Product Genome: Project Atlas Research Framework

Purpose

The Product Genome extends Composition Science into physical objects.

Its purpose is to explain why products are understandable, usable, desirable, durable, repairable, emotionally resonant, and visually coherent. It will examine products not as isolated works of taste but as systems produced by interactions among:

• human biology and cognition;
• physical forces;
• task requirements;
• materials and manufacturing;
• interface and control design;
• cultural expectation;
• economic constraints;
• maintenance and aging;
• designer intent;
• brand language;
• environmental context.

The central research question is:

Which properties of effective product design recur because they fit stable human and physical constraints, and which properties are contingent products of culture, technology, manufacturing, branding, or fashion?

This branch is intended to produce a reusable analytical system rather than a collection of admired products.

Key Findings

• Product design is not merely the styling of objects. It is the orchestration of physical action, perception, interpretation, feedback, risk, maintenance, and time.
• The most useful unit of analysis is not the designer or product category alone, but the relationship between a user goal, a physical object, an environment, and a sequence of actions.
• Famous designers should be modeled as distinct weightings of shared variables, not as isolated schools with wholly unique principles.
• Product quality is multidimensional. A product may be visually coherent but difficult to repair, intuitive but fragile, durable but exhausting, or pleasurable at first use but irritating over repeated use.
• Time must be treated as a first-class design variable because products accumulate wear, habit, attachment, contamination, repair, patina, and obsolescence.
• Manufacturing constraints are not external to design. They directly shape geometry, tolerance, seams, controls, materials, cost, durability, and visual character.
• Product semantics matter. People interpret form, weight, texture, resistance, placement, and motion as signals about how an object should be used.
• Good product design frequently reduces the need for conscious thought, but invisible operation is not always desirable. Safety-critical and high-consequence actions may require deliberate friction.
• The Product Genome should preserve tensions rather than collapse them into simplistic rules. Simplicity, visibility, repairability, compactness, safety, elegance, and manufacturing efficiency often conflict.

Content

1. Position Within Composition Science

Product design sits at the intersection of several existing Project Atlas branches:

• Composition: placement, proportion, grouping, hierarchy, balance, rhythm, and visual weight.
• Typography: labeling, legibility, symbolic systems, information density, and control identification.
• Color: status communication, differentiation, salience, material perception, warning, and brand recognition.
• Architecture: circulation, thresholds, bodily scale, spatial sequencing, environmental fit, and use over time.
• Artist Genomes: recurring formal choices, expressive signatures, historical influence, and stylistic recombination.

Product design adds dimensions that are less central in static visual media:

• grip;
• reach;
• force;
• leverage;
• resistance;
• balance;
• weight distribution;
• motion;
• tactile feedback;
• sound;
• temperature;
• safety;
• fatigue;
• assembly;
• cleaning;
• repair;
• storage;
• transport;
• degradation.

The Product Genome therefore becomes one of the strongest environments for testing whether proposed design laws generalize across media.

2. Core Unit of Analysis

The primary analytical unit will be the human-object-action loop.

Human goal
    ↓
Perception of object and context
    ↓
Interpretation of available action
    ↓
Physical action
    ↓
Object response
    ↓
Sensory feedback
    ↓
Evaluation of outcome
    ↓
Continuation, correction, learning, or abandonment

A product succeeds when this loop is sufficiently clear, efficient, safe, and satisfying for its intended users and context.

A failure may occur at any stage:

• the user does not notice the relevant control;
• the control is noticed but misunderstood;
• the correct action is understood but physically difficult;
• the product responds slowly or ambiguously;
• feedback is absent or misleading;
• the result is technically correct but emotionally unsatisfying;
• repeated use creates fatigue or error;
• maintenance requirements invalidate the initial experience.

3. Layers of the Product Genome

Layer 1: Human Biology

Stable or slowly changing constraints include:

• anthropometric dimensions;
• joint range of motion;
• hand geometry;
• grip types;
• strength distribution;
• motor precision;
• visual acuity;
• peripheral vision;
• color discrimination;
• auditory discrimination;
• tactile sensitivity;
• proprioception;
• reaction time;
• fatigue;
• memory limits;
• attention limits;
• age-related change;
• impairment and disability.

