 |
 |
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012, PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > There are 8 messages totaling 918 lines in this issue. > > Topics of the day: > > 1. designing for emotions, for values or for meanings? (3) > 2. Please trim the tails of prior posts > 3. Post Open; POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCHER in the field of Costume Design Aalto > University Finland > 4. Designing the unfinished (3) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 01:11:42 +0200 > From: "Waart, P. van" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: designing for emotions, for values or for meanings? > > Dear Francesca, > > Edgar Rodriguez-Ramirez already recommended Pieter Desmet's work, as I > would have. Im doing my PhD research right now on Designing Meaningful > Technology in which I focus on human values. According to the appraisal > theory, I see values as a type of concern. Emotions and values are ten > related. > > I remember Modell writing that "emotions are somatic markers of values". > Meaning is what one assigns to phenomena. Things have more meaning to > one when things are directed to ones values. About meaning from out a > business/branding perspective, I can recommend the book Making Meaning > (Shedroff et al.). The authors distinct values from meanings. Also Brand > Meaning (Batey) is explaining how brand can be of meaning to people when > directed to ones values. > > Best regards, > > Peter van Waart > > Modell, A.H. (2006). Imagination and the Meaningful Brain. Cambridge: > MIT Press. > Shedroff, N. Diller, S. & Rhea, D. (2006). Making Meaning: How > Successful Businesses Deliver Meaningful Customer Experiences. New > Riders Publishing. > > > > _ > Senior Lecturer - School of Communication, Media and Information > Technology (CMI) > Researcher Human Centered ICT - Knowledge Center Creating010 > Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool Rotterdam) > _ > PhD candidate - Delft University of Technology > _ > P.O. Box 25035, 3001 HA Rotterdam, The Netherlands > Pieter de Hoochweg 129, 3024 BG Rotterdam, The Netherlands > T: +31 (0)10 794 65 41 > M: +31 (0)6 248 70 988 > [log in to unmask] > _ > vanwaart.com > linkedin.com/in/petervanwaart > studiolab.ide.tudelft.nl/studiolab/vanwaart > @petervanwaart >>>> francesca zampollo <[log in to unmask]> 05/07/12 1:16 PM >>>> > Dear All, > > > I am reflecting on the difference (if any) between designing for > emotions, > for values or for meanings. I would really appreciate your view on this > ‘triangle’. > > > > Briefly: Emotional design says that designers should understand how > products/services are experienced in order to understand the importance > of > emotions. Designers should therefore design in order to elicit certain > emotions. > > > There is also research on the importance of a product’s value. For > example > there is who thinks that the producer adds value to the product through > the > different stages of the design process, manufacturing and distribution > (Porter, > 1985). Boztepe (2007) argues that relating value to design one should > consider the use of the product because, as Heskett (2002) notes, it is > difficult to consider utility/use and significance/meaning of an object > separately. An experientialist approach in fact considers value as being > created at the interface of the product and the user (Frondizi, > 1971)because ‘value resides not in the product purchased, not in the > brand > chosen, not in the object possessed but rather in the consumption > experience derived therefrom’ (from Boztepe, 2007; Holbrook, 1999, p. > 8). > > > And finally Verganti shows how radical innovation is driven by meaning > change (Verganti, 2009). (This is for me the core of Verganti’s > contribution, so I won’t expand on this third point, hoping the reader > will > be familiar with it) > > > (note: I have not included designing for experiences because I consider > the > experience the process that transforms interactions into an outcome: > emotions, knowledge, memories) > > > > > What I’m trying to understand, and what I would like your opinion on, is > this: do these three ‘design goals’ actually exist? Or are we talking > about > the same thing (designing ‘beyond the object’ (Redstorm, 2006))? > > > Is there a difference between designing for (focusing the design on) > values > or meanings? Or are these two different words for the same concept? > > > Also: considering Norman’s (Norman, 2004; Ortony, Norman, & Revelle, > 2005)analysis of the affective system (divided into reactive (or > visceral) > level, routine (or behavioural) level, and reflective level), where > emotions are the final outcome of the human-product interaction, when > are > meanings attributed to the product? When are If designing for meanings is the contemporary design ‘trend’, why is it > so? > I understand why a radical change in meaning can produce radical > innovation, so I do understand why one should choose to pursue that. But > my > question is related to the way we experience a product that presents a > radical change in meaning. What happens in the affective system? When > does > the radical meaning ‘affect’ the experience of the product? Is there a > psychological/cognitive reason why designers should design for meanings? > (as there was for designing for emotions?) > > > > > I really hope the extensive knowledge and expertise of many you could > help > me tackle this point. > > Thank you! > > > > Boztepe, S. (2007). User Value: Competing Theories and Models. > *International > Journal of Design, 1*(2), 55-63. > > Frondizi, R. (1971). *What is value?* LaSelle, IL: Open Court. > > Heskett, J. (2002). *Toothpicks and Logos: Design in Everyday Life.