Everyday aesthetic preference: a battle of impulses
Prof. dr. P. (Paul) Hekkert (m) 11-09-1963, Deventer, TU Delft – Industrial Design
Beauty also follows rules: people like familiar things, but also like new things. This project aims to show that this ‘battle’ rules aesthetic preference at all experience levels, from the sensory up to the social.

We’re very happy with the feedback and score the jury gave us:

8.0 | Originality, creativity and innovativeness
6.2 | Technical and operational ability
4.0 | Economic and financial viability (business case)
7.4 | Use case and end-user value
6.6 | The quality of the members of the (management) team

As you can see, you actually scored the same total points. Netherlands was very difficult to judge as there were three start-ups with the same total points in the end (very high quality!). Unfortunately, based on the discussions afterwards you didn’t make it to the final.

We have the following feedback for you based on the scores and the comments made by our jury members:

• - Snapje unusual start-up that covers a niche problem, but does this very well. We did miss some more insights into the Autistic community (stats and figures).
• - The service as well as the entry (and material) is very clear and well presented. It also looks good. You have also done your research which is very well done.
• - What about the technology? Can this be extended or used for other concepts? Is it scalable for other markets other than Autism?
• - The jury did have a problem with the business case. Is there a good business case possible, or is it better to search for funding.
• - Funding is better than asking fees in this case, but it is difficult to find commercial possibilities with this concept. It might be better to focus on groups that have to do with: children, parents, healthcare.
• - Governments and organisations could help: Unicef, Ministry of Health, etcetera. It could be a good idea to have a talk with Syntens about the funding possibilities.

In short: The jury really liked the idea and you just missed becoming a finalist, but we do like to see this start-up become great and helpful for the people involved.

This feedback has given us a lot of energy. Therefore we continue our search for partners and funding. Please contact lars.rengersen (at) susagroup.com if you have any suggestions or visit http://www.emotiondiary.com.

Gr Steven de Groot
KULTIFA | http://www.kultifa.nl

Thank you for your comments about the video. It is definitely some valid point. One important point is that we most often combine the 3 metrixes of eye tracking, reading and emotional arousal also combine with interviews and surveys. we believe that the right combination of methods is highly relevant. Many of our client around the World build methodologies on top of our software and it would probably also be interesting to combine it with your tool as well for getting even deeper insights.

Also, with regards to the bio feedback methods, we have measured the technology directly up against GSR sensors with very good correlation, but we find attention tool better at classifying the middle reactions (not high or low arousal). We also work with in depth statistics when deriving conclusions from our software.

Interesting points you have and I find that they correlate quite well with what we claim.

Best regards,

Peter

That statement is not new. Maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen (sorry for the dutch, you could translate it with something like: Corporate social responsibility) is a well know trend. It’s focus is, next to making profit, on delivering value to your employees, environment, etc.

Having a “good” organization should be way more important then having a beautiful one. To get back to the football, or even better , a soccer team: For the fans it’s nice when they play beautiful soccer and win matches (compare: for shareholders a profit is important). However a the team that also helps the society, by teaching kids, helping to get neighbourhoods better, etc, is in my opinion a much better organization, even if they don’t win as many games.

In this sense I think the term beauty is slightly misleading since it hints at a visual quality. In the comments on Tim’s article some interesting and broader examples are given. For instance, one commenter states that Tim’s article can be compared to the way a football team can play beautiful football. It’s in the structure of the team and the team’s playing style that beauty lies.

What seems to be the real question here is should organizations be build with efficiency and functionality in mind? Or should organizations really be about providing a ‘beautiful’ experience? Both for their customers as well as for their employees.

This entails all the above mentioned concepts (products, visual identity, etc.), as well as the organization of the company, the company’s ‘playing style’ if you will. I agree that creating such a ‘beautiful playing style’ would require insight into the goals of the organization and the specific qualities of the people working there. Only through exploiting individual qualities in relation to the organizations goals can a team develop that is capable of playing a beautiful game.