Interaction Theory Blog Post #9

How do designers meet people's emotional needs? What techniques do we use? Is it okay to sometimes ignore the emotional layer and focus only on function? If so, when? 

Upon first reading this blog assignment, I immediately thought of tools and this one particular scene in the I.D. documentary Objectified where a designer from Smart Design is discussing a pair of hedge clippers. Do tools ignore people's emotional needs and only focus on function in their design? The designer from Smart Design explored several existing designs for hedge clippers and explained the negatives of each (obviously whichever design Smart Design created would ultimately be the best hedge clippers ever made). She discussed how the ergonomics of the clippers created frustration, which is a pretty strong emotion. So even if the design of the clippers ignored emotion and only focused on functionality, its inept design created frustration in the user. Ultimately, this design could not avoid an emotional layer in the user experience. 

There are a great number of designers who do ignore the emotional layer and only focus on function but when you have an interaction that involves humans, there is no getting around the emotional component. Even if someone claims to be indifferent to a design, if a product like a tool for example, works well, that person is satisfied and most likely happy with the design even if it is a subconscious happiness. Design utilizes psychology and an understanding of human behavior to explore what humans value. This is done through careful research, user-testing, and creating iteration upon iteration. Going back to tools and its place on the spectrum of function vs. emotion, the company OXO comes to mind.  The founder of the company, Sam Farber, noticed that his wife was having trouble gripping kitchen tools because of the arthritis that was developing in her hands. He decided to create comfortable cooking tools for all users, not just those developing arthritis. But clearly Farber was inspired by sympathy for his wife's condition and the frustration she was experiencing. In this particular case, emotion inspired a highly functional design, which leads me to believe that no matter how devoid of emotion a design is intended to be, it never truly can be.

Interaction Theory Blog Post #10

What is the next frontier for interaction designers? What needs interaction design but doesn't currently know it?

I am writing this last blog post from New York where I will be spending my summer interning for a designer named Diana Eng. She is a fashion designer who works with technology and this internship seems like an apropos place for exploring my own interest in technology in unexpected and potentially ubiquitous areas. A subject that I've made reference to before is my interest in fashion and technology. On a larger scale, I'm really interested in materiality and technology and using technology to highlight unique everyday interactions. I do not particularly want to be a fashion designer but what is currently happening in the field of textiles, fashion and technology has peaked my interest. The potential for interaction design in materials research and product development for textiles, clothing, accessories, and home goods is beginning to emerge but a large majority of the people working in these fields are unaware of interaction design's existence and its incredible potential.

The first video that I've posted below is of Diana Eng discussing a project that she worked on called Fairytale Fashion which she created in conjunction with Eyebeam Atelier in New York. This project focused on using technology to make seemingly impossible concepts from Fairytales deployable in everyday life.  The second video is of a project that Adidas worked on that uses an interaction between body movement, a pair of sneakers, and a computer to create music. These two projects use whimsy and imagination to inspire delightful designs that push the boundaries of interaction design.