These variables define the space of physically and cognitively plausible designs.

Layer 2: Physical Reality

Products operate under forces and material behavior:

• gravity;
• inertia;
• friction;
• compression;
• tension;
• torsion;
• vibration;
• heat;
• moisture;
• impact;
• wear;
• contamination;
• corrosion;
• electrical behavior;
• acoustic behavior;
• tolerance accumulation.

A design that ignores physical reality can appear successful in a rendering while failing in use.

Layer 3: Universal Interaction Principles

Initial cross-domain principles include:

• affordance;
• signification;
• feedback;
• mapping;
• constraint;
• consistency;
• discoverability;
• reversibility;
• error prevention;
• error recovery;
• visibility of state;
• appropriate resistance;
• hierarchy;
• control differentiation;
• action consequence proportionality.

These principles are not assumed to be universal laws. Each must be tested against product classes, user populations, and contexts.

Layer 4: Product Architecture

The object as a system:

• component hierarchy;
• enclosure;
• frame;
• shell;
• interface zones;
• load paths;
• modularity;
• access points;
• fasteners;
• seams;
• hinges;
• joints;
• internal service layout;
• replaceable parts;
• consumables;
• packaging and transport state.

Layer 5: Material and Manufacturing Logic

Material choice affects both actual and perceived behavior:

• stiffness;
• weight;
• warmth;
• texture;
• acoustic response;
• reflectivity;
• durability;
• precision;
• perceived value;
• repairability;
• recyclability;
• manufacturing process;
• surface finish;
• tolerance;
• production volume;
• tooling cost.

Manufacturing methods should be treated as generative constraints rather than after-the-fact implementation details.

Layer 6: Product Semantics

Products communicate through form.

Semantic signals include:

• what can be touched;
• what can move;
• what is dangerous;
• what is fragile;
• where force should be applied;
• which side faces the user;
• whether a state is complete;
• whether an object is stable;
• whether a part is removable;
• whether an action is reversible;
• whether the product belongs in a domestic, professional, medical, or industrial context.

The Product Genome will study when these signals are biologically grounded, culturally learned, or dependent on category familiarity.

Layer 7: Emotional and Symbolic Design

Products also operate as identity-bearing objects.

Variables include:

• familiarity;
• novelty;
• status;
• trust;
• seriousness;
• playfulness;
• calmness;
• precision;
• luxury;
• ruggedness;
• nostalgia;
• attachment;
• personalization;
• ritual;
• brand recognition.

This layer should not be dismissed as superficial. Emotional interpretation changes adoption, care, perceived usability, willingness to learn, and product longevity.

Layer 8: Time

A product is not fully described by first use.

The temporal genome includes:

• unboxing;
• setup;
• first-use learning;
• repeated operation;
• habit formation;
• muscle memory;
• cleaning;
• calibration;
• maintenance;
• repair;
• part replacement;
• cosmetic wear;
• structural wear;
• patina;
• software support;
• compatibility loss;
• resale;
• disposal;
• inheritance.

Time can improve a product through mastery and attachment or degrade it through friction, wear, and obsolescence.

4. Product Genome Node Structure

Each analyzed product will be represented using stable genome nodes.

PG-HUM: Human Factors

• PG-HUM-001 Anthropometric Fit
• PG-HUM-002 Reach Envelope
• PG-HUM-003 Grip Compatibility
• PG-HUM-004 Required Strength
• PG-HUM-005 Motor Precision
• PG-HUM-006 Visual Demand
• PG-HUM-007 Cognitive Load
• PG-HUM-008 Fatigue Accumulation
• PG-HUM-009 Accessibility Range

PG-INT: Interaction

• PG-INT-001 Affordance
• PG-INT-002 Signifier Clarity
• PG-INT-003 Control-to-Outcome Mapping
• PG-INT-004 Feedback Latency
• PG-INT-005 Feedback Strength
• PG-INT-006 State Visibility
• PG-INT-007 Error Resistance
• PG-INT-008 Error Recovery
• PG-INT-009 Reversibility
• PG-INT-010 Action Sequence Length

