and Kashimura (1995) who investigated different ATM (automatic teller machines) layouts and discovered that the attractive ones work better. is study was also repeated by Traxtinsky (1997), who was very pessimistic about this belief. His studies, carried out in Israel, produced stronger evidence than the Japanese study. is was a conflicting cultural paradigm, as it was assumed by Traztinsky (Norman 2004) that Israelis hold function higher than attractiveness. Norman’s explanation comes from the behavioural design level. Norman (2004 p77) states: “Negative emotions kick in when there is a lack of understanding, when people feel frustrated and out of control – first uneasiness, then irritation, and, if the lack of control and understanding persists, even anger.” Compared to “When we are happy your thought process expand, becoming more creative, more imaginative. i.e. attractive thing make you feel good.” (Norman 2004 p19) If the user feels happy, from the appearance, they a more likely “to find solutions to the problems they encounter” (Norman 2004 p19), and so they ‘appear’ to work better. 36.
  31. 31. Personalisation Personalisation can be seen as a route to increase an emotional attachment with a product. Mugge et al (2004 p10) states “Personalisation of a product’s appearance positively affects the formation of an emotional bond with this product.” In turn this helps lengthen a products relationship with their owner, as “Emotional attachment to products can encourage people not to discard a product” (Desmet 2002 p187). For a product to become personalised it must have the owners energy invested into the process of personalisation, as “Product attachment is related to the psychic energy invested in the product” (Mugge et al 2004 p4) ‘Psychic energy’ can be viewed as a function of time, thought and activity. e more of it we put in, the more we will be emotional attached to the product through personalisation. Creative capacity, time and need can be limitations to the lack of personalisation for many of our products. However there is one product which will personalised by everyone that is our homes. Norman (2004 p220) states “Personalisation appears the greatest in our own homes, once an empty shell becomes personalised to our own needs.” e personalisation of the home is inevitable, we spend a considerable time using our homes; sleeping, eating and socialising in them, we realise the most basic creative ability; through the choice of colour, furniture and object positions, and it has the greatest need to do so, as when we move in they are normally an empty shell, a blank canvas upon which we paint our self-image. It is in no surprise that ethnographers look to our home first to ‘immerse’ themselves in our self-image. Norman (2004 p224) quotes Harrison and Dourish (1996) “A space can only be made into a place by its occupants. e best that the designer can do is put the tools into their hands” Manufactures have attempted to tap in to this emotional bond by offering customisation options such a the Nike iD product. However, this is inferior to personalisation due to low levels of psychic energy (Mugge et al 2004). To take this to a deeper level Slater (1997 p63) states “Goods manufactured cannot satisfy the users deeply embedded human needs because these good as manufactured and calculated in relation to profit rather than arising organically from authentic individual and communal life” 37.
  32. 32. How can designers apply this knowledge? To make use of the previous knowledge in a design project, it is apparent that a suitable process must be used. As discussed, every group of users/customers will experience different emotions to a product due to their appraisal method (Desmet 2002). To understand the concerns and focus of the user, designers must increase their user understanding; this methodology is known as user- centred design. McDonagh-Philp (1998, p32) states “User-centred design is a design methodology that utilizes users as a designing resource to increase understanding of the user.” rough this increased understanding of the concerns and focuses “...e better they (designers) will be able to influence the emotional responses towards that design.” (Desmet 2002, p124) Such a methodology needs to be intrinsic to the development process (McDonagh-Philp and Lebbon 2000). Furthermore Norman (2004, p83) states “Good behavioural design has to be fundamental part of the design process from the very start; it cannot be adopted once the product has been completed.” Designers need tools to help them understand emotional structure and measure emotional responses. Desmet’s [Product and Emotional] navigator can help designers understand the eliciting conditions of emotions through a database of examples. PrEmo, as previously mentioned, can be used by designers to extract the emotional composition of a product. As Desmet (2002, p183) states “is is an important feature of PrEmo as it can objectify emotional responses and make these responses tangible” User-centred methodology and a product emotion toolset helps designer’s move towards an aspiration to add emotional value to a product. It is mentioned that designers can only go so far with this goal, as: “Designers cannot craft an experience, but only the conditions or levers that might create an intended experience” (Forlizzi and Ford, 2000). 38.
