Sunday, February 3, 2013

Cars Might Develop like how Babies Start Winking (First Readings Part I)



Design in objects relate infinitely closer to our humanity than we may think.

Objects are all around us, and objects have all been plotted out, or designed for specific purposes or meanings. This semester, I will be conducting an independent study at Columbia College Chicago to dig deeper into aesthetic decisions in design. My first two readings for my independent study on aesthetics and styling have been a chapter called “Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles” from Don Norman’s Living with Complexity and the first chapter from Deyan Sudjic’s The Language of Things.

Some things I noticed about this first reading is that it related evolution in nature to the evolution of designed objects. I was surprised at first to find that we have a lot of comparisons to draw between the development of designed things, say the shoe, the raincoat or the personal computer, and the development of nature. Some may have contrary points of world view, but in Don Norman’s eyes, a large part of the endlessness of design is the endless improvement illustrated in the theory of evolution. Our bodies and minds are said to be the result of countless years of adjustments and improvements, which bring us to the understanding of communication though expression. Our designed machines, on the other hand, are a product of only a century or less of adjustments and refinement. What has matured over ages is now attempting to communicate with something that is practically a baby. 

His argument makes sense about how designed objects lack necessary communication that humans have after years of evolving. He primarily discusses the need for our ever-increasingly complex machines to function more like humans do. Our computers are frustrating because they do not provide feedback that people innately give us, and we cannot read the machine or gauge their status like we read weariness in our dog. 

“Unfortunately, the machines have no way of learning from the experience, you can't spank them and send them to bed, nor is there the equivalent of a note to the parent. As a result, when trouble next strikes, the same rowdy behavior reappears” (Norman 156)

Norman goes on to say that understanding intentions is an important part of communication, and this is effectively done through turn signals on cars.

“Social interaction is enhanced when the participants know not only what is happening at the moment, but what will happen. Of all the signals of the automobile, only the turn signals announce intentions.” (Norman 156)

His writing seems to call out the need for social harmony between people and objects. This was referred to as “graceful interaction.” In a purely functional way, turn signals are a large step towards graceful interaction between machines and humans. This was interesting in regards to semantics and user interface thinking. However, I didn’t really learn much about the aesthetic qualities of things beyond their purely functional aspect. I think there still is some more to study in regards to the emotional expression of designed objects. Its one thing to have a turn signal to use, but what determines the graphic form of it? Is it even important to think about, or is it irrelevant in the grand scheme of priorities? I’m sure we could do without fancy taillights, just as long as the communicate their use. But what happens to creativity? Is there any link between the beauty of a person and the beauty of communication with them? Could I get shivers from talking to a woman who does modeling and also get shivers when a new Ferrari pulls up behind me at a light? I don’t really know. Is that even important?

Well, as I think about it, what happens when one gets shivers from talking to a beautiful woman, is there some meaning behind that nervousness? Perhaps there is a weight when beholding that person, especially when you hold their attention. Its like a glorious thing is beholding your existence, and you don’t know whether or not they like that you exist. Its very pessimistic, and yes it is an issue of acceptance, but also it is basically using that other beautiful person for your own success as a person. 

Just thinking about it this far makes me realize that no, you could never get shivers in the same way by being in front of a Ferrari, because that car has no way of accepting you or not. However, the way you view the woman can be compared to how you view the Ferrari. You may feel a shiver when seeing a Ferrari because you want to be worthy of the success it brings to you the same way a model would bring, but, it itself will not express acceptance. Its one thing to impress a beautiful woman and have other people impressed that you impressed her. Its another to impress a car. That is an impossible thing. However, you can use the car to impress other people like you used the impressed girl to impress others. 


Bibliography: Norman, Donald A. "Chapter 11: Turn Signals Are the Facial Expressions of
    Automobiles." Living with Complexity. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2010. N. pag.Jnd.org. Web. 2 Feb.  
    2013.

No comments:

Post a Comment