PG-FOR: Form and Composition

• PG-FOR-001 Proportion
• PG-FOR-002 Visual Hierarchy
• PG-FOR-003 Mass Distribution
• PG-FOR-004 Symmetry and Asymmetry
• PG-FOR-005 Edge Language
• PG-FOR-006 Surface Continuity
• PG-FOR-007 Part Differentiation
• PG-FOR-008 Visual Stability
• PG-FOR-009 Formal Rhythm
• PG-FOR-010 Brand Coherence

PG-MAT: Material

• PG-MAT-001 Material Honesty
• PG-MAT-002 Tactile Character
• PG-MAT-003 Thermal Character
• PG-MAT-004 Acoustic Character
• PG-MAT-005 Wear Behavior
• PG-MAT-006 Surface Grip
• PG-MAT-007 Cleanability
• PG-MAT-008 Perceived Durability
• PG-MAT-009 Actual Durability

PG-MFG: Manufacturing

• PG-MFG-001 Process Compatibility
• PG-MFG-002 Tolerance Strategy
• PG-MFG-003 Joinery Logic
• PG-MFG-004 Assembly Complexity
• PG-MFG-005 Part Count
• PG-MFG-006 Tooling Dependency
• PG-MFG-007 Finish Dependency
• PG-MFG-008 Production Scalability

PG-SVC: Service and Life Cycle

• PG-SVC-001 Access for Maintenance
• PG-SVC-002 Disassembly
• PG-SVC-003 Replaceable Components
• PG-SVC-004 Consumable Burden
• PG-SVC-005 Repair Skill Requirement
• PG-SVC-006 Spare Part Availability
• PG-SVC-007 Upgradeability
• PG-SVC-008 End-of-Life Separation

PG-EMO: Emotional and Symbolic Response

• PG-EMO-001 Immediate Appeal
• PG-EMO-002 Trust
• PG-EMO-003 Perceived Competence
• PG-EMO-004 Familiarity
• PG-EMO-005 Distinctiveness
• PG-EMO-006 Attachment Potential
• PG-EMO-007 Ritual Value
• PG-EMO-008 Status Signaling
• PG-EMO-009 Calmness
• PG-EMO-010 Delight

PG-TIM: Temporal Behavior

• PG-TIM-001 Learnability
• PG-TIM-002 Mastery Curve
• PG-TIM-003 Habit Support
• PG-TIM-004 Wear Visibility
• PG-TIM-005 Patina Quality
• PG-TIM-006 Maintenance Frequency
• PG-TIM-007 Functional Longevity
• PG-TIM-008 Aesthetic Longevity
• PG-TIM-009 Obsolescence Exposure

5. Designer Genomes

Designer analysis will occur after the shared genome is defined sufficiently to avoid reducing the project to biography or style appreciation.

Dieter Rams

Initial weighting hypotheses:

• strong hierarchy;
• visual quiet;
• reduction of nonfunctional signals;
• clear organization;
• restrained material palette;
• long aesthetic half-life;
• system coherence;
• product-family consistency;
• skepticism toward novelty without utility.

Important research question:

Does Ramsian reduction improve use because it removes noise, or can it sometimes conceal functions and reduce discoverability?

Richard Sapper

Initial weighting hypotheses:

• mechanical intelligence;
• transformability;
• articulated motion;
• high information density with disciplined control;
• visible engineering logic;
• contrast between calm resting state and expressive active state;
• tactile and kinetic pleasure;
• precision without sterility.

Important research question:

How does Sapper preserve complexity while preventing complexity from becoming disorder?

Naoto Fukasawa

Initial weighting hypotheses:

• behavior-led form;
• unconscious action;
• environmental familiarity;
• reduced demand for explicit instruction;
• calm integration into ordinary life;
• high dependence on subtle signification.

Important research question:

When does “without thought” indicate genuine fit with behavior, and when does it merely rely on culturally learned conventions?