  33. 33. 39.
  34. 34. User-centred design ere is a need for this methodology as; “Designers lack a shared understanding of emotion within the context of design, and information on how to think about emotion during a new product conception” (Forlizzi et al 2003 p28). In addition; “Products do not exist to merely perform tasks, they satisfy other functional requirements. ese include aspirations, cultural, social and emotional needs.” (McDonagh-Philp and Lebbon 2000, p33) To this end, designers will not have knowledge and understanding of many different users across a global spectrum. So they need to employ the methodology of user- centred design to; “…fill their knowledge gap.” (McDonagh-Philp and Lebbon 2000, p33) If designer chooses such a methodology it will; “Increase the odds that new products will achieve success through delivery of compelling differentiated experiences.” (Lundahl 2006, p32). ose who do not use such a methodology run the danger of creating “poor designs.” (Norman 2004, p74) is is due to basing their decisions on assumptions or a poor level of user insight (Crossley 2003). As Norman states “Designers as experts are not typical users, but often think of themselves in that way.” (Norman, 1988, p151) Norman (2006) asserts an interesting view, that if companies want success, and ‘guaranteed good design,’ then they need to approach the design in a structured iterative way. But if a company wants to achieve great design they need ‘someone with a vision’ to guide the process towards their goal. It’s the difference between ‘good improvements’ and ‘conceptual breakthroughs’. is is re-affirmed by Cain (1998) “You can either be; a genius, be lucky, or have a structured approach.” As we can’t instruct on how to be a genius we need to explore an option of a structured approach. Crossley (2003) describes such an approach used within PDD2 in his paper ‘Building Emotions in Designs’ 2 PDD is a product design consultancy in London. 40.
  35. 35. PDD approach Crossly (2003) breaks PDD’s approach in to a route of 5 overlapping stages, which are: Immersing, storytelling, observing, creating and communicating. From these stages designers can gain an insight into the user’s attitudes, aspirations and values. ey can then create a character model, similar to personas used in Human computer interface (HCI) design . is method of understanding how the user acts enables the designer to provide users with what they need. is is preferred to asking users directly what they want, as they are unaware of such a design problem existing. In his view “Design is now less about creating artefacts and more about creating and staging a new compelling story for people to experience.” (Crossly 2003 p35) Immersing Designers need to immerse themselves into the user’s lives. ey need to look into their environments. As Crossly (2003 p38) states “e environments that people craft around themselves are rich within formation about personalities, values and lifestyles.” Norman (2004, p225) agrees as he states “Our possessions reflect our personalities.” e benefits of this stage is that the designers can gain “clues regarding anticipated behaviours” and these “initial impressions gained are often extremely accurate.” (Crossly 2003 p38) Storytelling e user needs to tell designers of their experiences through stories so that designers can “…enter into a dialogue with their meaning system.”(Crossly 2003 p39) To design a relationship with a product “…we need to understand fully people’s relationships with objects, other people, environments and so on.” (Crossly 2003 p39). is can be seen as attempting to attain the reflective level of a design, as it goes beyond function. e benefits of this stage are that the designer is more likely to reach an increased level of reflective design. 41.
  36. 36. Observing e observing stage is to watch them in action using products. is is to find “…what they do, what frustrates them and what gives them satisfaction.” (Crossly 2003 p40) Designers should be concerned that their presence may affect the situation, and they should remain distant if possible (Robson 1993). e benefit of this stage is that the design will gain understanding of how they use products and will be able to enhance the behavioural level of design. Creating Here, designers need to “…focus on defining the essence of the problem and creating relevant ideas.” Such ideas would be in visual methods that both the designer and people can understand. A suitable way would be through iterative “Protocepts”, a conceptual rough prototype, which allows to “…gauge emotive response behaviours” (Lundahl, 2006, p32). Norman also states that “is iterative design process is the heart of effective, user-centred design.” e benefit of this stage is that the designer has applied the knowledge from the previous steps to something suitably relevant to matching the user’s desires. Communicating To communicate the user understanding it’s suitable to present the findings in a visual manner. In turn as the designer has immersed into the users space the findings gathered should also be presented as an “immersive space” for others to take in. One method Crossley suggests is to use a promotional video this can; “…capture the desired experience, and bring visions to life enabling them to communicate complex ideas and feelings in a more effective way.” e benefit of this stage is to make sure that the empathy is understood by all. 42.
