100 More Things Every Designer Needs To Know About People

100 MORE THINGS EVERY DESIGNER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT PEOPLE

SECOND EDITION

SUSAN WEINSCHENK, PH.D.

NOTICE OF RIGHTS

The Team W, Inc.

625 N 4th Ave.

Edgar, WI 54426

1.847.909.5946

theteamw.com

For comments, questions, or errors please email

[email protected].

Copyright © 2024 by Susan Weinschenk, Ph.D.

Written, Edited, Proofed, Designed, and Laid-out by Susan Weinschenk Ph.D. and Guthrie Weinschenk, J.D.

Version 1.1

Notice of Rights, Liability and Trademarks

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, reprinted, or copied without the prior written consent of the The Team W, Inc. Consent is easily granted if you email

[email protected].

If you would like to refer to parts of the book please site Susan Weinschenk, Ph.D., CEO and Behavioral Scientist at The Team W, Inc.

This book is sold As-Is, without warranty.

Use of any trademarks in this book are used in an editorial fashion.

ISBN Numbers:

ISBN: 978-1-963902-01-3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is made possible by all the people who have come to my speeches, presentations, and classes over many years. Thanks for helping me learn how to be a better presenter and thanks for the opportunity to experiment with new ideas.

DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to my son Guthrie Weinschenk who is also my business partner. He kept me going on preparing this 2nd edition, and provided editing, design, and support.

INTRODUCTION

This book is the second in a series. The first book I wrote about people for designers was: 100 Things Every Designer Needs To Know About People. It was first published in 2012. I had summed up the essential information on what designers need to know about people in those 100 things. If you had asked me then if I thought there were another 100 things people need to know, I would have probably laughed and said, of course not!

But then a lot happened. Our understanding of the brain and the body grew almost as fast as technology grew. New things we learned include:

How we read online is different than how we read text on a page.

We are not born with brains that know how to read—our brains re-purpose other areas of the brain to learn how to read.

Our unconscious processes big data better than our conscious mind does, and we can actually use something called sensory addition to feed data to the unconscious.

Our peripheral vision decides where our central vision should look.

Older people aren’t slow to learn and use technology because they can’t remember, but more because they aren’t confident about their memories.

So in 2016 I wrote the first edition of 100 MORE Things Every Designer Needs to Know About People. I wrote a 2nd edition of the original 100 Things book in 2020, and now this book is a 2nd edition of 100 MORE Things.

I hope you enjoy this book as much as I’ve enjoyed researching and writing it. I can’t wait to see what we all design in the next few years. And I hope that this book will help you design so that your designs fit the way people learn, work, think, and play.

Susan Weinschenk, Ph.D.

Edgar, Wisconsin, USA

July 21, 2023

HOW PEOPLE SEE

Recent research offers exciting insights into how people see and how the brain interprets visual data. Now, instead of arguing about opinions, you can present the latest industry findings on everything from shapes to color to visual appeal when you present your designs.

#101: PEOPLE PREFER CURVED SHAPES

Have you ever wondered why clients always prefer logos with curves rather than logos with interesting angles? Have you noticed that your favorite smartphones, tablets, and laptops tend to have rounded corners? What’s the big deal with those curves and rounded corners?

People prefer objects with curves—a preference that’s evident even in brain scans. This field of study is called neuroaesthetics.

Does The Couch Have Curves?

While Moshe Bar was the director of the Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital he and his team used images of everyday and abstract objects to see if people had a preference for objects with curves. In one of their early studies, Bar and Maital Neta (2006) showed people 140 pairs of objects. Some objects were concrete, such as watches or couches (the A objects in Figure 1.1), some were abstract (the B objects), and some had both curves and edges (the C objects). The C objects acted as baseline controls.

FIGURE 1.1 Original images used by Moshe Bar (https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barlab/).

People gave higher liking ratings to the objects with curves. Bar and Neta’s theory was that the sharp and angled images conveyed a sense of threat.

Does The Balance Of The Image Matter?

Paul Silvia and Christopher Barona (2009) wanted to see if it mattered whether the objects in an image were balanced (Figure 1.2) or unbalanced (Figure 1.3). Balanced or not, people still preferred the curved objects.

FIGURE 1.2 A balanced image.

FIGURE 1.3 An unbalanced image.

What about complex shapes? Silvia and Barona tested complex, angular shapes (Figure 1.4), and complex shapes with slightly curved edges (Figure 1.5).

FIGURE 1.4 A complex, angular shape.

FIGURE 1.5 A complex shape with slightly curved edges.

Again, people preferred the objects with curves.

Helmut Leder, Pablo Tinio, and Bar (2011) asked whether this preference for curves was true for both positive objects (birthday cakes and teddy bears) and negative objects (razor blades and spiders). The results? People preferred curves in objects that were either positive or neutral, but there was no preference for curves in negative objects.

Note:

Nike, Apple, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and dozens of other well-known brands use one or more curves in their logos, so they’ve obviously done their design homework.