Jasper Morrison

Initial weighting hypotheses:

• super-normal familiarity;
• low symbolic noise;
• ordinary forms refined rather than reinvented;
• long-term domestic compatibility;
• resistance to spectacle.

Charles and Ray Eames

Initial weighting hypotheses:

• integration of ergonomics, structure, play, and production;
• experimentation with new manufacturing methods;
• visual warmth despite industrial repetition;
• modular thinking;
• accessible modernism;
• learning through prototyping.

Ettore Sottsass

Initial weighting hypotheses:

• symbolic force over neutrality;
• product as cultural statement;
• deliberate violation of restrained modernist expectations;
• color and pattern as structural meaning;
• emotional and narrative primacy.

Sottsass is essential as counterevidence against any claim that good design must be visually quiet, minimal, or self-effacing.

Additional Designers for Early Inclusion

• Henry Dreyfuss
• Raymond Loewy
• Achille Castiglioni
• Vico Magistretti
• George Nelson
• Florence Knoll
• Arne Jacobsen
• Eero Saarinen
• Verner Panton
• Luigi Colani
• Marc Newson
• Jony Ive
• Susan Kare
• Patricia Moore
• Patricia Urquiola
• Hella Jongerius
• Oki Sato
• Kenya Hara
• James Dyson
• Hartmut Esslinger

6. Product Domains

The initial dataset should span domains with different constraints.

Consumer Electronics

Useful for studying:

• interface density;
• miniaturization;
• precision manufacturing;
• software-hardware coupling;
• obsolescence;
• brand systems.

Furniture

Useful for studying:

• prolonged bodily contact;
• posture;
• load distribution;
• material aging;
• domestic compatibility;
• sculptural versus ergonomic tradeoffs.

Kitchen Tools

Useful for studying:

• grip;
• leverage;
• heat;
• contamination;
• cleaning;
• repeated motion;
• novice versus expert use.

Medical Devices

Useful for studying:

• safety;
• accessibility;
• anxiety;
• untrained users;
• error prevention;
• hygiene;
• regulatory constraints.

Hand Tools

Useful for studying:

• force transfer;
• fatigue;
• feedback;
• durability;
• grip geometry;
• precision;
• task specialization.

Automotive Controls

Useful for studying:

• divided attention;
• operation under motion;
• tactile identification;
• safety-critical feedback;
• convention;
• automation handoff.

Cameras

Useful for studying:

• expert control systems;
• tactile memory;
• hand fit;
• control differentiation;
• mechanical versus digital interaction;
• compactness tradeoffs.

Musical Instruments

Useful for studying:

• mastery;
• embodied memory;
• expressive control;
• feedback richness;
• traditional form persistence;
• micro-timing.

Packaging

Useful for studying:

• first-use interaction;
• access;
• protection;
• communication;
• tamper evidence;
• waste;
• resealing;
• storage after opening.

Aviation and Industrial Controls

Useful for studying:

• high consequence;
• redundancy;
• standardization;
• control separation;
• state visibility;
• alarm hierarchy;
• operation under stress.

7. Evaluation Dimensions

Each product case study should be scored or described along separate dimensions. A single “good design” score would hide important tradeoffs.

Suggested dimensions:

1. comprehension;
2. discoverability;
3. physical fit;
4. operational efficiency;
5. feedback quality;
6. error resistance;
7. recovery quality;
8. accessibility;
9. durability;
10. repairability;
11. maintenance burden;
12. manufacturing coherence;
13. emotional resonance;
14. visual coherence;
15. contextual fit;
16. longevity;
17. environmental burden.

Scores should be accompanied by evidence and assumptions. Numerical precision should not be implied where none exists.

8. Research Method

Phase 1: Build the Variable Dictionary

• define genome nodes;
• identify overlapping concepts;
• separate causes from outcomes;
• distinguish measurable and interpretive variables;
• specify likely data sources;
• record unit and scale where quantification is possible.

Phase 2: Collect Foundational Evidence

Priority evidence areas:

• anthropometrics;
• ergonomics;
• human factors;
• biomechanics;
• psychophysics;
• motor control;
• affordance research;
• control-response compatibility;
• tactile perception;
• fatigue;
• error analysis;
• repair behavior;
• product attachment;
• aging and patina;
• manufacturing tolerance.