  37. 37. Tools A suitable tool to use at the insight stage is Desmet’s [Product & Emotion] Navigator (fig. 10). Using this tool the designer can gain understanding and inspiration. It is a database of product and emotion case studies which the user can filter. is allows the user to investigate, through examples, the eliciting conditions for all the 14 emotions. Figure 10: Screen shot of the [Product & Emotion] Navigator. Selecting a case study explains the reason for the emotion elecited through Desmet’s’ model of focus, concept and appraisal. is makes it very easy to comprehend for the designer and thus increases their understanding. Desmet (2002, p182) states “e [p&e] navigator’s main strength is that it supports designers in manipulating the emotional impact of their designs, while not conflicting with the designers’ personal visions on, and ideas about, product emotions.” In essence it can be seen as a reference book of emotions for designers. However, it does not show mixed emotions for a specific product, but does show various emotions that might exist for a similar groups of products. Overall it is seen as a beneficial tool to use. Lundahl (2006, p28) states “…product developers need better measures that deepen insights into how products as a whole elicit compelling, differentiated product experiences” 43.
  38. 38. Emotional value e end intent to the user-centred design process is to build in emotional value to the product. Norman (2004, p87) states “I learned that produces can be more than the sum of the functions they perform. eir real value can be in the fulfilment of people’s emotional needs, and one of the most important needs of all is to establish one’s self-image and one’s place in the world.” is is evident in many, if not all, of today’s advertising and branding. Such campaigns attempt to create the emotional context of the product through its experience. is however, leads to a limited attachment. One reason is due the ‘problem of comparison’. For example (Easton 2007) referring to a Ferrari: “e first time you sit in the leather seats and hear the engine roar there is quite a rush of pleasure. But the 2nd, 3rd or 100th time it’s not the same. We adapt to what we have got. And start to think what would really make life complete is a lire jet.” is short lived attachment to a product keeps capitalists content, as it means that consumers will always want to buy the ‘next new thing.’ Consumers will discard the object they bought, which they once desired so much, and move to the new desired object. is comes with a element of danger for emotional understanding as Kurtzu (2003 p57) states “Design and emotion runs the risk of becoming a fashionable style, a catchword employed by advertising for the marketing of luxury products to an elite culture” So how could designers hope to maintain this emotional value? Norman (2004 p67) points towards the visceral level, as he states: “If you design according to this rules (of visceral design) your design will always be attractive, even if somewhat simple. If you can design for the sophisticated, for the reflective level, your design can readily become dated because this level is sensitive to cultural differences, trends in fashion, and continual fluctuation.” As previously mentioned, engaging the user in personalisation of their product will bring about an emotional bond that will be far stronger than the desires of the reflective level. 44.
  39. 39. 45.
  40. 40. Study To test the theory in practice it is appropriate to perform a study on products relative to the author and Filmlight. e product choice was between; the ‘Blackboard’ (fig. 1), a control surface for colour grading3, released in 2005, or the ‘Projector Probe’ (fig. 2), a measurement instrument for calibrating projectors, released in 2007. Due to the Blackboard being on the market for longer than the Projector Probe and having direct competitors to measure against, the Blackboard was selected as an appropriate design to emotionally map. 3 Colour grading is the process of altering and enhancing the colour of a motion picture or television image, either electronically, photo-chemically or digitally. (Wikipedia 2007) 46.
  41. 41. 47.
  42. 42. Method A questionnaire was e-mailed to a group of participants which consisted of the previously mentioned 14 emotions each with an image of a product to rate (see fig. 11 for images used). e participant was asked to rate each of the emotions 0, 1 or 2 against the product. ese ratings referred to the following: 0 – I do not feel this emotion 1 – I feel some of this emotion 2 – I do feel this emotion e participants were asked to rate all of the emotions, to be impartial, not to dwell on their response and to leave a comment for each of the products. e following 5 colour grading control surfaces were tested: Da Vinci 2K plus, Filmlight Blackboard, Pandora Poggle, Quantel Pablo, Tangent CP300. e participants included people from both the film industry and as well as people with no product knowledge. is enabled the opportunity to compare the two sets of results and to analyse any differences. 48.
