The Science of Shopping

1. I feel that one significant point made in the article is that environment plays a key role in the success of the store. Location, surrouding stores or restaurants, layout of the store, colors, lighting, music, and anything else that influences the buyer all play a crucial role in intriguing consumers. This plays into the many tips given to those wanting to open up a new business. Another key point is the psychology of the consumer. A consumer wants to be able to buy the things they need, and the things they want. It is up to the designer to make them purchase something they had never previously thought of getting.

2. Personally, although I hate to admit it, I fall into the trap. The design of a store heavily influences how likely I am to go in, and definitely adds to whether I decide to purchase from there or not. Layout, lighting, shadowing, and even the type of music playing in the background influence me. For example, if a song I enjoy is playing, I'll stick around in the store to hear it. That gives me more time to browse, and increases the liklihood that I will find something worse purchasing. I'm sure these factors all influence shoppers' moods as well, because if there is a physiological response to different designs, a hightened sense of awareness or a better mood would also increase revenue for the store.

3. First, I would check the location of the store. What are its surroundings? Is it around stores of similar characteristics? Second, what is the external display of the store like? Does it rely on bright colors, or a more subdued design? On the inside of the store, how do the employees act? Also, how do they dress? Are they attractive? Many stores try to sell a lifestyle. As far as inside layout, are the new products placed in front in order to attract customers, or is it in back to make them walk through the entire store? Are there "impulse buys" located near the counter for last minute purchases? Different stores use different types of music, lighting, etc. to spotlight their items as well.

Isn't it Iconic? and The Power of the Box

1. 1. Packaging is very important in marketing a product. It relates to the behavioral design of a product. If a product is packaged in a way that makes operation difficult, it negatively impacts the product’s image and discourages people from purchasing it. In marketing, packaging plays off of visceral design. In stores, the packaging is the first thing a consumer sees, and is what they base their purchasing judgment off of. Packaging also makes different products unique and makes them stand apart from other products in the same category. Red Bull is an example. It has always had the same type of can since it was first introduced.

2. 2. Many different products have iconic packaging. Products that have a tradition in the consumer marketplace, such as the Coca Cola bottle, have iconic packaging. Aunt Jemima maple syrup is another example. Some brands of honey come in a bottle shaped like a honey bear, which is recognized worldwide. Fiji water is another example, because it comes in a distinctly shaped, square bottle. Voss water comes in a cylindrical bottle as well. The labeling of Campbell’s soup can be recognized all over, and stands apart from other soups, such as Progresso. In regards to clothing, Tiffany and Co. has consistently used a light blue bag with a simple white ribbon. The long standing tradition of the “Tiffany blue” bag is a worldwide recognizable symbol in the jewelry market. Another example is Pepto Bismol. Since its beginning, Pepto has come in the same, pink bottle.

3. 3. Some types of packaging make it difficult to access the product. Twinkle lights used around Christmas to decorate bushes come in complicated packaging. It takes far too long to get the product out because if you aren’t careful, it is easy to break the lights trying to get them out of the package. Plastic packaging, such as the hard plastic that most electronics come packaged in, is also poor design. On numerous occasions, I have managed to cut myself while trying to access the product. Although they protect the product, they also can pose a danger to the consumer.

Biggest Mistakes in Web Design 1995-2015

1.            This reading centers on user-focused design.  It critiques different web sites that do not take making things simple for the user into consideration.  The article demonstrates the importance of user-friendly design interface by stressing the point of navigation.  On a website, the user must be able to clearly and quickly find what they are looking for; otherwise, they will move on.  As far as users go, the easier a site is to use, the more traffic it is bound to receive.  Flanders also stated that the more bells and whistles a page has, such as word graphics and flash programs, the more distracting it will be.  The function of a website is to get users the information they need or want as quickly as possible, and by adding these unnecessary things, the page may be slowed down and it will be more difficult for them to get what they desire. 