Curves Stimulate The Brain

Ed Connor and Neeraja Balachander from John Hopkins University (unpublished) took this idea into a neuroimaging lab. They used an abstract shape similar to the shape on the left in Figure 1.6, and then made a series of similar but elongated shapes like those in the rest of Figure 1.6.

FIGURE 1.6 Curved and rounded shapes versus elongated shapes.

Not only did people prefer the softly rounded shape like the one on the left, there was more brain activity in the visual cortex when they viewed shapes that were more curved and more rounded.

Takeaways

People prefer curves.

When you’re creating a logo, incorporate some form of curve in the design.

When you’re creating areas of color on a screen, consider using a swoosh or curved shape.

When you’re designing actual products—such as smartphones, remote controls, medical devices, or other hand-held items—use curved surfaces.

Not only did people prefer the softly rounded shape like the one on the left, there was more brain activity in the visual cortex when they viewed shapes that were more curved and more rounded.

#102: PEOPLE PREFER SYMMETRY

Whether you’re choosing stock images for a web page or deciding whether to show the subject of a photo straight on or in profile, consider people’s preference for symmetry.

Take any object—a photo of a face or a drawing of a circle or a seashell—and draw a line down the middle either horizontally or vertically. If the two halves on either side of the line are identical, then the object is symmetrical.

Show Me Your DNA

People rate symmetrical faces as more attractive. The theory is that this preference has to do with an evolutionary advantage of picking a mate with the best DNA.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show two people with different amounts of bilateral symmetry. The man in Figure 2.1 has a face that is fairly asymmetrical. The man in Figure 2.2 has a face that is more symmetrical.

FIGURE 2.1 An asymmetrical face.

FIGURE 2.2 A fairly symmetrical face.

Steven Gangestad (2010) at the University of New Mexico has researched symmetry and shown that both men and women rate people with more symmetrical features as more attractive. But symmetry isn’t only about faces: bodies can be more or less symmetrical, too.

So why do people find symmetry to be more attractive? Gangestad says it may have to do with oxidative stress. In utero, babies are exposed to free radicals that can cause DNA damage. This is called oxidative stress. The greater the oxidative stress there is, the greater the asymmetry in the face and/or body. From an evolutionary and unconscious viewpoint, people look for partners who have no DNA damage. Symmetrical features are a clue that someone has less DNA damage. As further proof, research shows that men who are rated more attractive have fewer oxidative stress chemicals in their blood.

So, when deciding what photos to use on your website, for example, choose pictures of people who are more symmetrical than less, since those people will be viewed as more attractive.

If you must use a particular person, then evaluate face and body symmetry. If the person has a symmetrical face and body, then use a photo that is shot straight on. If the person lacks facial or body symmetry, use a profile view.

How Is Symmetry Measured?

You can use a ruler and the technique described below to measure the symmetry of a face.

Note the centerline drawn down the middle of the face in Figure 2.3, and the six horizontal lines (labeled D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6) drawn across it.

FIGURE 2.3 A face marked with symmetry lines.

Measure the distance from the left edge of D1 to the centerline.

Measure the distance from the right edge of D1 to the centerline. Write down the difference between the two lines. For example, if one side of D1 is 0.5 inches longer than the other side, write down 0.5.

Take the same measurement for D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6. It doesn’t matter which side is longer or shorter. All your difference numbers should be positive—no negative numbers.

Add up all the differences.

Now do the same for Figure 2.4

FIGURE 2.4 Another face marked with symmetry lines.

The higher the sum of the differences is, the more asymmetrical the face. If the sum of all the differences is 0, then the face is perfectly symmetrical. The further from zero the total is, the more asymmetrical the face.

Is Symmetry Only For Mars (For Men)?

Men prefer symmetry in bodies, faces, and just about everything else, including everyday items, abstract shapes, art, and nature. But research by Kathrine Shepherd and Moshe Bar (2011) showed that women prefer symmetry in faces and bodies, but not as much as men for everything else.

If you’re designing for a primarily male audience, then pay special attention to symmetry, whether it’s in faces, bodies, natural or man-made objects, or product pages with TVs—try to use symmetrical objects and show them in an equal right/left and top/bottom view. Men will find symmetrical images most appealing.

If you’re designing for a primarily female audience, then symmetry in faces and bodies of people is the most important. You don’t have to be as concerned with making sure all the products are symmetrically displayed.

Why do people prefer symmetry in objects?

There might be an evolutionary advantage for preferring symmetry in a mate, but why do people prefer symmetry in objects? Some researchers have proposed that the brain is predisposed to look for symmetry, and so people see symmetrical objects faster and make sense of them faster. The theory is that this visual fluency with symmetrical objects makes people feel as though they prefer the objects. They may just find them easier to see and understand. But why this is true for men and not for women remains a mystery.

Is There Any Advantage To Using Asymmetry for Design Layouts?

As a designer, you have to make decisions about the layout of elements on a screen or page or packaged product. Does the research on symmetry mean that your design should always be perfectly symmetrical?

If you design a symmetrical layout, then you know that people will perceive it quickly and will more likely prefer it—especially if your target audience is men.

