Design Messages (01-28-22)
Although much of Danesi’s book focuses on communication via body language, facial expressions, and interpersonal zones/distancing, there are sections that directly address design’s nonverbal messaging.
Although much of Danesi’s book focuses on communication via body language, facial expressions, and interpersonal zones/distancing, there are sections that directly address design’s nonverbal messaging.
Willems and colleagues investigated environmental control by hospital patients.
Soares and colleagues researched which sorts of places people felt they were most likely to have shared knowledge/ideas in.
In a study perfect for Halloween but just released, Tashjian and collegues report on just what happens to us when we’re in a scary place (for this project, a haunted house with 17 rooms) and the social nature of fear-type responses.
Van Dijk-Wesselius and colleagues studied how children (their sample was 7 – 11 years old) responded during recess breaks when additional plants are added to their schoolyards.
Research conducted by a Kerimova-lead team indicates how different the space assessments of different user groups can be.
Muth and Carbon studied ambivalent art (specifically photographs) and our responses to it.
Ming, Deng, and Wu determined that experiencing air-pollution has predictable effects on Earth friendly-type decisions, ones that design may need to help overcome.
Jie and Li link clues about product “newness” to selections made.
Ramasubu and Bardhan’s work does not directly discuss providing workers with control of their physical environments, but the team’s findings can be extended to doing so.