  43. 43. Figure 11: e 5 product images used for the study. 49.
  44. 44. Results To analyse the results the following chart (fig. 12) was produced plotting the 5 products against the mean value of the 14 emotions. In addition to this, a table of the differences between mean product ratings on the 14 emotions was produced. is illustrated the significant differences between the products to enable the products to be categorised. Emotional Ratings: A B C D E Disgust Desire Fascination Satisfaction Pleasant surprise Inspiration Contempt Boredom Indignation Disappointment Dissatisfaction Unpleasant surprise Admiration Amusement Figure 12: Emotional ratings of the products. 50.
  45. 45. Discussion Overall the results produced some interesting findings, such as; the high value of fascination towards the products, the lack of unpleasant emotional feelings, the overall low level of emotional feeling, the differences between industry and non industry responses and the groupings of two pairs of products. Generally the study was a success due to the ability to demonstrate the theories in practice and to discover insight into the products tested. Emotions Elicited e highest mean value for all products was fascination. is constant is apparent due to the conditions of fascination, which are: Eliciting conditions of fascination (Desmet 2002, p153) Product focus: Unspecified (object, agent or event) Concern: Need – the need of curiosity (either through exploration or understanding) Appraisal: My attention is caught by (some question about) the product (or: the product is worth the investigation) is concern of need of curiosity though understanding reflects a “desire to acquire knowledge in the deeper sense of constructing elaborated, intellectually satisfying representatives of the personally meaning phenomena.” (Ford 1992, p90). is is revealed in the comments from the participants as “What are they?” and “How does it work?” e concern of need of exploration differs to the need of understanding as here participants are perusing the need to explore, which requires the relatively superficial process of observation and discovery (Desmet 2002, p151). Revealed in the participants comments as “I want to play with and use the trackballs” and “It looks intriguing and inviting to use.” ere is a general slant towards pleasant emotions. is is shown in the overall mean of the pleasant emotions, 0.71, against the unpleasant emotions, 0.22. None of the products produced a distinct unpleasant emotion across the participants. is could be due to lack of aesthetic appreciation of a product of this nature, and they were seen as looking very similar by the participants. You would expect the participants to be more responsive with subject matter such as cars or clothing, which have increased familiarity. 51.
  46. 46. In the comments there was a group of users who focused on the associated object of the product, which they had owned or used in the past. is was then used this as the basis of their appraisal. Comments such as: “...reminds me of a BBC computer”, “looks similar to equipment I own.” and “It looks Amstrad like”. is increases their interest in the product and amplifies their emotional responses. Other participants focused in the anticipated event, of them or a knowledgeable user operating the product. is assisted them in objectifying their responses considering if the buttons are too close, if it’s difficult to use the keyboard or where they would rest their hands. Industry vs. Public Comparing industry and public responses (as shown in Fig. 13) it is apparent there are some significant differences. is is made clear in table 2 which shows that disappointment and dissatisfaction are noticeably higher for the industry participants. Emotional Ratings: Industry Public Disgust Desire Fascination Satisfaction Pleasant surprise Inspiration Contempt Boredom Indignation Disappointment Dissatisfaction Unpleasant surprise Admiration Amusement Figure 13: Combined ratings for participants in industry and the public 52.
  47. 47. Emotion Desire -0.01 Fascination -0.25 Admiration -0.07 Satisfaction 0.23 Pleasant surprise 0.23 Inspiration 0.10 Amusement 0.28 Contempt 0.01 Boredom 0.10 Disgust 0.19 Indignation 0.11 0.54 Disappointment 0.33 Dissatisfaction Unpleasant surprise 0.29 Table 2: Difference between mean emotional ratings of industry and public. is is apparent due to the conditions of the two emotions, which are: Eliciting conditions of disappointment (Desmet 2002, pg143) Product focus: Agent – the action of the agent responsible for the product Concern: Interest goal Appraisal: I regret that the product was not designed to match my interest as much as I anticipated. e industry group has an interest goal relevant to the products while the non-industry group do not. An industry participant commenting on product D “Looks well built, and could be handy that the three portions are separate for moving them about, but doesn’t look like there is anywhere to rest your hands though.” is participant had an interest goal that he wanted the product to be ergonomic. is caused disappointment when they anticipated it would be ergonomic to use, as he can move the panels around, yet this was met by a mismatch when they realised there was no where to rest their hands. e participant is disappointed that the designer of the product didn’t match their interest goal. 53.
