How something is represented visually will influence what concepts we associate with it (e.g. thin vs. thick lines suggesting relationship strength). Seemingly small details in these representations can influence associations – at least on an unconscious level.
Those associated concepts are developed by interacting with the world through our bodies: Embodied cognition. Some are rooted in nature, others in artificial things we interact with.
As Thinking is mostly unconscious, so are these deep conceptual metaphors: e.g. we might not be conscious about the fact that we view a thick line between two objects as suggesting a strong relationship. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the association happens!
A lot of the associations triggered can be predictable – how exactly, though? And how does this differ among cultures? Are concepts rooted in nature more predictable than others?
Tags: understanding metaphors in design
ID: 2021-0211-0736
References: – Anderson, Fast – Figure It Out, p.90
Here's what's been interesting to me lately: Empowered teams Language-market fit Design synthesis Curse of knowledge Building the right…
Design principle based on the fact that people are able to recognize things more easily than recall them from memory. This is likely because…
"Objects Placed into Territories" is a universal pattern behind pretty much all visual models. This framework gives us the language to talk…
If you want to discuss this note, send me a message on Twitter.