Human experiments conducted specifically for Project Atlas should remain limited. Existing peer-reviewed research, standards, field studies, accident analyses, usability studies, patents, manuals, teardown data, museum archives, and manufacturer documentation should be used first.

Phase 3: Establish Contrast Sets

Compare products that perform the same task but embody different philosophies.

Examples:

• Braun calculator versus contemporary touchscreen calculator;
• IBM ThinkPad versus Apple MacBook;
• Moka pot versus pod coffee machine;
• cast-iron skillet versus nonstick skillet;
• Leica rangefinder versus smartphone camera;
• mechanical thermostat versus touchscreen thermostat;
• Eames lounge chair versus task chair;
• OXO Good Grips tool versus conventional kitchen tool;
• Anglepoise lamp versus Tizio lamp;
• repairable mechanical appliance versus sealed electronic appliance.

Contrast sets help isolate which differences are stylistic and which change performance.

Phase 4: Build Designer Profiles

For each designer:

• collect a representative sample;
• identify recurring genome weights;
• separate stated philosophy from observed work;
• compare early and late work;
• identify manufacturing partners and constraints;
• find counterexamples;
• distinguish personal contribution from studio, engineering, or corporate systems.

Phase 5: Test Cross-Domain Laws

Candidate laws should be tested across at least three distinct product domains before confidence is increased.

9. Required Evidence Types

Preferred evidence hierarchy:

1. peer-reviewed empirical study;
2. recognized human-factors or engineering standard;
3. controlled usability study;
4. accident or failure analysis;
5. long-term field study;
6. measured teardown or engineering analysis;
7. patent or technical documentation;
8. manufacturing documentation;
9. designer interview or primary statement;
10. museum archive;
11. professional critique;
12. user report;
13. visual inference.

A designer's statement about intent is evidence of intent, not proof of effect.

10. Important Tensions to Preserve

The Product Genome should explicitly model tradeoffs including:

• simplicity versus discoverability;
• compactness versus accessibility;
• low part count versus repairability;
• sealed construction versus service access;
• visual purity versus state visibility;
• flexibility versus clarity;
• novelty versus learned convention;
• delight versus efficiency;
• lightness versus durability;
• softness versus cleanability;
• customization versus consistency;
• automation versus user control;
• safety friction versus speed;
• universal design versus task specialization;
• material honesty versus protective finishing;
• timelessness versus cultural relevance.

Observations

OBS-PG-001

Observation

The same product can produce different judgments depending on whether evaluation occurs at first encounter, after mastery, during maintenance, or at end of life.

Interpretation

Product quality is time-dependent. First-use usability cannot stand in for lifetime performance.

Confidence

High as a framing observation; specific temporal metrics remain undeveloped.

OBS-PG-002

Observation

Many celebrated products tightly integrate formal character with manufacturing process.

Interpretation

Visual form often emerges from tooling, material behavior, assembly, and tolerance rather than from independent styling.

Confidence

Moderate pending systematic case comparison.

OBS-PG-003

Observation

Minimal visual form can reduce distraction while also reducing visible clues about operation.

Interpretation

Minimalism is not inherently equivalent to usability. Its effects depend on whether removed information was redundant or functional.

Confidence

High as a logical distinction; empirical strength to be established by product class.

OBS-PG-004

Observation

Products used through touch frequently depend on control differentiation by shape, resistance, texture, and position.

Interpretation

Tactile hierarchy may function similarly to visual hierarchy and can reduce the need for visual attention.

Confidence

Moderate to high.

OBS-PG-005

Observation

Repeated use can convert a difficult interface into an efficient one through muscle memory.

Interpretation

Learnability and expert efficiency are separate variables. Optimizing exclusively for immediate intuitiveness may limit later mastery.

Confidence

High.

OBS-PG-006

Observation

Products that expose their mechanisms can make cause and effect easier to understand but may increase visual complexity.

Interpretation

Mechanical legibility and visual simplicity are independent dimensions.

Confidence

Moderate.