  48. 48. Eliciting conditions of dissatisfaction (Desmet 2002, pg145) Product focus: Event – the anticipated experience or consequence of using the product Concern: Accomplishment goal Appraisal: is product’s inadequate goal fulfilment is unacceptable Again the industry group has an accomplishment goal relevant to the products while the non-industry group do not. An industry participant commenting on product D: “Looks like a cheap toy. is would not impress any colourist or client.” Compared to a non-industry participant commenting on product D: “Looks clean and simple, a pleasure to use” e industry participant wanted a product that would impress a client. e participant is dissatisfied that a designer would produce such a product which they know must impress the client. For the non-industry participant this goal was not conceivable. Fascination is the highest value for the industry participants too. is would have been expected to be lower due to industry participants being more aware of these products, which would reduce the need of understanding. But there is also the need of exploration evident in the conditions of fascination, as mentioned previously. Industry participants may be familiar with all the products but they have yet to explore or use them all. Industry participants had a higher emotional reaction to the products, with an overall mean of mean 0.58 compared to 0.44. e industry participants also correlated slightly more with a standard deviation of 0.24 compared to 0.32 of non-industry participants. Product & People Groupings It’s evident in the results displayed in the figure 12 and the table 3 that there is a correlation between certain products. e participant’s comments and ratings also form into definable groupings. 54.
  49. 49. Emotion A-B A-C A-D A-E B-C B-D B-E C-D C-E D-E -0.43 -0.61 0.39 0.57 0.57 0.75 Desire -0.04 0.14 -0.18 0.18 0.54 0.50 0.64 0.61 0.54 0.50 Fascination -0.11 0.00 0.11 -0.04 -0.32 0.46 0.61 0.39 0.54 Admiration -0.25 0.14 0.29 0.07 0.14 -0.50 -0.61 0.36 0.39 0.46 Satisfaction -0.21 -0.14 -0.11 0.29 0.07 -0.61 -0.61 0.50 0.61 0.50 0.61 Pleasant surprise -0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 -0.43 -0.32 0.57 0.57 0.46 0.46 Inspiration 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.00 Amusement 0.21 0.18 -0.07 0.14 -0.04 0.29 -0.07 -0.25 -0.04 0.21 Contempt 0.07 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.14 -0.14 -0.07 -0.07 0.00 0.32 -0.32 Boredom 0.29 0.07 0.00 0.04 -0.21 -0.29 -0.25 -0.07 -0.32 Disgust 0.11 0.14 -0.04 -0.18 0.04 -0.14 -0.29 -0.18 0.14 Indignation 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 -0.11 -0.14 -0.11 -0.14 -0.04 0.32 -0.36 -0.54 -0.46 0.25 -0.04 -0.21 -0.07 -0.29 -0.18 Disappointment 0.32 -0.36 0.25 0.04 -0.04 -0.07 -0.29 -0.21 -0.29 -0.07 Dissatisfaction -0.32 Unpleasant surprise 0.25 0.18 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 -0.25 -0.18 -0.25 -0.07 Table 3: Difference between the products 14 emotional ratings. Product Grouping Table 3 illustrates there are 3 groupings of products, A, BC and DE. is is evident as both BC and DE have no significant differences between them. A cannot be grouped with either set as it differs with all four of the other product. But can be seen to sit closer to DE as it only differs on the fascination emotion. is difference may be attributed to the picture used for product A as it contains the image of the software UI which can heighten curiosity, as none of the other products contain this. Participants generally biased their emotions towards the pleasant or the unpleasant emotions for a product, as 75% of response contained a total of 1 or less in the opposing emotional group. I.e. if a participant gave a total of 6 in the pleasant emotions and 1 in the unpleasant emotions it would be said that they were biased towards the pleasant emotions. Products A, D and E all have the smallest difference between their mean of pleasant and unpleasant emotions, with a small bias towards pleasant emotions (table 4). is illustrates that the participants either liked or disliked products A, D and E. Compare this to products B and C which have a large difference between pleasant and unpleasant emotions, strongly biased towards pleasant emotions. is confirms the generally all the participants liked these two products. 55.
