Design for aesthetics: Interactions of design variables and aesthetic properties

 for automation was by Stiny & Gips 20 who provided a 
general framework for constructing computer algorithms for aesthetic criticism and design. These algorithms did not 
attempt to give a complete specification for evaluating or creating a specific art work, but offered a common structure to 
investigate important issues in aesthetics in a unified and coherent manner. However, apart from some simple examples 
which involved shape grammar and coloring rules for two-dimensional pictures, these algorithms still only gave very high-
level details and are not suitable for our purposes. 
3.2. Basic Principles for Producing Aesthetic Products 
A survey of literature in various disciplines such as drawing, painting, sculpture, industrial design and graphic design has 
revealed that there is much overlap in individual sets of basic principles for producing aesthetic products. Minor differences 
in meaning of a certain principle or omission of certain principles tend to be due only to the nature of media or material 
from which products are constructed. Furthermore, these principles when applied to products, provoke a diverse range of 
emotion responses which may be expressed in evaluative aesthetic terms mentioned in the previous Section. By judicious 
examination of such principles from these fields, we have come up with a list of nine principles that we believe, is 
sufficiently comprehensive to be used as a base for analysing the interactions between aesthetic characteristics and product 
characteristics. We now discuss the implication of each principle and how it relates to shape, composition and physical 
properties. 
Balance 
This principle is concerned with the effect of visual equilibrium. A design is monotonous and unexciting if evenness is 
strongly perceived in every characteristics, hence symmetric is generally avoided. On the other hand, asymmetry in shape 
features, colour, tone, size or arrangements of parts can give a design a more distinct characteristics. A balanced 
composition which, according to Ruskin, “puts several things together so as to make one thing of them”, hence also creates 
unity. A closely related principle to balance is that of harmony where pleasant effects are created by grouping objects with 
characteristics which are in accordance with each other, e.g. complementary shapes and colours. 
Proportion 
Although the principle of proportion is closely related to that of balance, it tends to be dealt with separately to refer 
specifically to spatial balance. There are three types of proportions: linear, areal and volumetric. Linear proportion refers 
to the relation between the dimensions (e.g. length, width) of a single object (or feature), or between a linear dimension of 
one object (or feature) and that of another. A number of standard good proportion exist (e.g. the golden section). Areal and 
volumetric refers to similar relations in the areas and volumes of objects (or features). Within this context, distinct objects 
(or features) may be viewed as being separated by shape, colour, texture or material. 
Dominance / Principality 
This principle expresses that the unity of a design can be achieved by allowing one feature to dominate the rest. The 
dominant feature may be a distinct shape, colour, material or a distinct arrangement that mark it out from other features. It 
also creates a focal point which induces the effect of leading the eye towards it. 
Alternation / Interchange / Contrast 
The combination of things of significantly different characteristics create more impact, for example, light against dark, 
positive against negative shapes, smooth against sharp curvature, vertical against horizontal directions. However, great 
contrast in tone may prevent full appreciation of colour, by given an illusion of a different hue. For example, a colour 
would appear darker if surrounded by a much lighter colour. 
Gradation / Continuity 
Changes in a gradual or orderly fashion can add interest yet calm feeling, e.g. subtle variation in colours, shapes or the way 
features or object components are arranged. On the other hand, abruptness or discontinuity produces striking effects and 
unsettling feeling. 
Solidity / Structural Coherence 
The sensation of solidity can be created by fullness or robust characteristics such as round objects of heavy material and 
solid colours. Double curved surfaces generally give an impression of more fullness than a single curved surface. Abrupt 
transitions between parts tend to give a feel of being breakable or fragile. Visual power which suggests stability and 
strength, can also be increased by combining several elements of similar characteristics into one whole mass, e.g. a tight 
arrangement of sharp objects along a parallel direction. 
Simplicity 
Over-crowded features or over-precisely arrangement of objects may lose spontaneity and dilute focus. 
Dynamics 
Boldness in terms of energy and tension may be suggested by certain characteristics such as radial directions, gravitational 
pulling forces and outwardly thrusting forces. A sense of movement may also be induced by a definite orientation or path, 
e.g. a spiral composition around an axis. 
Rhythm 
The eye recognises a repeated form, colour, intensity or tone very quickly, hence repetitions can provoke interesting effects. 