* New > York: Oxford University Press. > > Holbrook, M. B. (Ed.). (1999). *Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis > and Research.* New York Routledge. > > Norman, D. A. (2004). *Emotional Design. Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday > Things*. New York: Basic Books. > > Ortony, A., Norman, D. A., & Revelle, W. (2005). The role of affect and > proto-affect in effective functioning. In J. M. Fellous & M. A. Arbib > (Eds.), *Who needs emotions? The brain meets the machine.* New York: > Oxford > University Press. > > Porter, M. E. (1985). *Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining > Superior Performance.* New York: Free Press. > > Redstorm, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to > user > as the subject of design. *Design Studies, 27*(2), 123-137. > > Verganti, R. (2009). *Design-Driven Innovation. Changing the rules of > competition by radically innovating what things mean.* Boston, > Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > Francesca > > > > > *Francesca Zampollo* > > PhD Student – London Metropolitan University > > Organizer and Chair of International Conference on Designing Food and > Designing for Food. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:25:14 +0800 > From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: designing for emotions, for values or for meanings? > > Dear Francesca, > > Good question. Wondering what the problem is that your research seeks to > resolve? > > What seems to be missing in your query is reference to causal understanding > about how humans create emotions, derive values and make meaning. > > Without this knowledge and body of theory, any analysis following your > question is likely to reach only to the superficial aspects of psychology. > > The foundation knowledge needed to make sense of your questions lies at the > intersection of the realms of 'practical application of biological > understanding of human psychological functioning (cognitive neuroscience) > and ethology (understanding the behaviour of human animals in terms of the > way that their physiological evolution has shaped the detail of how they > interact with their ecological contexts. > > Authors I suggest initially to look to in these areas include Damasio (esp. > 'The feeling of what happens' and 'Descartes' Error'), most of Daniel > Dennett ( - for a nice take on Design read the box in 'Personal Life' on his > wiki page), Bastick (Intuition, how we think and act - buy it!), Darwin (on > emotion in animals), Lorenz (fixed action patterns), Tinbergen (his four > questions), Bowlby (on child development), Bronfenbrenner.... > > These together help provide a foundational causal theory context to answer > your query. > > Another way to get to a similar point is to rephrase the content of your > query, while maintaining the same form, e.g.: > > 'Leaves are green, roses are red, and pumpkins are yellow. Why? Are they > the same thing?' > > Answering this parallel query well requires much deeper knowledge than > graphic design theories about colour wheels. Similarly, it suggests > answering your initial query well requires a more fundamental understanding > of human functioning and how it underpins how humans perceive their > emotion, judge value, create meaning - and behave as a result. Reasoning > about designs and design outcomes then follows naturally. > > Best wishes, > Terry > == > Dr Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI > Love Design and Research > PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks > Western Australia 6030 > [log in to unmask] > +61 (0)4 3497 5848 > = > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related > research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of francesca > zampollo > Sent: Monday, 7 May 2012 7:05 PM > To: Dr Terence Love > Subject: designing for emotions, for values or for meanings? > > Dear All, > > > I am reflecting on the difference (if any) between designing for emotions, > for values or for meanings. I would really appreciate your view on this > 'triangle'. > > > > Briefly: Emotional design says that designers should understand how > products/services are experienced in order to understand the importance of > emotions. Designers should therefore design in order to elicit certain > emotions. > > > There is also research on the importance of a product's value. For example > there is who thinks that the producer adds value to the product through the > different stages of the design process, manufacturing and distribution > (Porter, 1985). Boztepe (2007) argues that relating value to design one > should consider the use of the product because, as Heskett (2002) notes, it > is difficult to consider utility/use and significance/meaning of an object > separately. An experientialist approach in fact considers value as being > created at the interface of the product and the user (Frondizi, 1971)because > 'value resides not in the product purchased, not in the brand chosen, not in > the object possessed but rather in the consumption experience derived > therefrom' (from Boztepe, 2007; Holbrook, 1999, p. 8). > > > And finally Verganti shows how radical innovation is driven by meaning > change (Verganti, 2009). (This is for me the core of Verganti's > contribution, so I won't expand on this third point, hoping the reader will > be familiar with it) > > > (note: I have not included designing for experiences because I consider the > experience the process that transforms interactions into an outcome: > emotions, knowledge, memories) > > > > > What I'm trying to understand, and what I would like your opinion on, is > this: do these three 'design goals' actually exist? Or are we talking about > the