It seems to me that visual appeal gives the appearance of professionalism and that uability works on a more subtle level; that is, the former is like the impression one makes with their attire or haircut, and the latter is the impression that one makes via interactions such as conversation.

I guess what I am learning from this is that the design must take both usability and visual appeal as part of the overall solution.

Very good stuff here, thanks.

Cognitive process, methods of learning, perception; these are the things that lie at the heart of this subject. If you have time and are interested and haven’t already read his book try reading Donald Norman’s article which touches on this: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Emotion-and-design.html (an essay from Interactions Magazine). Really just more food for thought!

The point of the article was that we shouldn’t use this study in the way that it has been used: as evidence that credibility is based mostly on visuals alone, and therefore as some way to promote “visual” design (at the expense of usability).

As Norman points out, we often have one without the other (pleasurable but not usable) or (usable but not pleasurable), but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Norman says…

‘I can hear it now: “Hey, Norman says it’s OK to be pretty,” and off people go, feeling free to ignore decades of work by the usability community. That’s the wrong lesson to learn from this essay.’

This is about balance, after all. But I was arguing against a pendulum, remember? And pendulums are forever swinging away from something, and thus never balanced.

Sounds like democracy really.

The good thing is that as individuals we don’t have to strive for the popular vote or take some polarized viewpoint to show differentiation and maintain our position of power. We have the privileged position of being able to exercise personal and independent choice – as individuals we don’t have to live by this pendulum of which you speak.

I think this supports my skepticism surrounding the first study. Familiarity (with both the site and content) is critical in how people judge web credibility.

Yeah, you’ll say, but how do you measure complexity and order? More recently, John G. Byrne , from the Department of Computer Science in Trinity College, published his findings in a brilliant paper in which the formulae for the measurements are presented. I’m no mathematician, but Birkhoff´s formula has haunted me since the time I was dabbling in Information Theory in the 60s.

It seems to me that the discussion about design has to start further back, into aesthetics, before we can really get down to essencials. Is it possible to apply standards to beauty? You bet! It’s being done since we were cavemen.

I recently bought two sofas. One for my family room and one for my living room. Although the one for the family room is very attractive in its own right, comfort was more important. It is the sofa we curl-up on to watch TV and the kids jump all over it while playing.

The sofa in the living room, while being comfortable was purchased more for the looks. This is the room where we entertain and wanted a certain look.

The first sofa bought for function and the second bought more for the form. A designer thought about each sofa and not necessarily the user, but the purpose for which it would be used.

Fashion and architecture would provide many examples as well.

Even in a book written in 1972 by graphic design pioneer Wucius Wong (Principles of Two Dimensional Design) introduced the subject by defining ‘design’, in which he states ‘creations should not only be aesthetic but also functional, while reflecting or guiding the taste of the time’.

So my long-winded reaction to this article is why argue design vs usability when the two are intrinsically linked?