The idea of desirability in product design seems at first glance so obvious, but reading the Framework of Product Experience highlights the high level of intention, research/analytics and scholarship in design that is not as apparent when initially viewing product. Furthermore, the piece helps to remind me of product designs interdisciplinary nature— due to so many possibilities of experiences, it requires engineering, marketing, ergonomic and aesthetic skills.
As a graduate student studying the design in the built environment, I particularly found this piece to be enlightening. It made posit the the behavioral tendencies toward architecture and how aesthetics of pleasure is what creates a sense of place causing one to avoid, approach or dislike. That place can elicit an emotional response and attach meaning. A place’s positive emotional response is likely what causes people seek out destinations for multiple times.
I appreciated the break down of experience into categories: aesthetic, experience of meaning and emotional experiences. As a a designer, I really think about the desirable nature of product or built place and how someone will respond to emotionally. I didn’t consider what someone will take it to mean. In thinking about the What I’ve Got postings, I posted largely products that have high usability for recreation (climbing Gri Gri, super-pedestrian wheel, foldable helmet, Nike self-lacing shoe, etc.). In really thinking about the Nike Hyperlapse shoe, I am reminded of the potential emotional meaning that the product could have for people who have an impairment. Products like Siri or self-lacing shoes, can give some increased abilities or independence. Thus, these products may really have incredibly experience of meanings. In thinking of challenges, I think about the Simplify app, I created that could cause a behavioral change. It’s interesting to think about possible negative responses.
At what point the design process does the aesthetic and ergonomics become key in the product design?