This is Kamimori from the design department.
The other day, I was eating some high-quality chocolate with a high cocoa content that I had purchased from a certain famous store.
To be honest, it didn't taste good no matter how you look at it. It wasn't sweet, it was bitter, and it smelled a bit like pickles... (laughs)
This luxury chocolate was sweet, creamy, and made me forget all my troubles; it was far from my idea of "chocolate."
Black Thunder is definitely more delicious.
However, the people around me were delighted and said, "It's delicious!"
There's no way it's delicious. What kind of palate does he have? I was surprised.
At the same time, I wondered why there was such a divide in opinions.
What is each person's definition of delicious?
I'm going to look into this.
Surprisingly, I began to see some similarities with web design.
This time, I would like to explain the definition of "good design" from the perspective of "delicious chocolate."
Four factors that make food taste good
"Definition of 'Tasty'" by Yoichiro Kanno, Product and Technology Development Group, General Research Institute, Ozeki Co., Ltd. (http://www.sbj.or.jp/wp-content/uploads/file/sbj/9104/9104_biomedia_4.pdf )
According to the study, the factors that make something taste good can be divided into four categories.
"Physiologically delicious"
It is the sensation of feeling that tastes that contain nutrients necessary for the body are delicious, and it occurs as a phenomenon similar to the desire for salt after sports.
"Cultural delights"
It is the sensation of enjoying the flavors that we have been accustomed to since childhood; this is what we call "mother's cooking."
"Deliciousness through information"
This is the feeling one has when given information that something is high-class or authentic, and an example of this is what is considered to be a "connoisseur's taste."
"Addictively delicious"
This sensation is felt when we eat things like sugar or oil that directly stimulate the nerves in the brain, with potato chips being a prime example.
If we apply these four categories to the luxury chocolate we discussed the other day, the people who said it was "delicious" would be:
- I was hungry ( physiologically )
- I am used to this taste ( culturally )
- It's probably delicious because it's high-quality chocolate ( informational )
- Oil and sugar give pleasure to the nerves ( nervous )
Or maybe it's "delicious" out of the four ratios.
For me, the taste was so unfamiliar that I judged it to be "not tasty," but if I was really hungry (physiological), or it was something familiar to me (cultural), or I was really into trends (informational), or I was a sugar junkie (neurological), I would have found it "delicious."
I see, the factors that make something taste "delicious" can be divided into four categories, and the proportion of each varies from person to person. Now that I understand this, something else piqued my interest.
Doesn't this categorization of "delicious" also apply to design?
Just as each person has their own definition of "delicious," I think each person also has their own definition of "good design." Understanding this may make your job easier.
This has gotten long, but here is the main point (laughs).
Applying this to design and thinking about it
Even with one design, people have different opinions about whether it is good or bad, what they like or dislike,
We have applied the perspective of "delicious" mentioned earlier to design and categorised it into four categories.
(This is purely my own classification.)
Applying the four categories to "design"
"Physiologically sound design"
Things that are designed with an emphasis on human innate senses, such as comfort and ease of use. For example, a comfortable chair made with ergonomics in mind, or things that babies who do not have the common sense of human society can't help but play with, such as toys that make you want to push them or pull them.
"Culturally sound design"
The design is based on a sense that things that we come into contact with regularly and are familiar to us are good, depending on the culture of the country where we were born and raised, and the surrounding environment. Perhaps we feel comfortable with familiar decorations and tools that we are used to using.
"Informative design"
Designs that are considered good from an information perspective are likely to be good if they are made by famous designers or companies. This could also be called brand power.
"Neurologically sound design"
...A design that directly affects the brain and nervous system. What is it about addictive design?
I'm not entirely sure about this. Is it a propaganda strategy used by the former Soviet Union? Maybe it's something like brainwashing people.
It seems that the four categories of "delicious" also apply to design (probably).
This is not just true for design, but I believe it is a major factor that determines whether we like something or not.
Digging deeper into web design
Since the four categories of "delicious" seem to apply to design as well, I would like to dig a little deeper into the topic by relating it to my job, web design.
Applying the four categories to "Web design"
"Physiologically Good Web Design"
This could be "pleasant web design" that provides comfort, such as the natural human feeling of well-being, or "web design that makes you want to use it" that arouses or fulfills desires.
A design that allows users to use it naturally, without making them burdened with having to think about or remember how to use it, can be said to be "good web design" that makes good use of physiological factors.
"Culturally Good Web Design"
This may be a deep-rooted factor. It is something that is ingrained in our senses regardless of our own will. If we have a sense that familiar designs are good, we tend to be confused by unfamiliar designs. What is common and highly regarded in one place may not be understood at all in another. There is no way that my mother, who is almost 60 years old, would understand the designs that I think are the coolest.
In web design, the header is at the top, you scroll down from top to bottom to view the page, and the local navigation is on the left. These are standards, unspoken understandings, and habits that apply to this.
In particular, when designing a website, web designers should think about who their target users are. If they assume that the users will be people of a certain age,
It seems that UI designers often take cultural factors into consideration, such as adopting a fairly common UI and avoiding something too innovative that requires learning and getting used to it.
"Information-oriented web design"
For example, when I see a design by a famous designer, I think, "That's what I expected." Or, I might decide that it's a good design even before I see it. However, even if an unknown designer creates a design of the same quality, I think there are times when I can't understand it unless I'm explained to them. Even within the company, it's easier for ideas to be accepted if they are submitted through my superiors than if I, a newbie, submit them (laughs).
"Neurologically sound web design"
If there is a design method that directly affects the brain and nervous system, companies would have no choice but to use it. They may already be using it. However, just like thinking that potato chips are delicious but bad for your health, so you should avoid them, it seems that the recipients will also be able to exercise self-restraint.
In my opinion, even if this design technique existed, I don't think it should be used. It would be a little scary if a chef served addictive food. It's similar to that feeling.
But maybe it's okay if the recipient is ultimately happy. Sorry, I was overthinking it.
This idea may be useful for work & Summary
Based on this classification of "good design," we thought about what we could do.
What comes to mind is that by gaining insight into the thinking and personalities of end users and clients, we may be able to create more satisfying designs.
It might be a good idea to represent the four categories in a barometer diagram and think about what you should emphasize, such as physiological benefits in this case and cultural benefits in this case.
Also, even though everyone on the project, including the client, is aiming for "good design," there are often differences of opinion because each person has a different sense of what "good design" is, and it exists in many different forms. Therefore, if everyone involved in the project can reach a common understanding of "what constitutes 'good design'" based on these four classifications, the production process will go more smoothly and the quality will be different.
Another thing I personally think is that good and bad, likes and dislikes are different for each person, so try to question whether what you think is good is really good. This is because you may be looking at things culturally or informationally without even realizing it. I think that questioning your own sense will give you more room to listen to the other person's opinion. When working on a project as a team, you should listen to the opinions of your team members, and then demonstrate your own sense of what you think is "good."
Also, the more experienced you are, the more likely you are to lose sight of doubting yourself. This is because the people around you evaluate you based on information (only if it's a good evaluation). Trust sounds good, but I hope you can pursue truly good design without relying on information to see you.
I never thought a single piece of chocolate would make me think so much.
I will remember this every time I see chocolate.
モノサスアーカイブ