ch 2 reading response

I am struck by principle 2.1: Design for play and delight. Before reading this chapter, I associated artful design with perfectly intuitive functionality, as well as a standard of aesthetic that makes the experience sublime. Considering the zipper pencil bag example from the previous chapter, I agreed that design can inspire wonder in a user. What I didn’t consider, however, is the utility of play. Even using the word utility here somewhat defeats the purpose of this design principle. A pleasurable experience is “productive” in itself and does not necessarily need to have traditional utility to be valuable! This principle makes me reflect on the best designs I’ve come across in my life, and how they optimize for play and delight. A few days ago, I learned how to play Fortnite, and I quickly learned that players can take apart any item in the Fortnite world. Some items can be destroyed for the purposes of collecting materials to build, but other items can be destroyed just for the sake of fun. When I start Fortnite games, I take a few minutes to just take apart my surroundings with the hammer, even though that has nothing to do with winning the game or progressing in any way. The game developers did not need to include this, since the game is already engaging enough with the hunger games-esque competition, but they chose to, and it was delightful! The one thing that I’m still unable to fully grasp is understanding the trade-offs between play/delight and function. There are some cases when products or services are used for serious purposes, and it may not be appropriate to design for play. Products that help people in urgent need, for example, should always optimize for function over play because a state space of too many fun interactions can detract from the objective utility. In those cases, do we redefine what it means to take delight in a design, beyond a playful appendage? Or, do we accept that there is not always space for play, and think about the brightline between products that are casual enough to have room for play versus products that operate in serious, high-stakes situations that must be streamlined in every possible way?