Aesthetics and Interaction
My friend Carl pointed me to an interesting (and a bit provocative) article [pdf] by William Gaver. It has a great statement on the role of aesthetics in interaction design.
“Aesthetics and interaction are often treated as separate concepts in product design, a situation to which we strongly object. When they are separated, aesthetics are usually applied to making products desirable in appearance, while interaction design is preoccupied with usability, and particularly ‘ease of use’. While usability is often a laudable goal, is isn’t enough. Focusing on ease of use tends to encourage a narrow view of what ‘use’ is with respect to technology, emphasizing efficiency and productivity over exploration and curiosity. With a correspondingly narrow range of models for usability, interaction tends to be self-similar, mundane, and ultimately boring.
We believe that aesthetics and interaction are tightly interwoven, so that the aesthetics of a product must be shaped according to its functions and roles, and its interactions must be judged by their aesthetic qualities - both sensory and conceptual. This leads to an aesthetics of interaction, in which the emphasis shifts from an aesthetically controlled appearance to an aesthetically controlled interaction, of which appearance is a part. Aesthetics of interaction moves the focus from ease of use to enjoyment of the experience.
A requirement for an aesthetics of interaction is attention to the richness of a system’s appearance, interaction, and potential roles. By richness in appearance we mean that the product and its controls distinguish themselves through differentiation in form, material and texture. Richness in appearance can attract users to act through the expectation of a beautiful - or aesthetically powerful - interaction. By richness in interaction, we mean that the engagement user and system should have an interesting and variable flow. Different functions should be operated through different actions, and the timing of the system responses should be appropriate to the actions and functions involved. By richness in role, we mean that the systems appearance, interactions, and functions must reflect the potential sociocultural complexity of those using them. Devices play a role in their users’ lives, and imply the role of their users: through its appearance, interaction, and functionality, each product tells a story about its user and the relationship between them.
Users find enjoyment from a product’s combination of appearance, interaction, and roles. Current black boxes, designed for generic users and with rows and rows of similar looking controls which all require pushing, turning, or sliding lack richness in all three dimensions. In order to add appropriate complexity, methods are needed to explore different interaction possibilities and the potential complexities of users.”