In a New York Time's Magazine* Consumed article, Rob Walker discusses the IDEA award winning HomeHero fire extinguisher. The product is notable because unlike traditional fire extinguisher designs, the HomeHero is clearly designed to be attractive . More than just an aesthetic issue, the argument is that making such a product visual appealing will influence owners to place it in a visible and presentable location - thereby improving access and speeding up time to use in a fire. So there's an interesting concept on making products (at least or especially safety products) attractive to promote their accessibility and enhance user situational awareness. [Incidentally, Walker points out that the IDEA judging is not based on direct experience with the actual products, but rather images and descriptions submitted by the entrants.]
On a related point, Walker mentions Don Norman's idea that "attractive things work better". (Incidentally, this is frequently confused with the Aesthetic-Usability Effect where attractive things are perceived as easier to use.) I bring this up because I imagine the HomeHero's simple, clean aesthetic is perceived as easier to use, but I doubt that its perceived to work better. Rather, it may be the case that traditional fire extinguishers, while less attractive in a designer's aesthetic sense, have an industrial appearance that may more strongly communicate effectiveness to the consumer. In other words when we discuss "attractive" or "aesthetic" qualities, we need to qualify what we mean in the appropriate context.
*Incidentally - if you read one issue of the New York Times Magazine this year. This should be it. It's the "Annual Year in Ideas" - a summary of the most interesting and provocative inventions, theories, studies and concepts that emerged in 2007. Everything from an airborne wind turbine to Radiohead's music pricing approach. And the back-page listing of some of the year's strangest patents (e.g. a chewable toothbrush).
