Saturday rambling. Or: Gamma Girls. Beta Testers. Alpha Consumers.

MSN MobileTech:

These so-called "alpha consumers" are like alpha wolves; they lead the pack. What they wear, use, listen to, watch, eat, drink and think today sets the pattern for what the rest of us will be doing and consuming tomorrow....

So it's no surprise that [American] geography informs cool hunting's core principle: Cool begins at the edges and moves to the middle. No matter. The inhabitants of the middle won't know that; it's their fate always to be a few beats behind.

Or at least it was.... [Thanks to the internet,] these days, the migration of cool from alpha to follower can happen almost instantaneously, and it's the cool hunter who risks being a few beats behind.

Hence the profession's latest axiom: The edges are the middle.

Of course. It wouldn't be a trend without an axiom. The writer notes something resulting that to me seems a stretch because it's already occurring... like yesterday, dude.

Tyranny of Cool

If it's conceded that technology — in this case the Internet — has fundamentally altered cool's equation, the question arises: Can technology be similarly affected by the tyranny of cool? In other words, can a utility and the way it develops be driven by an esthetic?

Well, yea-uhh. From here, the article devolves into platitudes about brave new paradigmatic seachanging breakthroughs. Fine, we're done with this guy. On to...



Emotional Design: Why We Love (Or Hate) Everyday Things.
by Don Norman

From Publishers Weekly
Techno author Norman, a professor of computer science and cofounder of a consulting firm that promotes human-centered products, extends the range of his earlier work, The Design of Everyday Things, to include the role emotion plays in consumer purchases. According to Norman, human decision making is dependent on both conscious cognition and affect (conscious or subconscious emotion). This combination is why, for example, a beautiful set of old mechanical drawing instruments greatly appealed to Norman and a colleague: they evoked nostalgia (emotion), even though they both knew the tools were not practical to use (cognition). Human reaction to design exists on three levels: visceral (appearance), behavioral (how the item performs) and reflective. The reflective dimension is what the product evokes in the user in terms of self-image or individual satisfaction. Norman's analysis of the design elements in products such as automobiles, watches and computers will pique the interest of many readers, not just those in the design or technology fields. He explores how music and sound both contribute negatively or positively to the design of electronic equipment, like the ring of a cell phone or beeps ("Engineers wanted to signal that some operation had been done.... The result is that all of our equipment beeps at us")....

I don't have this, but have spent 30-minutes with a friend's copy. To me, as a business guy who wears a creative hat as well, many of the precepts Norman talks about are no-brainers. Since I have very little brain, maybe that's as it should be. But the reason Coke's original bottle or Gibson's Les Paul remain in the pantheon is because of their complementary style and substance adding up to a sum more than their parts--their design gives the feelings they evoke uniquely memorable "handles." But speaking of such things? Uggh. "I design for Me," goes the saying.

In this way, with this admission, comes a similar challenge to right-brain sensitivities that left-brainers feel when "touchy-feely" gets invoked in conversations about, I dunno, 960 nanometer fiber optic light pumps and their implications for the future of knowledge: Don't go there. This is "science," idiot.

Design (okay, the mysterious "they" really think Art here) is supposed to be removed from something as crass as convincing others to pry open their wallets. Ick! Money! Put it away! Alright, maybe designers don't mind money. But, gee, couldn't it be accompanied by the appropriate moment of silence for the craft and toil that went into the work? (Gotta amortize the pain and anguish of all those lectures on the Baroque Period and Dada.) Anyway, this mental/emotional tug of war makes me remember a huge fuss back in 1989, when I was just a salesman with a Communication Arts magazine subscription: Leading lights Joe Duffy and Michael Peters had merged their shops. They decided to take out an ad--GASP--in the Wall Street Journal. The headline, if I remember right, was:

Here's why two guys with design degrees can do more for your company than a conference room full of MBAs.

Outrage ensued, probably similar to when the first Breast Augmentation surgeons decided to advertise because no woman understood what a Boob Job meant for them. Now we have Pamela Anderson. Michael Beirut, on the group blog Design Observer recalls 1989's AIGA conference and a mock fight, partly prompted by the ad, between Duffy and Tibor Kalman over the meaning of design: Should art meet commerce? Are they allowed to get along? Can we say it out loud?

Beirut, in his post has a beauty recollection of the conundrum in those early schism years of Good design's burgeoning embrace of "the machine"--he directed it to Kalman and Duffy:

“It seems to me that both of you do the same thing, except Tibor feels guilty about it.”

Pariah! Burn the witch! It's a very good post, go read it. Just remember, if you count numbers for a living, or pride yourself on reigning in all the "fuzzy" thinkers in your shop: You may think it's all about business and process; they think you wouldn't have anything to count if it weren't for Good design and the mighty struggle. You're both right. And you're both probably just a little too righteous in your certitude and fencebuilding. But hey, that's part of the art. Of the deal.

Hmmm. I seem to recall some ads from long ago, similar dynamic--INSERT WAVY FLASHBACK LINES HERE....



Phew. I am old, not even a www yet.