This essay serves as a formalized definition of familiarism in regards to the design of physical objects. I did not create this design practice, only recognized its existence with a name. If anyone feels that this idea has already been coined or would like to provide feedback, please reach out.
It is important to note that familiarism is not an absolute design philosophy. It is not appropriate for every scenario, but I hope the ideas written in this article will add value to your own design process.
Familiarism is the combination of a familiar interaction with an incongruous object in the effort to create a more unique experience.
Humans prefer the familiar. We gravitate towards what we know. We find comfort in routine. We resist change, and we fear the unknown. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense. Things we found familiar probably didn’t kill us. In psychology this is documented as the Mere-exposure effect. Many creatives, whether knowingly or not, have used the effects of familiarity in their work.
When I was studying at the Savannah College of Art and Design in 2012, one of my first studio projects was to design a night light inspired by a famous designer. Our professor provided the class with a list of designers (Dieter Rams, Philippe Starck, etc.). Being completely new to design, none of us knew many of these designers. We all wanted Dieter Rams of course, and Rams was the first to get chosen. It was my turn to choose a designer, and my professor suggested Naoto Fukasawa. He thought I would find Fukaswawa’s simple designs fun and attractive as well. I went on to complete this project which eventually became my Prism nightlight.
The unique thing about this first studio class was that the prompt was strictly focused on understanding and implementing the philosophy of the chosen designer. We were not mimicking their brand or visual language, but rather understanding why the designer made specific decisions in their designs.
I studied Fukasawa’s philosophy and found a playfulness and subconscious understanding in his designs. It was almost as if you could understand his designs without ever having interacted with them before. For example, Fukasawa discusses the CD player he designed for Muji. The square CD player is mounted to the wall with the CD exposed and the power cord hanging down to the outlet. Fukasawa was inspired by the way a ceiling fan has a hanging pull cord. When pulled, a ceiling fan slowly starts to spin and the user feels a nice breeze. Just like the fan, when the power cord on the CD player is pulled, the CD slowly starts to spin and the user feels the music. I found a lot of his designs have these subtle subconscious cues and playful elements. When thinking about why Fukasawa’s designs felt unique, I realized that he often uses familiar interactions but implements them on objects that don’t usually have that type of interaction.
Fukasawa didn’t have a specific term for this idea, so I started searching to see if other designers had utilized these familiar interactions on incongruous objects. I found quite a few designers had implemented this technique, whether they realized it or not. I think commonly designers would refer to this type of design as clever or playful, but there was this underlying thread of familiarity to it all. I realized that no designer had given this technique a name or structure, so I decided to name it familiarism.
Originally, I kept my familiarism mostly to myself. I would occasionally bring it up with friends, and we’d discuss why or why not something embodied familiarism. I graduated from college and started to build my career without ever writing down an actual definition of familiarism. As I told more people, I started to notice some of them were trying out the idea of familiarism. I’d be doing them a disservice if they were talking about a word without a definition. So, now it’s time to lay the ground rules for familiarism.
I’ve been distilling the idea of familiarism and trying to figure out how it differs from clever design or just general use of familiarity in design. Let’s break down the how to use familiarism properly and the specific elements that make it unique. There are three key elements to familiarism.
1. The goal of familiarism is to create a unique experience.
I’ve found that familiarism does not necessarily improve an object, but rather creates a novel or unique experience. As designers, we are often hardwired to always be improving and refining designs. Familiarism often goes against this notion and could possibly detract from optimal functionality or usability of an object. This certainly could be a bad approach for many objects, but for others it could be worth a more involved interaction for the sake of a novel experience. Of course, on the other hand, if familiarism does happen to make the design more effective while also creating a unique experience, then that’s a win-win.
2. The object must have a familiar interaction.
Familiar interactions are interactions that a user would know on a subconscious level. Something that one has used many times before, like the flick of a light switch or twist of a knob. It’s important to be able to understand the difference between the interaction and the form itself. Often times interactions are tied closely to a form; we inherently know how to interact with a knob because of the form. While it’s okay to use a familiar form to indicate the familiar interaction, the focus of the design should be on the interaction. Relying too heavily on the familiar form can end up creating a kitsch design.
3. The familiar interaction must be implemented on an incongruous object.
An incongruous object is an object in which the familiar interaction is not common or non existent. If the common interaction of twisting a knob was combined with a door, the effect would be mundane. The interaction must be on object not commonly associated with that interaction. The juxtaposition of these two things is key to creating a unique experience.
One of my favorite examples of familiarism is by Skrekkøgle. The, now defunct, Norwegian studio created the Plugg fm radio. It’s a simple cube that houses an fm radio inside. On top there a cork sticking out. When the cork is removed the radio turns on, and music flows out of the hole. The familiar interaction of unplugging a cork is not a common interaction for a radio. Therefore this juxtaposition creates a truly unique and poetic experience.
I really like this example for a few reasons that extend beyond the definition of familiarism. For starters, the beauty of this interaction is that uncorking a bottle and pouring out the liquid relates to the uncorking of the radio and the pouring out of sound. The contents flows out of both objects. It’s not a requirement of familiarism to relate the interaction to the main function of the object, but when possible it can create a stronger design. Another aspect that Skrekkøgle does well is making the familiar interaction the focus of the design. While this radio could have been easier to use with a way to select a station (I’m not even sure if their design allows this, possibly underneath the cube?), the fact that the cork is the main element strengthens the concept even more.
