Designing Happiness or Engendering Pleasure?

Don Norman's presentation for Ted Talks was shown in our design class last week. 

HAPPINESS OR PLEASURE?

I was intrigued by the notion of finding the happiness in design by observing human behavior in various circumstances:

- what increases happiness, 

- what is found to be pleasurable, 

- what is not, 

- and how those relationships work with (or against) each other. 

It's a vast concept, which is perhaps why, in the short time allotted, Norman doesn't really differentiate in his use of the terms happiness and pleasure. It appears that, at least for the sake of this speech, his definition(s) of pleasure and happiness are interchangeable, and yet we've known (ever since the Greek Philosophers) that happiness and pleasure are controversial bed-fellows. 

Think about his statement: "pleasant things work better." I would counter this with: "Better work is done with pleasant things." Yes, pleasant things bring happiness, but they are not the sum-total of what "makes" anyone happy. I've yet to find a situation where genuine happiness is summed up in pleasantries or tangible goods. 

I would propose that happiness comes from within; it is an inner balance, of which pleasure - [a more physical/sensual (as in, oriented to the senses) satisfaction] - is but a piece.

The user's perception and context ultimately define his sense of "pleasant". For example: If I’m a tightrope walker by trade, I’m not going to be terrified of walking a plank 300 feet in the air. My perception is not skewed and my behavior does not suffer because of my context - in this case, experience. Comprehension is all about context and behavior is almost entirely influenced by context, both of which ultimately condition us to seek that which we know, which we have known, and which we are comfortable with. 

THE IRONY

If we don’t take risks, however, we don’t live. There is (and this is in part what Norman addresses) a human NEED for risk, just as there is a human need for safety and comfort. Risk, fear, the unknown - all these sharpen the senses, fine-tune our perceptions and increase our drive for comfort and safety. This in turn heightens our awareness of our needs. Inner conflict helps us see our lives more sharply - as if in negative print - and engenders the ability to pursue the better, amend that which we see to be lacking - IN COMPARISON to that which we have gained from the risk/conflict/opposition and the fear/hesitance/inadequacy that it aroused. Our life context is enriched by risk.

Very roughly then, happiness can be found in keeping a running balance of risk and safety,  unknown and known, discomfort and comfort. Pleasure is only one aspect in this system of weights and balances. 

ALL THINGS IN MODERATION

Thanks to anxiety, moderation is very difficult for humans to achieve AND maintain. It's this same fear of the unknown that keeps us either chained to our work desk or addicted to thrill-seeking. Both are immoderate approaches to that life balance we all subconsciously seek.

Happiness is the number one human innate need. We all seek happiness, and we seek it from that which we perceive as good. If we do not see something to be good, or are not shown it in a way that enables us to perceive it as good, then we are not motivated to attain it. I believe that this is the ultimate point of Norman's talk: design presents an appeal to human perceptions of universal truths, thereby reminding one of a human need and instigating the impetus to attain that need, whether it be in an aesthetic or functional sense. Moreover, good design arrives at a solution that meets multiple needs at once (and presents this in an understandable way), effectively relieving the fear of the unknown WHILE eliminating the fear of the mundane, and striking *just* enough of a familiar contextual bell to create a balance between past associations and future promises of a better - and happier - life.

IN SUMMARY
 

And so, in the case of this video, I found it interesting to note that good design - in the context of one perceiving it as good - does indeed promote happiness, insofar as it this perception brings pleasure to the senses.

So, to recap, let us always consider:

1. the user's perception;

2. the user's context (--> and behavior thereby);

3. the user's needs (balanced lifestyle, more of X, less of Y, etc.)

4. the user's (in this case, consumer's) satisfaction or lack thereof within his own current context; and

5. the results of the above: a comprehensive understanding of the user, which can then play an active role in contributing to the happiness quotient of any design product.

OBJECTIFIED... subjectified

Thoughts upon completion of viewing the short film, Objectified

This video, to me, was a perfect example of design. Woven together in logical fashion, it presented a systematic portfolio of the many faces of design, not really defining it but doing exactly that - drawing attention to it’s multifaceted, elusive nature and it’s most important common denominator - humanity.

