| I believe you are right, and I think one key difference at play is Donald Norman's idea of Affordances vs designers emphasis on emotional reaction. One is about making something naturally usable, and the other is about making an emotional connection. They are completely different goals applied to products. Coke's iconic bottle is not about affordance (though it does have good affordances) it is about signally fun, enjoyment, summer, etc. Coke has literally spent billions over decades to embed that emotional reaction in the American public. http://www.hnl.bcm.tmc.edu/cache/The%20Pepsi-Coke%20challeng... http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b41070892... Pour pepsi in a coke bottle and it 'tastes' better ...literally your brain reacts differently when examined with an MRI when you know you are drinking Coke. Apple's goal is to provoke the same emotional reaction with respect to their design language, and has also spent (billions?) doing so in commercials, actions and design choices over the last decade plus. No one is immune to this. I have a Mini Cooper. I love it. But it is a direct example of favoring emotion over affordance. As a specific example: There is a bank of identical dip switches just below the radio. They look cool, and fit with Mini's design language. They however have Negative affordance. The switches all feel the same ... "Am I opening a lock? Rolling down a window? Or turning on/off Dynamic Stability Control?" I don't know ... hopefully it isn't they dynamic stability control. And everything effects emotional connection. Mini's introduction of an SUV!?! My emotional connection to my own Mini is watered down by the company attempting to expand beyond the core idea providing that emotional connection. Is that rational? ... no. But it is real. My Mini still drives like a go kart, I haven't fallen out of love with it, but the existence of a Mini SUV does make me less likely to make excuses for its real failings. Favoring design language over affordance is the reason for the gut reaction people have when they complain that this has poor design. It is based on an emotional reaction, not on whether it works. Whether it works is entirely besides the point. If you design for emotional connection people look past actual usability problems. They may even make up fanciful explanations of why it is better (in the face of evidence) because they like it and want it to be better anyway. When you buy something to signal something about yourself there is an emotional need to defend it. Obviously affordance vs design is not entirely an either or proposition. It is best to have both. Sadly emotional reactions are influenced by extremes. Sacrificing usability to provide the signal of usability can be a successful strategy. Sacrificing the signal of usability to provide usability is a much more difficult proposition. |