However, some variations are needed to prevent monotony. A sensation of rhythm or visual kinetics can be created by the 
repetition of objects of similar characteristics, e.g. a group of cylinders of different sizes along a slanted and parallel 
direction induces a sensation of undulating rhythm. 
4. LINKING DESIGN VARIABLES TO AESTHETIC PROPERTIES 
To provide concrete guidelines on how to carry out experiments described in Section 2 on alternative designs, we need to 
construct a scheme by which aesthetic judgements and responses may be evaluated systematically. For each principle for 
achieving aesthetic product, we identify concrete and computable properties of products that may be varied so that different 
degree of fulfilment of that particular aesthetic principle is achieved. This in turn would induce different responses which 
can be expressed in a range of aesthetic evaluative terms. The list of design variables in shape, composition and physical 
properties that link with nine principles is given in the following table. 
Aesthetic 
Principles 
Shape 
Composition 
Physical Properties 
Colour / intensity 
Balance • degree of asymmetry 
about centre of mass, 
major axes, and 
planes of reference 
(frontal, profile, 
median) 
• comparative size and 
spacing of features 
• degree of symmetry 
of arrangements of 
objects about centre 
of mass, major axes 
and planes of 
references of the 
whole product 
relative location, area 
coverage and 
variations of 
• complementary and 
opponent colours 
• different luminance 
intensity, hue, or 
saturation 
Proportion • ratio of major linear 
dimensions of object 
features 
• ratio of areas 
• ratio of volumes 
• relative spacings of 
objects 
• relative size, area and 
volume of objects 
not applicable 
Dominance • major orientation 
• smoothness of 
curvature 
• convexity of shape 
• global shape 
characteristics of 
smallest convex 
polygonal enclosing 
object 
• surface types: plane, 
single curved, double 
curved, warped 
presence of distinct 
patterns of 
arrangements 
• orientation 
• path 
• grouping pattern 
(number of objects, 
positions within a 
group), e.g. 
triangular, pyramid, 
radiation, circular 
presence of 
• prevalent colour 
• distinct colour 
• highlight 
(can work with hue, 
saturation and value 
separately or with their 
combination in terms of 
colour) 
Alternation • size 
• convexity 
• curvature 
• orientation 
• size 
• convexity 
• curvature 
• orientation 
• opponent colours 
• light / dark intensity 
Gradation • size 
• convexity 
• curvature 
• orientation 
• size 
• convexity 
• curvature 
• orientation 
• value 
• hue 
• saturation 
Solidity • convexity 
• surface types: double 
vs. single-curved 
• roundness 
• squareness 
• tightness of 
arrangements 
• arrangement of 
similar objects 
• no hole, or a small 
• saturation of colours 
• strength of intensity 
• smoothness of 
transitions between 
parts 
number of holes 
Simplicity 
• number of features 
• range of sizes 
• number of different 
line or curve 
orientations 
• number of objects 
• number of different 
major line or curve 
orientations 
• number of different 
colours or tones 
Dynamics • change of curvature, 
orientation of lines, 
planes towards (or 
away from) one point 
or along a specific 
orientation 
• arrangement of 
objects towards one 
point (or away from) 
or along a specific 
path 
• gradual change in 
hue, saturation or 
value of colours 
towards (or away 
from) one point or 
along a specific path 
• arrangement of 
similar colours 
towards (or away 
from) one point or 
along a specific path 
Rhythm repetitions of 
• orientation 
• line, curve types 
• volume size and 
global characteristics 
repetitions of similar 
objects 
repetitions of similar 
colours (in hue, saturation 
or value) 
Our intention is to make sure that a variety of aesthetic judgements and emotional responses are obtained not at random, but 
in a more controlled and exhaustive manner which exert the most impacts. Furthermore, the combined effects of different 
aesthetic principles can also be explored using this method. To simplify the explanation on physical properties, we choose 
to deal only with a few aspects relating to colour and tone. However, similar reasoning can be easily applied to other 
physical properties such as texture and material. One thing worth noting is that there is an inherent limitation on the extent 
to which aesthetic quality can be evaluated by examining variations in individual characteristics of a product because the 
expressive character of a volume is perceived not only as a combination of its features such as edges, planes and surfaces, 
but also as a whole entity. Despite this limitation, we believe that this systematic framework will add much useful 
knowledge towards computer supported design for aesthetics in a number of ways. By manipulating the identified design 
variables in terms of shape, composition and physical properties of a a given designed product, aesthetic judgements and 
responses can be explored. Similarly, aesthetic evaluation of alternative designs can be achieved by comparing the values 
of these variables for each design to see how well it has fulfilled each principle. In other words, evaluation being carried out 
this way, resembles that performed by professional critics. These variables can also be manipulated in the finishing stage 
when an initial design is checked and further refined to improve its aesthetic appearance. 
