Image from a photo by Alexis Brion

Logic and reason, I have to keep explaining, are wonderful virtues, but they are irrelevant in describing human behavior. Trying to prove a point through intelligent, reasonable argumentation is what I call the “engineer’s fallacy.” (Also, the economist’s fallacy.”) We have to design for the way people really behave, not as engineers or economists would prefer them to behave.

As designers who favor restraint and minimalism, Norman's thesis is frustrating: people say they want simplicity, but in practice they really don't.

But I think he has a good point. When most of us see less, our instinct is to think we're getting less; fewer features and less control. And paying more to (apparently) get less is bound to set off our BS detectors. Confronted between two options, we're bound to go with the more complex choice because of perceived value.

Norman isn't suggesting we give up on simplicity, but today he reminded me that while achieving it isn't easy, selling it is even harder.

Reading Paul’s post from Wednesday, I was reminded how much work is performed by the word "design" and how many domains it crosses over. Poynor stakes a claim for greater emphasis on the visual in design, but as Paul wisely points out, a lopsided account of the discipline is unproductive.

Certainly, the way something looks is important, but this isn’t the only criteria for a design. John Maeda writes:

[I]n Japanese there is the word sekkei, which connotes designing a mechanism, system, or technology with rationalized metrics for quality. Dezain, on the other hand, goes beyond an object’s function to how it makes us feel.

This seems to be the right idea. However, such a definition places no limitations on how sekkei or dezain are accomplished or in what proportion. Something that works well can make us feel good; it doesn’t necessarily have to look good. Similarly, as Donald Norman points out, something that looks good can make us think it works well. Both might be considered good designs by their users.

Read More...