Let’s look at a product that I designed that embodies familiarism. In 2018, I was working on a bottle opener design for almost object, my brand for experimental products. I was exploring the idea of a single revolved form, mainly because revolved forms can be easily manufactured. I stumbled upon the idea of creating a bottle opener that could also spin like a toy top. This idea stood out to me, and after analyzing it later, I realized it embodied familiarism. The Spin bottle opener has the familiar interaction of spinning a top and that interaction is not common on a bottle opener.
One thing to note about the Spin bottle opener is that, in contrast to the Plugg radio, the interaction does not relate to the function of opening a bottle. In this case, spinning the opener and using it to open bottles are two separate interactions. Nevertheless the design still embodies familiarism, and the juxtaposition between the familiar interaction and the object create a unique experience.
Another example of familiarism is Naoto Fukasawa’s salt and pepper shakers. Fukasawa created a salt and pepper set designed like maracas. The interesting thing about this particular example is that shaking is actually a common interaction for salt and pepper. On first thought this might not seem to be familiarism, but since Fukasawa uses the familiar form of maracas the context of the interaction changes. Since shaking maracas is a very distinct, subconscious interaction, it is not commonly associated with salt and pepper shakers.
It’s important to note the use of familiar form and interaction in this design. Fukasawa only uses the form of maracas just enough to inform the familiar interaction and change the context. Any more embellishments or details added to the form could have created a kitsch design. Also, similar to the Plugg radio, Fukasawa relates the interaction to the function of the object which creates another layer of delight when the user first makes that connection.
If you want to look at more examples, I’ve been collecting my favorite examples of familiarism here. I’ve noted the familiar interaction and the incongruous object for each image.
Often times familiarism can be mistaken for any object that is similar to a familiar object. Now let’s look a couple examples that are not familiarism, but could be confused with familiarism.
Here’s a unique design by Naoto Fukasawa that I quite enjoy. It’s a juice box with the skin of the fruit juice it contains. It’s a fun design and instantly looks familiar, but this is not familiarism. Familiarism must focus on a familiar interaction. The juice box has a familiar form but does not highlight the interaction. If Fukasawa instead had focused on the familiar interaction of peeling a banana to open a juice box, then it could be considered familiarism.
Here’s another familiar design by Harry Allen, a piggy bank that looks like a literal pig. It’s familiar form creates a unique experience, but it is not familiarism. The focus needs to be on the interaction and not on the form to be considered familiarism.
I often find that when a familiar form is relied upon too heavily the design can start to look kitschy or ornate. While it’s subjective on whether maximalist design is good or bad, when added to familiarism the interaction can get lost in the details. Familiar interactions are most effective when they are presented clearly to the subconscious mind.
We understand the three elements and have reviewed some good examples, but how should one actually use familiarism in practice? I often times find myself discovering that I had used familiarism without even knowing it. There’s no hard process or steps to take to create an object that embodies familiarism yet, but I have been experimenting with some techniques that could be helpful.
One way to use familiarism is to make a list of as many familiar interactions as possible. Think about twisting knobs, folding paper, bouncing a ball, etc. They could be specific or vague. Now, whenever you are designing an object take a look at the list of familiar interactions. Pick one and explore how that interaction would work on the object. Ask yourself, does this create a unique experience? Is the unique experience detracting too much from the function? Would the user subconsciously know how to interact with the object? Is the interaction the focus of the object?
Maybe the familiar interaction you chose doesn’t work with the object. It could completely ruin the function, or it could feel forced. If that’s the case, scrap it, and try another familiar interaction. Or, maybe the familiar interaction led you down a path to come up with another good design which doesn’t embody familiarism. If that design fulfills your needs then great! Sometimes familiarism just doesn’t fit, and that’s okay. It’s not an end all be all, use it as needed and as you see helpful.
There’s certainly a lot of examples of the use of familiarity in design. I thought it would be helpful to list a few that are tangential or foundational to understanding the value of familiarity. I encourage you to read more about these ideas, and feel free to suggest additional ones.
Raymond Loewy’s MAYA principle:
MAYA stands for Most Advanced Yet Acceptable. In order to innovate, one must gradually introduce new designs that only slightly differ from the previous generation. If a design is too new, it can be rejected by the market. The MAYA principle often uses familiarity to comfort the user into using new innovations.
Skeuomorphism:
Skeuomorphism refers to the use of realistic textures or forms that refers back to the original use. This was a prevalent feature in the introduction of the first iPhone. Again, similar to the MAYA principle, skeuomorphism aids in the understanding of new innovations through familiarity.
Affordance:
Affordance is the understanding of what an object does usually just by looking at it. This is an important idea that familiarism builds on. The idea that the user inherently knows how to interact with an object due to past experiences is the core of a familiar interaction.
While I’ve coined familiarism and have implemented the idea in several of my designs, I find that it is by no means the ultimate or absolute design philosophy. Each and every product should be designed with care according to the circumstances in which it resides. I hope that you’ve gotten some helpful knowledge from this article, and I will continue to refine familiarism as my career progresses.
