<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Emotional design and social interfaces</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/</link>
	<description>Leaflet of Musings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:42:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Chloe</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator>Chloe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-485</guid>
		<description>(sorry, the dates/numbers of comments is messed up because I just installed Disqus and it didn&#039;t auto-add the old comments)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(sorry, the dates/numbers of comments is messed up because I just installed Disqus and it didn&#39;t auto-add the old comments)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chloe</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator>Chloe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-484</guid>
		<description>@Nick: I had more non-gadget-like objects in mind as it would be easier to build these small enhancements and somehow attach it to them, not to mention that they have greater affordances for low-res enhancements. With electronic gadgets (mobiles, cars, mp3 players, etc) however, I think people will expect them to be built in, not attached to its surface. With cars though, it’s probably easier to form an emotional bond to it, because (and you see this in movies a lot! dunno about actual life :)) people travel with others and have memories of their friends or family or some cool place they went to. Cars already have some sort of social/emotional value to them, so it might not be necessary to manually add on another layer. The questions I posed were preliminary thoughts – I haven’t actually thought it all the way through yet :)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;@Catherine: I read that paper in Jen’s class! Loved it! It seems like there’s a lot of literature on sustainable design, but not any that I know of that combine with emotional design as well. They seem to be mostly tailored to people’s sense of practicality and what’s good for the environment rather than emotional attachment. I’ll add references to the blog post as updates when I find them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Nick: I had more non-gadget-like objects in mind as it would be easier to build these small enhancements and somehow attach it to them, not to mention that they have greater affordances for low-res enhancements. With electronic gadgets (mobiles, cars, mp3 players, etc) however, I think people will expect them to be built in, not attached to its surface. With cars though, it’s probably easier to form an emotional bond to it, because (and you see this in movies a lot! dunno about actual life :)) people travel with others and have memories of their friends or family or some cool place they went to. Cars already have some sort of social/emotional value to them, so it might not be necessary to manually add on another layer. The questions I posed were preliminary thoughts – I haven’t actually thought it all the way through yet <img src='http://www.chloefan.com/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/Silk/emoticon_smile.png' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>@Catherine: I read that paper in Jen’s class! Loved it! It seems like there’s a lot of literature on sustainable design, but not any that I know of that combine with emotional design as well. They seem to be mostly tailored to people’s sense of practicality and what’s good for the environment rather than emotional attachment. I’ll add references to the blog post as updates when I find them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catherine</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-486</link>
		<dc:creator>Catherine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-486</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not too familiar with literature on the emotional design side of things. On the sustainability side, you could check out Eli Blevis&#039; CHI 2007 paper on Sustainable Interaction Design, but more specific to this idea would be &quot;Understanding Why We Preserve Some Things and Discard Others in the Context of Interaction Design&quot; from CHI 2009.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I like your idea of applying emotions to stairs and doors, I can see it as a cool proof-of-concept video!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m not too familiar with literature on the emotional design side of things. On the sustainability side, you could check out Eli Blevis&#39; CHI 2007 paper on Sustainable Interaction Design, but more specific to this idea would be &#8220;Understanding Why We Preserve Some Things and Discard Others in the Context of Interaction Design&#8221; from CHI 2009.</p>
<p>I like your idea of applying emotions to stairs and doors, I can see it as a cool proof-of-concept video!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-487</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-487</guid>
		<description>I wonder if churn rate on things like toasters is very high. Certainly with a toaster, if we&#039;re talking about teching it out enough for it to interact with you, then it&#039;s going to be put on a much faster technological treadmill. (Better and more lifelike talking toasters, until next year where you can get one that talks via AI-trained algorithms with data from other owner-toaster interactions gathered in real-time through the cloud, and only $40!) And aren&#039;t microwaves and fridges typically so long-lived that it&#039;s usually energy-efficient to replace them?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Probably better targets for interaction-based attachment higher-cost items that should be used longer than they usually are, like cars or phones. If cars developed lots of personality from use, then there would be higher switching costs. However, the most obvious way to do it would be to allow the personality to be transferred from car to car, like a SIM card. But perhaps since it&#039;s not usually in manufacturer&#039;s incentives to reduce switching, a third-party solution might apply which would be more stable (requiring hardware customizations which are more difficult to install).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you could think of a compelling way to develop owner-vehicle rapport which would be more permanent, but without triggering the resale value reflex, then perhaps you could really diminish excess consumer switching. Maybe something as simple as a third-party system which embodies the vehicle and is a bit more smarmy about effective maintenance. Build an owner-vehicle bond while lengthening the lifespan of the vehicle (otherwise people don&#039;t take care of their cars) in a more trustworthy way than the manufacturer&#039;s &quot;put money in&quot; lights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if churn rate on things like toasters is very high. Certainly with a toaster, if we&#39;re talking about teching it out enough for it to interact with you, then it&#39;s going to be put on a much faster technological treadmill. (Better and more lifelike talking toasters, until next year where you can get one that talks via AI-trained algorithms with data from other owner-toaster interactions gathered in real-time through the cloud, and only $40!) And aren&#39;t microwaves and fridges typically so long-lived that it&#39;s usually energy-efficient to replace them?</p>