5. CONCLUSION 
We have shown how knowledge from various fields concerning with different aspects of aesthetics, can be integrated in 
order to construct a systematic framework to link design variables in terms of shape, composition and physical properties to 
aesthetic properties, judgements and responses. It is hoped that this analysis would make a concrete step towards providing 
computer-supported tools for design for aesthetics which has been up to now rather elusive. 
ACKNOWLEGEMENT 
The author would like to thank the Integrated Concept Advancement (ICA) group of the Sub-Faculty of Industrial Design 
Engineering, FDEP, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, for many inspiring discussions during her visit. 
REFERENCES 
1. Beardsley M.C, “Aesthetics”, Hartcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1958. 
2. Breemen E.J.J. van, Knoop W.G., Horváth I., Vergeest, J.S.M. and Pham B. (1998), “Developing a methodology for 
design for aesthetics based on analogy of communication”, Proceedings of 1998 ASME DTM Conference, September 
1998, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 
3. Chen, K., Owen, C.L, “Form Language and Style Description”, Design Studies, vol.18, nr.3, pp.249-274, 1997. 
4. Desmet, P.M.A., Tax, S.J.E.T., “Designing a Mobile Telecommunication Device with an Emotional Surplus Value: a 
Case Study”, to appear in Design Studies, 1998 
5. Dickie G., “Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis”, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1974. 
6. Frijda, N.H., “The Emotions, Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
UK, 1986. 
7. Gatta K., Lange G. and Lyons M., “Foundations of Graphic Design”, Davis Publications, Worcester, Massachusetts, 
1991. 
8. Goldman “Aesthetic Value”, Westview Press, Colorado, 1995. 
9. Hine T., “The Total Pakage: The Evolution and Secret Meanings of Boxes, Bottles, Cans, and Tubes”, Little , Brown 
and Company, NY, 1995. 
10. Kant I., Critique of Judgement (Kritik der Urteilskraft), 1790. 
11. Knoop W.G., Breemen E.J.J. van, Horváth I., Vergeest, J.S.M. and Pham B., “Towards Computer Supported Design for 
Aesthetics”, 31st ASATA - International Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation, Dusseldorf, Germany, 
2-5 June 1998. 
12. Meadow, C. T., Yuan, W., "Measuring the Impact of Information: Defining the Concepts", Information Processing and 
Management, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 697-714, 1997. 
13. Palmer, J., Dodson, M., (1996), "Design and Aesthetics: A Reader", Routledge Publisher, London. 
14. Pham, B., “Integration of aesthetic intents to CAD systems” in: Proceedings of the 1996 ASME Design Engineering 
Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering Comference, August 18-22, Irvine , California, USA, Published 
on CD-ROM, Papernr. 96-DETC/CIE-1333, 1996. 
15. Pye D., “The Nature and Aesthetics of Design”, The Herbert Press, UK, 1995. 
16. Reich, Y., “A Model of Aesthetic Judgment in Design”, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, vol.8, no.2, pp.141- 153, 
1993. 
17. Rogers L.R., “Sculpture - The Appreciation of the Arts”, Oxford University Press, London, 1969. 
18. Ruskin, J., “The Elements of Drawing”, Rover Publications, New York, 1971 (first published 1857). 
19. de Sausmarez M., “Basic Design: The Dynamics of Visual Form”, Herbert Pres. Ltd London, 1987. 
20. Stiny G.N. and Gips, “Algorithmic Aesthetics: Computer Models for Criticism and Design in the Arts”, University of 
California Press, Berkley, LA, 1978. 
21. Tolstoy L., “What is Art?”, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1896, reprinted 1960. 
22. Tovey, M., “Styling and design: intuition and analysis in industrial design” in Design Studies vol.18, nr.1, pp. 5-32, 
Elsevier, London, 1997. 
23. Van Hasselt T. and Wagner J., “Building Better Paintings”, Australian Artist Magazine, N164, pp49-53, 1997. 
24. Willcox D., “Wood Design”, Watson-Guptill Publications, N.Y, 1972.