2.            The first point Flanders makes I feel is the most important.  It says that the website is made to tailor fit the users’ needs, not the creators’.  The second point draws from the first, because it explains that in order for a website to be successful, it must fit the four second rule, in which it should only take the user four seconds to figure out how the site works/its mapping/etc.  One major problem I encounter with websites is their use of unnecessary flair in order to make the page more viscerally appealing.  In the long run, I want to see a website that is neat, simple, and not intimidating.  Point number six is also significant, because it focuses on site navigation and mapping.  In order for a site to be behaviorally appealing, it must be easy to navigate.  Ultimately, anything that complicates use of a website or makes it visually incomprehensible is to be avoided.

3.            A webpage, in my opinion, must be easy to navigate.  I hate when I visit a site and it makes you jump through hoops just to get to a simple thing, such as contact information.  It must be visually appealing—the use of unnecessary flash graphics, and textual graphics that appear fuzzy, make me move on and try my luck with another site.  So many of these points are stylistic, which make a large difference in how a website is perceived.  If it looks legitimate, it probably is.  The text must be large enough for me to read it, but not too large to make me think that it is never-ending.  As long as it is, first and foremost, behaviorally acceptable and easy to use, in my opinion, the website creator has done their job.

Wikipedia vs. Britannica

1.            In this article, I think that the author is trying to show that innovation, although seemingly all positive, can in the end, turn into something opposite of what was intended.  Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia, in which a community of users has the ability to edit different entries in order to correct them or update information.  The unanticipated success of Wikipedia came as a slight shock, because prior to its creation, Encyclopedia Britannica was the choice encyclopedia software.  The new encyclopedia was resourceful and efficient, drawing from volunteers to maintain the site and keep it free for all users.  Certain entries have become so popular that they are updated even by the hour, making Wikipedia a news choice for many users.  There are only two rules which state that the articles must remain neutral and come from a verifiable, legitimate source.  The goal of Wikipedia was to cause a radical change, and to cross boundaries.  Overtime, Wikipedia became an online community in which users would discuss a range of topics, and keep tidy the endless amounts of encyclopedia entries.  However, as time passed, Wikipedia became cluttered with those who abused the right to edit, forcing Essjay to create restrictions on user rights.  Included is the 3R rule, in which a user is blocked from editing for 24 hours if they revert text three times.  The author then continues to compare Wikipedia with Britannica, which is not allowed to be altered by users.  Although Britannica cannot be interfered with by the general public, it has nearly the same amount of errors as Wikipedia. 

2.            “Connolley believes that Wikipedia ‘gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about,…’” (p.5., paragraph 4)

I chose this passage because the author uses many quoted sources to back up the information.  The paragraph describes the potential drawbacks of Wikipedia, and how the fact that it can be edited by anyone creates eventual problems.  Quotes from those experienced with Wikipedia, such as former contributors, provide affirmation.

3.            I think that both encyclopedias are similar.  Fundamental differences do exist, however.  Wikipedia is free, where you have to subscribe to Britannica.  Professionals and experts contribute to Britannica, but any lay person can edit and change a Wikipedia entry.  As for usability and behavioral design, I feel that Wikipedia is more user-friendly.  Viscerally, both are well done.  However, visceral design is not as significant as usability for a product that must draw immediate information for the user.  As for reflective design, Wikipedia is available to anyone that can access the internet, giving Britannica more exclusivity and prestige in the minds of users.

Complexity versus Simplicity

1.       1. Simplicity and complexity play key roles in visceral design.  If a product looks simple to use, it looks less cluttered and may be visually appealing to some (an iPod would be a prime example).  As for complexity, if a design looks complex, some may think it is the best choice, because it has many functions.  This segues into behavioral design, because if a product appears to be complex (such as having many buttons), then the user generally assumes that the product can do more/perform better.  If this is perceived, the assumption is that it operates more efficiently.  Therefore, a complex product in general beats a simple product in behavioral design.  However, if a product appears to be too complex, simplicity would be more appealing because it is easier to use.  A complex product is reflectively more appealing, because it is a symbol of status.  If someone buys a digital camera with an unnecessary amount of functions, it still seems to be higher quality than one with fewer functions.  As a status symbol, more is better, because it gives the allusion that: a)you actually know how to work all of the settings on the device, and b)you can afford top scale goods (the more complex, the more expensive). 

