Changing only the aesthetic features of a product can affect its apparent usability

  • Andrew Monk
  • Kira Lelos
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 241)


Three experiments were conducted to investigate the relationship between usability and aesthetics with students and older people. A common mechanical domestic appliance, the can opener, was chosen as a proxy for future digital products. The experiments involved comparing the rated usability of can openers that had been painted to make them more or less aesthetically pleasing. Experiment 1 tested students’ ratings of beauty and usability. Experiment 2 similarly tested an elderly population on their ratings before and after use. In general, the products rated more beautiful were rated as more usable. To avoid the possibility that rating a product for its aesthetic qualities could somehow affect its subsequent rating for usability, Experiment 3 repeated Experiment 2 but products were only rated for usability. In Experiments 1 and 3 the manipulation of product features associated only with aesthetic qualities of the product (painting the can openers) also significantly affected ratings of usability. The results are related to Hassenzahl’s model of user experience, and interpreted in terms of the holistic evaluation of product features in judgements of hedonic and pragmatic attributes. The results confirm and extend previous findings and highlight the importance of aesthetic considerations as well as usability in all forms of design.


User Experience Product Feature Usability Rating Aesthetic Quality Objective Usability 


  1. 1.
    Monk, A.F., User-centred design: the home use challenge, in Home informatics and telematics: information technology and society, A. Sloane and F. van Rijn, Editors. 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, p. 181–190.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurosu, M. and K. Kashimura. Apparent usability vs. inherrent usability, in CHI 1995. 1995: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Norman, D.A., Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. 2004, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCarthy, J. and P. Wright, Technology as experience. 2004, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tractinsky, N., A.S. Katz, and D. Ikar, What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 2000. 13(2): p. 127–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hassenzahl, M., The interplay of beauty, goodness and usability. Human-Computer Interaction, 2004. 19(4): p. 319–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hassenzahl, M., The thing and I: understanding the relationship between user and product, in Funology: from usability to enjoyment, M. Blythe, et al., Editors. 2003, Kluwer: Dortrecht, p. 31–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Monk
    • 1
  • Kira Lelos
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Usable Home Technology (CUHTec)University of YorkUK

Personalised recommendations