  50. 50. Product Pleasant Unpleasant A 0.62 0.31 0.31 0.95 B 1.05 0.10 0.84 C 0.94 0.10 D 0.57 0.28 0.29 E 0.47 0.36 0.11 Table 4: Mean pleasant and unpleasant emotions. People Grouping Figure 14 illustrates that we, in a basic way, can cluster the participants into three groups; those with a low emotional response (N = 5), those with an average emotional response (N=20) and those with a high emotional response (N=4). A noticeable correlation within the low emotional response group is a high majority of women, 46% above the average compared to the other groups which had 9% less (table 5). Additionally in this group there is correlation of only rating fascination. Comments raised from this group feel nothing towards the products as they are look very similar to them and they don’t know what they are for. One participant comments: “ey (all) just look like black boxes with buttons on them and I can’t tell what I’m looking at!” Participant Response: Low Medium High Sd Max Mean Sd Min 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Figure 14: Participant mean rating response. 56.
  51. 51. Percentage Group Men Women of women 80% Low 1 4 Medium 15 5 25% High 3 1 25% Table 5: Percentage of women in groups. Improvements is study could be improved upon in the followings ways. e consistency between product images. Product A had a screen view in the picture which leads to increased fascination. Product C had side views included which strengthen its admiration. Product E is taken on a cluttered desk hence the product appears cluttered. ere was also an inconsistent scale of the pictures, which led certain participants to making ergonomic judgements of the products. e structure of the e-mail. e order of the products was the same for all the participants, which might have increased product A‘s fascination. As the participants had rate the emotions themselves, with no checking system in place, a few participants missed of rating desire (0 was assumed in these cases). Some participants also assumed that all the products were designed by the author or they were older Filmlight products. Participant’s emotional knowledge. As the participants rating their emotional response against the emotion as word, rather than as an animated character as found in the PrEmo tool, a few participants rated certain emotions unexpectedly. For example, two participants both expressed their satisfaction towards the product, in terms of their pleasant emotional a ratings and in their comments. However they both rated contempt, which one can assume they either don’t know what contempt means, they confused it with content or they didn’t express the reasons for this emotion in their comments. Other participants expressed negative thoughts in their comments and expressed positive ratings for pleasant emotions. 57.
  52. 52. Reflective Summary Noticeably, from the previous sections the multi faceted relationship between ‘design and emotion’ manifests itself within us all. For designers it is important that they have the ability to know how to bring about a product experience. e frequency of the papers referenced to ‘design and emotion’ suggests that the subject is a phase of interest to academics, when in fact it’s been around since the early 20th century. Designers can use their knowledge of ‘design and emotion’ in a positive way, instead of focusing on breeding luxury desires. Designers approach Designers, ethnographers4 and usability experts are overlapping each other instead of working in a linear approach. In this method designers have to invest more time and effort in building understanding about their users to realise a design which is suitable. For some designers this might seem uncomfortable to understand the user fully before a concept stage, as they need to hold back their desire to start designing, relying on their assumptions. Overall the tools available can help designers reach this understanding and in turn they can help confirm to there superiors why their design is suitable, using the PrEmo tool to bring hard facts to an emotional concept. Normans view (2006) regarding product greatness vs. a successful product is interesting. is may be the reason for bad products. If the team designs for greatness based upon a misguided vision it will lead to failure. us, the element of risk is apparent when you aspire to create a conceptual breakthrough; this is not surprising, as many of these products have failed. e best solution would be for the visionary to study relevant topics to ‘design and emotion’, so that they can make better valued judgments. Overall lowering the risk of a product failing. 4 Ethnography presents the results of a holistic research method founded on the idea that a system’s properties cannot necessarily be accurately understood independently of each other. (Wikipedia 2007) 58.
  53. 53. 59.
