I put together some bits and pieces related to our discussion of beauty and transparency.
When we say transparent, do we mean invisible, as in Donald Norman's example
"You use computers when you use many modern automobiles, microwave ovens, games, CD players and calculators. You don't notice the computer because you think of yourself as doing the task, not as using the computer." ["The Design of Everyday Things", New York, Doubleday, 1989, p. 185].
Here are a few definitions of beauty I found:
1. The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with
such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry,
truthfulness, and originality. (to which I would add integrity)
2. A quality or feature that is most effective, gratifying, or telling: The
beauty of the venture is that we stand to lose nothing. (sounds like beauty = success)
3. An assemblage or graces or properties pleasing to the eye, the ear, the
intellect, the [ae]sthetic faculty, or the moral sense. (hmmm, how many senses do we really have?)
I've attached 2 papers I like that discuss the relationship between beauty and
experience design. The author's reference to David Gelernter's machine beauty, which he describes as the union of power and simplicity in innovation, directly relates to our ongoing discussion.