same thing (designing 'beyond the object' (Redstorm, 2006))? > > > Is there a difference between designing for (focusing the design on) values > or meanings? Or are these two different words for the same concept? > > > Also: considering Norman's (Norman, 2004; Ortony, Norman, & Revelle, > 2005)analysis of the affective system (divided into reactive (or > visceral) > level, routine (or behavioural) level, and reflective level), where emotions > are the final outcome of the human-product interaction, when are meanings > attributed to the product? When are meanings created? Just after emotions > have been elicited, or simultaneously? > > > If designing for meanings is the contemporary design 'trend', why is it so? > I understand why a radical change in meaning can produce radical innovation, > so I do understand why one should choose to pursue that. But my question is > related to the way we experience a product that presents a radical change in > meaning. What happens in the affective system? When does the radical meaning > 'affect' the experience of the product? Is there a psychological/cognitive > reason why designers should design for meanings? > (as there was for designing for emotions?) > > > > > I really hope the extensive knowledge and expertise of many you could help > me tackle this point. > > Thank you! > > > > Boztepe, S. (2007). User Value: Competing Theories and Models. > *International Journal of Design, 1*(2), 55-63. > > Frondizi, R. (1971). *What is value?* LaSelle, IL: Open Court. > > Heskett, J. (2002). *Toothpicks and Logos: Design in Everyday Life.* New > York: Oxford University Press. > > Holbrook, M. B. (Ed.). (1999). *Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and > Research.* New York Routledge. > > Norman, D. A. (2004). *Emotional Design. Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday > Things*. New York: Basic Books. > > Ortony, A., Norman, D. A., & Revelle, W. (2005). The role of affect and > proto-affect in effective functioning. In J. M. Fellous & M. A. Arbib > (Eds.), *Who needs emotions? The brain meets the machine.* New York: Oxford > University Press. > > Porter, M. E. (1985). *Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining > Superior Performance.* New York: Free Press. > > Redstorm, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user > as the subject of design. *Design Studies, 27*(2), 123-137. > > Verganti, R. (2009). *Design-Driven Innovation. Changing the rules of > competition by radically innovating what things mean.* Boston, > Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. > > > > > > > > Sincerely > > Francesca > > > > > *Francesca Zampollo* > > PhD Student - London Metropolitan University > > Organizer and Chair of International Conference on Designing Food and > Designing for Food. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:03:32 +0100 > From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Please trim the tails of prior posts > > Friends, > > Today, the list carried an extremely interesting query followed by half a dozen interesting and useful replies. The replies ALSO carried the entire original post again, again, again, again ... No matter how interesting the original post or the response, repeating the first post six times does not make it six times better or more valuable. > > Can't we do a little better with this? Trimming away the post to which six people reply makes a better and more readable list, especially for those who take the list in digest format. > > Ken Friedman > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 10:30:25 +0200 > From: Harold Nelson <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: designing for emotions, for values or for meanings? > > Dear Francesca > > Since some of the best and brightest in design science are migrating into the growing realm of the 'science of desire' the question for designers remains I believe: "what emotions, meanings, values, experiences etc. do people desire to have and who are you as a designer willing to collude with to make them a reality?" > > Regards > > Harold > EMAIL ADDRESS FOR Harold Nelson: > > > > [log in to unmask] > > (secondary email: [log in to unmask]) > > On May 7, 2012, at 1:05 PM, francesca zampollo wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> >> I am reflecting on the difference (if any) between designing for emotions, >> for values or for meanings. I would really appreciate your view on this >> ‘triangle’. >> >> >> >> Briefly: Emotional design says that designers should understand how >> products/services are experienced in order to understand the importance of >> emotions. Designers should therefore design in order to elicit certain >> emotions. >> >> >> There is also research on the importance of a product’s value. For example >> there is who thinks that the producer adds value to the product through the >> different stages of the design process, manufacturing and distribution (Porter, >> 1985). Boztepe (2007) argues that relating value to design one should >> consider the use of the product because, as Heskett (2002) notes, it is >> difficult to consider utility/use and significance/meaning of an object >> separately. An experientialist approach in fact considers value as being >> created at the interface of the product and the user (Frondizi, >> 1971)because ‘value resides not in the product purchased, not in the >> brand >> chosen, not in the object possessed but rather in the consumption >> experience derived therefrom’ (from Boztepe, 2007; Holbrook, 1999, p. 8). >> >> >> And finally Verganti shows how radical innovation is driven by meaning >> -- Lynn Dombrowski Human Centered Computing and Design University of California - Irvine www.lynndombrowski.com