<p>Probably better targets for interaction-based attachment higher-cost items that should be used longer than they usually are, like cars or phones. If cars developed lots of personality from use, then there would be higher switching costs. However, the most obvious way to do it would be to allow the personality to be transferred from car to car, like a SIM card. But perhaps since it&#39;s not usually in manufacturer&#39;s incentives to reduce switching, a third-party solution might apply which would be more stable (requiring hardware customizations which are more difficult to install).</p>
<p>If you could think of a compelling way to develop owner-vehicle rapport which would be more permanent, but without triggering the resale value reflex, then perhaps you could really diminish excess consumer switching. Maybe something as simple as a third-party system which embodies the vehicle and is a bit more smarmy about effective maintenance. Build an owner-vehicle bond while lengthening the lifespan of the vehicle (otherwise people don&#39;t take care of their cars) in a more trustworthy way than the manufacturer&#39;s &#8220;put money in&#8221; lights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chloe</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-475</link>
		<dc:creator>Chloe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-475</guid>
		<description>(sorry, the dates/numbers of comments is messed up because I just installed Disqus and it didn&#039;t auto-add the old comments)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(sorry, the dates/numbers of comments is messed up because I just installed Disqus and it didn&#39;t auto-add the old comments)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chloe</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-474</link>
		<dc:creator>Chloe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-474</guid>
		<description>@Nick: I had more non-gadget-like objects in mind as it would be easier to build these small enhancements and somehow attach it to them, not to mention that they have greater affordances for low-res enhancements. With electronic gadgets (mobiles, cars, mp3 players, etc) however, I think people will expect them to be built in, not attached to its surface. With cars though, it’s probably easier to form an emotional bond to it, because (and you see this in movies a lot! dunno about actual life :)) people travel with others and have memories of their friends or family or some cool place they went to. Cars already have some sort of social/emotional value to them, so it might not be necessary to manually add on another layer. The questions I posed were preliminary thoughts – I haven’t actually thought it all the way through yet :)&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;@Catherine: I read that paper in Jen’s class! Loved it! It seems like there’s a lot of literature on sustainable design, but not any that I know of that combine with emotional design as well. They seem to be mostly tailored to people’s sense of practicality and what’s good for the environment rather than emotional attachment. I’ll add references to the blog post as updates when I find them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Nick: I had more non-gadget-like objects in mind as it would be easier to build these small enhancements and somehow attach it to them, not to mention that they have greater affordances for low-res enhancements. With electronic gadgets (mobiles, cars, mp3 players, etc) however, I think people will expect them to be built in, not attached to its surface. With cars though, it’s probably easier to form an emotional bond to it, because (and you see this in movies a lot! dunno about actual life :)) people travel with others and have memories of their friends or family or some cool place they went to. Cars already have some sort of social/emotional value to them, so it might not be necessary to manually add on another layer. The questions I posed were preliminary thoughts – I haven’t actually thought it all the way through yet <img src='http://www.chloefan.com/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/Silk/emoticon_smile.png' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>@Catherine: I read that paper in Jen’s class! Loved it! It seems like there’s a lot of literature on sustainable design, but not any that I know of that combine with emotional design as well. They seem to be mostly tailored to people’s sense of practicality and what’s good for the environment rather than emotional attachment. I’ll add references to the blog post as updates when I find them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catherine</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-473</link>
		<dc:creator>Catherine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:35:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-473</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not too familiar with literature on the emotional design side of things. On the sustainability side, you could check out Eli Blevis&#039; CHI 2007 paper on Sustainable Interaction Design, but more specific to this idea would be &quot;Understanding Why We Preserve Some Things and Discard Others in the Context of Interaction Design&quot; from CHI 2009.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I like your idea of applying emotions to stairs and doors, I can see it as a cool proof-of-concept video!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m not too familiar with literature on the emotional design side of things. On the sustainability side, you could check out Eli Blevis&#39; CHI 2007 paper on Sustainable Interaction Design, but more specific to this idea would be &#8220;Understanding Why We Preserve Some Things and Discard Others in the Context of Interaction Design&#8221; from CHI 2009.</p>
<p>I like your idea of applying emotions to stairs and doors, I can see it as a cool proof-of-concept video!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-472</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 16:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-472</guid>