To me, design is about using the what is to create the what is not (and less commonly, in reverse). It is the process of artistic analysis, a symbiosis of nature and nurture, a philosophy of the tangible. Good design (and perhaps even more, bad design) is a reflection of it’s terroir, it’s domicile, it’s native tongue.

Design focuses on the PEOPLE

Good design aims to GIVE. It’s philanthropic.
To paraphrase Dieter Rams, good design is “innovative, useful, aesthetic, understandable, unobtrusive, honest, long-lasting, thorough, environmentally friendly... good design is as little design as possible.”

Good design is wised-up to the ways of man. It’s the old philosopher in the corner, there if you need him, a piece of the woodwork if not; never judging, adaptable to life’s circumstances and a treasure chest of lore and knowledge if you have the time and consideration to ask.

So today I'm going to the old man in the corner, I'm bringing my mug of coffee with me, and as I inhale the soft scent of tobacco, I ask you to join me in this...

...DIALOGUE WITH GOOD DESIGN

Q. Simply put: WHY? What is your purpose?
A. My purpose is to serve your purpose. I am here to help answer your why. I am part of your because.

Q. Jonathan Ive said that design should be inevitable. What is your take on that?
A. Insofar as life & death are inevitable, so am I. Good design lives and breathes, it virtually sings - a pleasant hum in the background of your daily life. This is the inevitable we all look for and that I am to achieve. Likewise, however, there’s bad design, and it’s just as inevitable as it’s twin (because really, it’s all about perspective - good design may be bad design to some, and vise versa). That’s the reality of human nature. But to answer your question, I’d say, yes, I’m inevitable, foregone. You couldn’t miss me even if you tried - like me or lump me, but please, spare me your indifference.

Q. This is going to sound like a funny question, but what is your opinion on your context & environment?
A. No, that’s not a funny question. I’d liken it to asking a bird to why it sings in a tree. That’s it’s home, and that’s what it does when it’s at home. And if you were able to ask a bird that, it’d probably look at you funnily, like, what’s up with that? Like DUH I sing at home! It’s what I do. Likewise, good design - and I’d like to think I’m good design - blooms where it’s planted. Sometimes it doesn't bloom and then you really have to ask WHY? - maybe it simply needs a different kind of soil to grow, or some kind of treatment to cure it’s sickness, mend it, make it better. Heck, even good design purrs when given spa treatment, so yeah. I’m all about context and environment. In fact, I am a factor in all contexts and in all environments.

Q. What makes design good or bad?
A. Ah! The loaded question. What “makes” anything good or bad? It’s purpose? It’s form? Or maybe, again, it’s context & environment? Maybe it’s a better approach to ask, in keeping with Tim Brown of IDEO, “what do people value? What do they need?” I think we can all agree that no one NEEDS bad in order to survive. But for every negative there’s got to be a positive. So it’s in comparison WITH something. And in that comparison is a teeter-totter, a system of weights & balances, the timeless - and eternal - shifts between good and evil.
That’s not to say bad design is evil. Quite the opposite, in fact. Bad design has an indirectly good purpose - to make good design look even better. Spend a week in your baby brother’s eggbeater of a car, and suddenly your Fiat seems a LOT more inviting than it did before. Bad design helps shift your perspective, to a degree, it’s the negative spaces around the “stuff” that is your life.
Ultimately, nothing really makes design good or bad - except you. Design is an intimate relationship; if it doesn’t suit you, then - from your perspective - there is a better design out there, somewhere. The act of actively choosing to find that better design in turn makes the previous design unsuitable, “bad”, unnecessary, disposable.
It’s incredible to me that we have gotten to the point where we can even deign to term anything “bad design”. It’s rather egotistical. Rather than saying, “I’m going to work to make this good design better” suddenly - it’s not good enough already, so it’s bad. I just don’t like the terminology. And yeah, perhaps one designer thinks democratic design is awful; but for those who use it - the democratic public, the populace - it’s enabling them to maybe spend more time with their kids, ‘cause picking out the chair on sale at Walmart was just one less thing they didn’t have to belabor.

Q. In closing, I’d like to hear your thoughts on your future. Where are you headed?
A. Ah. Who knows? That’s not really for me to answer. This much I can say, however. As the needs of the people change, so will I; as their needs remain timeless, so will I; and as long as there is humanity, I am here to serve it. The real answer to your question is, where are you headed? and that, my friends, should give you a much better idea of the future of design.