  54. 54. Design movement Kurtgozu (2003) touches on an important point that design thinking and movements follow economic ontology and cultural paradigms. He also points towards factors which are instigated under the start of a new movement. He states “Emergence of every new design movement closely resembles a rush of blood to the head, with very strong ideas based upon as yet articulated cultural assumptions. Each birth is premature in the sense that its raison d’etre is not yet understood and formulated even by its parents.” (Kurtgozu 2003 p53) is correlation between economic ontology and the design movement is not only interesting to provide reasoning behind previous movements. It also comes with message of caution towards ‘design and emotion’ compared to other papers. As he states “If it is to contribute towards a meaningful relationship between people and things at all, ‘design and emotion’ should resist this process by which emotions are turned into commodities.” His paper also raises the question, what will be the next design movement? Furthermore it suggests that designers should increase their knowledge of economics and consumer moods. is understanding consumer mood can be seen to be implemented by the film industry in the movies that are shown. Future of ‘design and emotion’ What lies ahead for ‘design and emotion’? From a succession of subsequent papers there seems to be a convergence of theories, as one influences the other. e simplification of an emotional framework will be good thing for designers, avoiding confusion and allowing them to work in a consistent framework. In turn, as Kurtgozu has shown the next design movement lies within the next economic ontology. Perhaps this will be a sustainable movement as ‘green products’ are becoming more relevant to our society, as the public catch on that they can’t continue to fulfil only immediate desires and should consider things on a long term impact. Basing what we know from the heightened bond between the user and object, this may provide an avenue for designers to express their knowledge and skill set. e designer of the future can ensure their design will perform its functions for a lifetime. However, they need to focus on the user maintaining their product for a lifetime too. 60.
  55. 55. 61.
  56. 56. References Cain J. (1998) ‘Experience-based design: Towards a science of Artful Busniess Innovation.’ Design management Journal Fall. 10 Carlson, R. (1997). Experienced cognition. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Curtis, A. Happiness Machines: Part 1, e century of the self, (2002). [TV], BBC2 17th March. Chapman, J. (2005). Emotionally durable design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy. London: Earthscan Publications Crossley, L. (2003). Building Emotions in Design, PDD group, e Design Journal, vol 6, iss 3, pp35-45 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). Why we need things Desmet, P. (2002). Designing Emotions. Netherlands: Delft University press Desmet, P. (2003). A multilayered model of product emotions, e design journal Vol 6 iss 2, pp4-13 Desmet, P., Weerdesteijn, J.M.W., and Gielen, M.A. (2005). Moving design: to design emotion through movement, e design journal Vol 8 issue 1, pp28-39 Dewey, J. (1971). e theory of emotion. Douglass, M.T. and Isherwood, B.C. (1979). e world of goods. New York: Basic Books. Easton, M. What makes you happy?: e happiness formula, (2007) [TV] BBC2 Ford, M.E. (1992). Motivating humans. London: Sage Publications Forlizzi, J. and Ford, S. (2000). e building blocks of experience Forlizzi, J., Disalvo, C., and Hanington, B. (2003) Emotion experience and the design of new products, e design journal, vol 6, iss 2, pp29-37 Frijda, N.H. (1994). Varieties of affect: emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. Hungerford, M. (1878) Molly Bawn Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. (1996). Re-Place-ing space: e role of place and space in collaborative systems. ACM Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support of Collaborative Work (CSCW) New York: ACM Jordan, P. (2002). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. London: Taylor & Francis Kurosu, M. and Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usablity: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability Kurtgozu, A. (2003). From function to emotion: a critical essay on the history of design arguments. e design journal, vol 6, iss 2, pp49-59 62.
  57. 57. Lundahl, D. (2006) A holistic approach to product development, Food technology November, pp28-33 McDonagh-Philp, D., and Lebbon, C. (2000). e Emotional domain in product design, e design journal vol 3 iss 1 pg 31-43 Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. and Schoormans, J. (2004). Personalising product appearance: e effect on product attachment, Delft university Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Norman, D. (2006).A discussion with Don Norman on what makes great design prt1: Icon-o-Cast by Lunar Design [Podcast] [http://phobos.apple.com/ WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=78230141&s=143444 19/08/ 2006] Robson, C. (1993). Real world research; A resource for social scientists and practitioner researchers, Oxford Roseman, I.J., and Smith, G.A. (2001). Appraisal theory: assumptions, varieties, controversies. Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. Whiteley, N. (1993). Design for society. London: Reaktion Books [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnographers [WWW] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_hopper [WWW] http://nikeid.nike.com 63.