On the other hand, if you go with an asymmetrical layout, then people will most likely be surprised by it. That may grab their attention initially, but the advantage of surprise and initial attention getting may be offset by fewer people liking it.

Takeaways

When you want to use pictures of people that your audience will find attractive, make sure those people have symmetrical faces and bodies.

When your target audience is primarily men, use a symmetrical layout.

When your target audience is primarily women, consider a more asymmetrical layout.

#103: SOME PEOPLE HAVE AN EXTRA COLOR CONE

In 1948, H. L. de Vries was studying the eyes of men who were color blind. He made an amazing discovery that he mentioned only in passing, on the last page of the paper he wrote about his research. His discovery went virtually unnoticed for more than three decades.

Before I tell you about the discovery, here’s some background on color vision:

People see color with special cells in their eyes called cones. Most people have three types of cones, each of which is triggered by certain wavelengths of light. The cones send signals to the brain, and the brain interprets those signals as blue, or turquoise, or pink, or any of the other colors.

Each cone allows the eye to see approximately 100 shades, so all three cones combined result in 100 to the third power, or about 1 million, different colors that most people can see.

For some people, one or more cones don’t activate in the same way—these people have one of several forms of color confusion or color blindness. They may have trouble distinguishing between certain colors, for example, red and green. People who have only two color cones working properly can see approximately 100 to the second power, or 10,000, colors. People who have only one color cone working properly can see approximately 100 colors.

Color vision is determined by the X chromosome. Men have only one X chromosome, and women have two X chromosomes. This is why more men than women are color blind.

Back To The Amazing Discovery

To test the men with color blindness, de Vries had them turn dials on an instrument to mix red light and green light until they saw yellow. Because the men were color blind, they added more red or green than someone without color blindness would add.

Out of curiosity, de Vries tested the daughters of one subject and observed that even though they were not color blind—they seemed to distinguish red and green as well as anyone—they still used more red in their test light than normal people to make the match precise. If the women weren’t color blind, why were they adding more red? De Vries hypothesized that since color blindness runs in families, the mothers and daughters of the color-blind men would have four color cones, not three. They would have the three normal cones, plus the abnormal cone that the men in the family have. De Vries’s idea was that having four cones enabled them to see more colors than most people, and that was why their test results were unusual. He put this idea about four cones at the end of his paper, and didn’t mention it in any of his work after that.

It wasn’t until many years later that de Vries’s ideas were rediscovered by Gabriele Jordan and John Mollon (2019), who were studying color vision in monkeys. Since color blindness is fairly common in men (9 percent of men are color blind), Mollon and Jordan realized that as many as 12 percent of the women in the world may have four cones. The name for someone who has four cones is a tetrachromat. These women would be able to see 100 to the fourth power, or 100 million, colors.

Functional Tetrachromats Are Rare

Much to her surprise, Jordan has had a difficult time finding women who are tetrachromats and can correctly do the matching tests for tetrachromacy. Why is this? It turns out that although a woman may be a tetrachromat, she may not be able to distinguish all the colors. She may report colors as though she only had three cones. The theory here is that tetrachromats are living in a world of trichromats. The objects they interact with were created by and for people who see 1 million colors, not 100 million colors, which means that tetrachromats haven’t had much opportunity to learn how to distinguish between the extra colors they see.

There is some evidence to support this theory. Artist Concetta Antico was tested and found to have the DNA of a tetrachromat. She also is a functional tetrachromat. Her early training and continued immersion in art may have taught her how to use her fourth cone.

Testing for tetrachromacy

The best way to test for tetrachromacy is with a DNA test. Watch out for fake tests. One bogus test that went viral suggested that any viewer who could see 33 or more colors in the test image was a tetrachromat. In fact, computer displays don’t display enough colors to test for tetrachromacy.

Takeaways

If you’re a woman with color-blind men in your family, you might be a tetrachromat. If you are, you might need special training to see the extra colors.

With advances in technology, color displays are likely to show more colors in the near future. As a designer, you might be asked to—or you might want to—create designs that use the extra colors that tetrachromats can see. There might be unique designs using pictures and graphics with extra colors for those who can see them.

#104: PERIPHERAL VISION DETERMINES WHERE CENTRAL VISION SHOULD LOOK

It’s 11:00 a.m. on a Saturday and you’re at home in front of your laptop, browsing the Internet. You open your favorite news site and scan the headlines. You click on a story and read for a bit, then go back to the main page and scan some more. You choose another story, look at the picture, and read some more—just normal scanning and reading online behavior, right?

What you may not realize as you do this is that your two types of vision, central and peripheral, are multitasking.

But Isn’t Multitasking A Myth?

If you’ve read any of my other books or blog posts, you know that I’m fond of saying that multitasking doesn’t exist; most of the time what people think of as multitasking is actually fast task switching. People switch really quickly from one thing to another, from one focus to another. This quick task switching takes a toll on attention and mental processing.

But central and peripheral vision multitasking is different. People really are capable of multitasking when it comes to vision.

A Quick Definition Of Central And Peripheral Vision

The fovea is a small depression at the back of the retina that affords very clear, detailed vision. Foveal vision, or central