OBS-PG-007

Observation

Repairability is often determined by architecture, fasteners, adhesives, software pairing, documentation, and parts access rather than material durability alone.

Interpretation

Functional longevity is a system property, not merely a property of strong materials.

Confidence

High.

Evidence

EVD-PG-001

Citation

Foundational human-factors, ergonomics, psychophysics, product-semantics, and industrial-design sources to be collected in the next research phase.

Summary

This initial document establishes the taxonomy and research hypotheses. It does not yet claim that the proposed genome nodes or laws have been empirically validated.

Supports

• LAW-PG-001
• LAW-PG-002
• LAW-PG-003
• LAW-PG-004
• LAW-PG-005

Challenges

• None recorded yet.

Candidate Laws

LAW-PG-001: Perceived Action Compatibility

Hypothesis

A control is learned and operated more reliably when its perceived form, location, direction, and resistance are compatible with the action it produces.

Prediction

Controls with stronger action compatibility will reduce hesitation, reversal errors, and instruction dependence compared with controls having arbitrary mappings.

Supporting Evidence

To be collected from control-response compatibility, affordance, signifier, and motor-control research.

Counter Evidence

Expert users may perform arbitrary mappings efficiently after training. Cultural convention may override physical compatibility.

Confidence

Preliminary.

LAW-PG-002: Consequence-Proportional Friction

Hypothesis

The effort, confirmation, or resistance required to perform an action should increase with the action's cost, danger, or irreversibility.

Prediction

Low-consequence frequent actions will benefit from reduced friction, while high-consequence actions will show fewer serious errors when differentiated through guards, force thresholds, separation, sequencing, or confirmation.

Supporting Evidence

To be collected from safety engineering, medical-device design, aviation controls, and error-prevention research.

Counter Evidence

Excessive friction can create workarounds, alarm fatigue, disabled safeguards, or delayed emergency action.

Confidence

Moderate as a hypothesis.

LAW-PG-003: Feedback Closure

Hypothesis

An action sequence remains cognitively unresolved until the user receives sufficiently timely and interpretable evidence that the intended state change occurred.

Prediction

Absent, delayed, or ambiguous feedback will increase repeated actions, uncertainty, abandonment, and accidental overcorrection.

Supporting Evidence

To be collected from human-computer interaction, appliance controls, vehicle systems, and psychophysics.

Counter Evidence

Highly practiced mechanical systems may provide indirect feedback through force, sound, or expectation that novice studies fail to capture.

Confidence

Moderate to high.

LAW-PG-004: Differentiation by Operational Importance

Hypothesis

Controls and components should be perceptually differentiated in proportion to the importance of distinguishing them during use.

Prediction

Critical controls that differ in shape, location, motion, texture, or resistance will produce fewer selection errors than visually similar controls, especially under low visibility or divided attention.

Supporting Evidence

To be collected from cockpit design, medical systems, hand tools, automotive controls, and accessible design.

Counter Evidence

Over-differentiation can produce clutter and weaken systematic consistency.

Confidence

Preliminary to moderate.

LAW-PG-005: Lifetime Coherence

Hypothesis

A product's design quality is limited by the weakest recurrent stage of its life cycle, not solely by its best moment of use.

Prediction

Products with excellent initial usability but severe cleaning, maintenance, repair, or compatibility burdens will show lower retention, satisfaction, and useful life than first-use evaluations predict.

Supporting Evidence

To be collected from longitudinal ownership studies, repair data, product reviews, failure databases, and maintenance research.

Counter Evidence

Prestige, emotional attachment, low purchase cost, or rapid replacement cycles may reduce the practical effect of later-stage burdens.

Confidence

Preliminary.

LAW-PG-006: Mastery Tradeoff

Hypothesis

Interfaces optimized for immediate discoverability and interfaces optimized for expert speed are not always identical.

Prediction

Some products with steeper learning curves will outperform immediately intuitive alternatives after repeated use, particularly in high-frequency or precision tasks.

Supporting Evidence

To be collected from musical instruments, professional tools, camera controls, keyboards, and industrial systems.