 

2.       2. "Upon reflecting on several technological purchases made over the years, I can say without trepidation that the determining factors in many of these purchases centered on whichever device was most complex and feature-rich." 

                                                                                - Javin

 

 

“For example the telephone and the refrigerator, they are designs invented many years ago, but they always need a boost, or an upgrade to make it look more modern, and because of the fact that it consistently needs to be remodeled, many designers try to make it more interesting by adding more functions to the designs and make it look like "a perfect thing".

                                                                                -Maureen

 

 

I chose these quotes from Javin and Maureen because I thought that they both combined to make a point that the more function and complexity a product has, the more desirable it is to consumers.  Maureen backs up Javin’s statement when she says that certain basic inventions have been remodeled over the years to make them appear more modern, and to keep up with technology.  She states that “many designers try to make it more interesting by adding functions.”  This is something I have noticed in the market.  It seems as though the more function a product has, the more success it will see.  Although the complexity is unnecessary (a microwave is a microwave…you don’t need special buttons telling you automatically how long popcorn will take), it serves the purpose of easing the user’s mind.  If a product has these options, its usability is far more flexible, and gives the user maximum control.  Javin and Maureen’s observations show that complexity, in general, is a key component of success in the market, no matter how often the public complains and says otherwise.

Proposal

For my Wikipedia Page, I have decided to write specifically about the PE horseback riding course at K.  I have been riding horses since I was 11 years old, and am interested in the school's program, as well as the history behind the course.

Simplicity Is Highly Overrated

1.  As I look across my desk, I realize that I purchased my alarm clock because it is more complex.  I have an iHome, and it functions as a radio, iPod stereo, and alarm clock.  You can preset the alarm to play either the radio, your iPod, or a preset beeping sound.  I could have decided to purchase a regular clock, but the different options the iHome presented made it more attractive to myself as a user.  I figured that they more functions it had, the better it was.  However, the first week or so of school, I didn't take the time to read the instructions.  The added complexity made it difficult to work, and I had trouble figuring out quite how to set my alarm, turn off the alarm, and get the system to play my iPod in sync with when I desired to wake up.  After reading the instructions and fidgeting with it for about fifteen minutes, I finally figured out how to make it work.  

2.  Complexity is justified when the extraneous functions are necessary and useful to the user.  For example, on a television remote, there is an excessive amount of buttons.  Each one holds a different function for the television.  However, in reality, the average consumer only uses around ten functions, if even that many.  It is unnecessary to purchase that many remotes to work the T.V. when you could easily condense all the electronic devices into one, easy to use, control.  In a car however, where many different functions are necessary, the added complexity is almost a necessity.  GPS, air bags, windshield wipers, OnStar, door locks, alarm systems, and seat belts are all components of security that can be used to make the driver more comfortable and safe behind the wheel.  If a car were too simple, it would be too much of a liability and would not sell.  Simplicity is most important in everyday objects, such as appliances, because they are used by almost everyone.  At some point in your life, you will own a refrigerator, iron, toaster, coffee pot, or even a simple toothbrush.  If it is difficult to use, the product would not be taken advantage of or operated at maximum efficiency.  These often used products help make the life of the consumer easier, and are convenient ways to save time and to live life without unnecessary complications.  If they were not simple to use, the consumer would give up or grow frustrated with the product, making it a failure in the business world.  

3.   "So I really don’t think that anything in this world is absolutely perfect because being perfect is subject to point of view. Some things that people consider when they think about their own view of perfection maybe elegance, strength, color, size, shape. But every person has their own thing or things that they look for.”

                                            -Keenan

When I was thinking of the answer to the question of what a perfect product was, this idea never crossed my mind.  Keenan brings up a very good point in realizing that perfection is completely subjective.  There are certain criterion that people imagine to make up perfection, but not everyone will agree.  Some people would say something complex and complicated is perfect, and others may prefer simplicity.  In the world of design, producers have a difficult time trying to please their consumers, and must eventually settle for pleasing the largest part of the population possible.