		<description>I wonder if churn rate on things like toasters is very high. Certainly with a toaster, if we&#039;re talking about teching it out enough for it to interact with you, then it&#039;s going to be put on a much faster technological treadmill. (Better and more lifelike talking toasters, until next year where you can get one that talks via AI-trained algorithms with data from other owner-toaster interactions gathered in real-time through the cloud, and only $40!) And aren&#039;t microwaves and fridges typically so long-lived that it&#039;s usually energy-efficient to replace them?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Probably better targets for interaction-based attachment higher-cost items that should be used longer than they usually are, like cars or phones. If cars developed lots of personality from use, then there would be higher switching costs. However, the most obvious way to do it would be to allow the personality to be transferred from car to car, like a SIM card. But perhaps since it&#039;s not usually in manufacturer&#039;s incentives to reduce switching, a third-party solution might apply which would be more stable (requiring hardware customizations which are more difficult to install).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you could think of a compelling way to develop owner-vehicle rapport which would be more permanent, but without triggering the resale value reflex, then perhaps you could really diminish excess consumer switching. Maybe something as simple as a third-party system which embodies the vehicle and is a bit more smarmy about effective maintenance. Build an owner-vehicle bond while lengthening the lifespan of the vehicle (otherwise people don&#039;t take care of their cars) in a more trustworthy way than the manufacturer&#039;s &quot;put money in&quot; lights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if churn rate on things like toasters is very high. Certainly with a toaster, if we&#39;re talking about teching it out enough for it to interact with you, then it&#39;s going to be put on a much faster technological treadmill. (Better and more lifelike talking toasters, until next year where you can get one that talks via AI-trained algorithms with data from other owner-toaster interactions gathered in real-time through the cloud, and only $40!) And aren&#39;t microwaves and fridges typically so long-lived that it&#39;s usually energy-efficient to replace them?</p>
<p>Probably better targets for interaction-based attachment higher-cost items that should be used longer than they usually are, like cars or phones. If cars developed lots of personality from use, then there would be higher switching costs. However, the most obvious way to do it would be to allow the personality to be transferred from car to car, like a SIM card. But perhaps since it&#39;s not usually in manufacturer&#39;s incentives to reduce switching, a third-party solution might apply which would be more stable (requiring hardware customizations which are more difficult to install).</p>
<p>If you could think of a compelling way to develop owner-vehicle rapport which would be more permanent, but without triggering the resale value reflex, then perhaps you could really diminish excess consumer switching. Maybe something as simple as a third-party system which embodies the vehicle and is a bit more smarmy about effective maintenance. Build an owner-vehicle bond while lengthening the lifespan of the vehicle (otherwise people don&#39;t take care of their cars) in a more trustworthy way than the manufacturer&#39;s &#8220;put money in&#8221; lights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chloe Fan</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-390</link>
		<dc:creator>Chloe Fan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-390</guid>
		<description>@Nick: I had more non-gadget-like objects in mind as it would be easier to build these small enhancements and somehow attach it to them, not to mention that they have greater affordances for low-res enhancements. With electronic gadgets (mobiles, cars, mp3 players, etc) however, I think people will expect them to be built in, not attached to its surface. With cars though, it&#039;s probably easier to form an emotional bond to it, because (and you see this in movies a lot! dunno about actual life :)) people travel with others and have memories of their friends or family or some cool place they went to. Cars already have some sort of social/emotional value to them, so it might not be necessary to manually add on another layer. The questions I posed were preliminary thoughts - I haven&#039;t actually thought it all the way through yet :)

@Catherine: I read that paper in Jen&#039;s class! Loved it! It seems like there&#039;s a lot of literature on sustainable design, but not any that I know of that combine with emotional design as well. They seem to be mostly tailored to people&#039;s sense of practicality and what&#039;s good for the environment rather than emotional attachment. I&#039;ll add references to the blog post as updates when I find them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Nick: I had more non-gadget-like objects in mind as it would be easier to build these small enhancements and somehow attach it to them, not to mention that they have greater affordances for low-res enhancements. With electronic gadgets (mobiles, cars, mp3 players, etc) however, I think people will expect them to be built in, not attached to its surface. With cars though, it&#8217;s probably easier to form an emotional bond to it, because (and you see this in movies a lot! dunno about actual life :)) people travel with others and have memories of their friends or family or some cool place they went to. Cars already have some sort of social/emotional value to them, so it might not be necessary to manually add on another layer. The questions I posed were preliminary thoughts &#8211; I haven&#8217;t actually thought it all the way through yet <img src='http://www.chloefan.com/wp-content/plugins/smilies-themer/Silk/emoticon_smile.png' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>@Catherine: I read that paper in Jen&#8217;s class! Loved it! It seems like there&#8217;s a lot of literature on sustainable design, but not any that I know of that combine with emotional design as well. They seem to be mostly tailored to people&#8217;s sense of practicality and what&#8217;s good for the environment rather than emotional attachment. I&#8217;ll add references to the blog post as updates when I find them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catherine</title>
		<link>http://www.chloefan.com/2010/01/emotional-design-and-social-interfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-389</link>
		<dc:creator>Catherine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chloefan.com/?p=393#comment-389</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not too familiar with literature on the emotional design side of things. On the sustainability side, you could check out Eli Blevis&#039; CHI 2007 paper on Sustainable Interaction Design, but more specific to this idea would be &quot;Understanding Why We Preserve Some Things and Discard Others in the Context of Interaction Design&quot; from CHI 2009. 

I like your idea of applying emotions to stairs and doors, I can see it as a cool proof-of-concept video!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not too familiar with literature on the emotional design side of things. On the sustainability side, you could check out Eli Blevis&#8217; CHI 2007 paper on Sustainable Interaction Design, but more specific to this idea would be &#8220;Understanding Why We Preserve Some Things and Discard Others in the Context of Interaction Design&#8221; from CHI 2009. </p>
<p>I like your idea of applying emotions to stairs and doors, I can see it as a cool proof-of-concept video!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