Counter Evidence

Poorly designed interfaces may be rationalized as expert systems despite offering no measurable advantage after learning.

Confidence

Moderate.

LAW-PG-007: Material Expectation Consistency

Hypothesis

Users form expectations about weight, temperature, stiffness, grip, sound, and durability from visible material cues, and violations of those expectations affect trust and perceived quality.

Prediction

Products whose sensory behavior conflicts with their apparent material character will produce lower confidence or quality judgments unless the mismatch is intentionally framed as novelty.

Supporting Evidence

To be collected from multisensory perception, material perception, haptics, packaging, and consumer research.

Counter Evidence

Learned brand associations and technical performance can supersede initial material expectations.

Confidence

Preliminary.

Open Questions

• Which genome nodes are true causes, and which are downstream judgments?
• What minimum set of variables explains most differences among successful product designs?
• Which product-design principles generalize to architecture, typography, and interface design?
• How should expert and novice performance be weighted when they conflict?
• Can product familiarity be measured separately from genuine physical affordance?
• How much of perceived simplicity is produced by hidden complexity elsewhere in the system?
• When does visual minimalism reduce cognitive load, and when does it erase necessary information?
• Can repairability and serviceability be represented as compositional properties of internal architecture?
• How should emotional attachment be distinguished from brand prestige or nostalgia?
• Which material properties produce durable aesthetic aging rather than merely visible deterioration?
• How should accessibility be represented when users have conflicting physical or sensory needs?
• What makes an interaction feel mechanically satisfying beyond mere task completion?
• How can we quantify the relationship between control resistance and perceived precision?
• Are there stable ratios between hand dimensions, control spacing, and error rates?
• Which design conventions are culturally local rather than biologically constrained?
• How do software updates alter the genome of a nominally unchanged physical product?
• Should a product and its packaging be treated as one sequential interaction system?
• Can designer authorship be separated reliably from engineering, manufacturing, and corporate design systems?

Next Actions

1. Build the foundational bibliography for human factors, ergonomics, product semantics, industrial design, repairability, and emotional durability.
2. Create a machine-readable Product Genome schema using the node IDs defined here.
3. Select an initial set of 20 products across at least six domains.
4. Establish five contrast pairs that perform similar tasks through substantially different design philosophies.
5. Begin designer genome profiles with Dieter Rams and Richard Sapper.
6. Separate designer statements from observed product characteristics and measured outcomes.
7. Collect anthropometric and control-spacing data before proposing dimensional laws.
8. Define a repeatable product case-study template.
9. Define confidence scales and evidence thresholds for genome weights.
10. Map Product Genome nodes to existing composition, typography, color, architecture, and artist-genome nodes.
11. Create a contradiction register so evidence against minimalism, intuitiveness, universality, or other favored ideas remains visible.
12. Publish the taxonomy, evidence records, case studies, and rejected hypotheses as the research develops.

Revision History

Agent Instructions

When creating or modifying this document:

1. Separate observation from interpretation.
2. Never strengthen a conclusion beyond the available evidence.
3. Preserve contradictory findings.
4. Prefer measurable variables over subjective descriptions.
5. Reference candidate laws and genome nodes whenever possible.
6. Use stable IDs for observations, evidence, laws, experiments, metrics, and case studies.
7. Record assumptions explicitly.
8. Record confidence explicitly.
9. Keep the YAML header valid.
10. Do not delete revision history; append to it.
11. Do not equate minimalism with quality or usability without evidence.
12. Treat designer statements as evidence of intent, not proof of effect.
13. Distinguish first-use performance from learned, repeated, and lifetime performance.
14. Record product domain, user population, environment, and task context for every case study.
15. Preserve tradeoffs rather than forcing all dimensions into one quality score.
16. Prefer existing research and documented field evidence before proposing new human experiments.
17. Identify whether each conclusion is biological, physical, cultural, technological, economic, or stylistic.
18. Record manufacturing process and service architecture whenever they materially affect the design.
19. Include counterexamples from expressive, decorative, vernacular, and non-Western design traditions.
20. Publish negative results and rejected candidate laws.

This template is the standard for all Composition Science project documents.