Patrick Jordan, Chapter “The Four Pleasures”. In: Designing Pleasurable Products (2000).
Different pleasures introduced in the chapter:
Three different types of pleasure with products: The emotional, hedonic and practical benefits associated with products. Pleasure with products comes from the relationship between a person and a product. Therefore pleasurability is not a property of a product but of interaction.
Need pleasures and pleasures of appreciation. Need pleasures come from “moving a person from a state of discontentment to one of contentment.” Pleasures of appreciation are positively pleasurable, no matter the current contention. Very similar approach with direct/indirect value generation thinking.
The four pleasures, by Lionel Tiger (1992):
“… intended as a means of structuring thought as regards pleasure” (Tiger) and not describing why people experience pleasure.
Bodily pleasures derived from sensory (touch, taste, smell, etc.) organs. Some examples of physio-pleasure:
• Fitting Boeing 707 as a passenger carrier (removing discomfort)
• protection (avoiding but possibly dangerous)
o motorcycle helmets
o ear protectors
• Philips Shaver
Socio-pleasures arise from relationships with other people or society as a whole. Social need pleasures avoid discomfort of not being socially accepted. Examples:
• Cell phones
• Lawnmovers/garden gnomes (or is it physio?)
People’s cognitive and emotional reactions. Jordan groups usability as a product property that is connected to psycho-pleasure. Poor usability can cause annoyance, frustration and stress. Examples:
• metaphors on user interfaces
• Vacuum cleaners (from cancelling noise to creating it)
• ‘knowledge in the world’ (Norman)
Pleasures that are connected to people’s values, pleasures that are derived from such as books, music and art. Pleasures that relate to personal aspirations and moral values. (closely related to be/do goals) Examples:
• Fantasy adventure: Jeep and G-Shock
• household products
• Feminine guns
Jordan introduces a four-pleasures analysis of an imaginary person and claims that usability approach would, in contrast, offer information about age, state of physical well-being, physical and cognitive disabilities.