【正文】 ks between emotion and cognition, and between usability and users? emotions and aesthetic feelings. Only recently have they sought to draw these different threads together. We therefore begin by briefly characterizing emotions and their relationship with cognition, as well as their implications for product design (167。).We then point out the relationships between aesthetic feelings and users? judgments (167。 ), as well as between one aesthetic feature in particular (product colour) and users? preferences (167。 2 ). Emotions, cognition and product design The numerous papers on the subject of emotions offer divergent points of view about emotional phenomena ., [21,5,22]. Scherer[22] suggested distinguishing between various affective states and,in particular, contrasting utilitarian emotions and aesthetic two kinds of emotion result from an appraisal of environmental or proprioceptive information, but have different functions. Utilitarian emotions, such as anger and fear, allow us to adapt to events that may have major consequences for us as individuals. These adaptive functions may consist in the preparation of actions (such as confrontation or escape) or the recuperation and reorientation of work. In contrast, aesthetic emotions are unrelated to the need to satisfy vital and mandatory instance, a person can be impressed, admiring or diffuse sensations differ considerably from utilitarian emotions with regard to felt arousal and behaviour orientation. Although emotion is not understood as well as cognition, both of them can be regarded as information processing systems [23], but with different functions and operating parameters. Cognition allows us to interpret the world and make sense of it, whereas emotions are more judgmental, assigning positive and negative valences to the environment [6,7,5]. Advances in our understanding of cognition and emotion suggest that each impacts the , several studies have shown that emotions and affects have an impact on the cognitive functioning of individuals engaged in plex tasks [24,21,25]. According to Norman [7] and Csikszentmihalyi [26], emotions can even make us smart. For instance, positive affects broaden our thought processes and seem to enhance our creativity in finding design solutions [9]. Unlike negative affects, positive affects make difficult tasks easier to perform and make people more flexible and more tolerant of minor difficulties [6]. These approaches have implications for the design of products and interactive systems. In the field of HCI, a cognitive– affective model of organizational munication has been developed by Te?eni [27]. This author posits the notion that the munication process, which prises the munication medium (a Website in the case of our study) and the message form (., differences in the colours used for a Website), has an impact on the user and on whether the latter judges the munication to be appropriate. In line with this model, Norman [7] claims that the image which products present to the user, their attractiveness and the user?s behaviour, all need to be considered. As such, the design of products or interactive systems should take three levels of processing into account: – visceral design, which refers primarily to the initial impact of products and systems due to their appearance。 3 – behavioural design, which is about the experience of using a product or system (the “l(fā)ook and feel” ) and which contributes to its usability。 – reflective design, which is about the user?s subsequent opinion and what the latter has to say about the product or system (., how it makes him or her feel, the image it portrays or the message it conveys). Put in a slightly different way, we need to think about three dimensions when designing products: (1) their attractiveness (or appeal), which depends on visceral design, (2) their functional and usable properties, which result from behavioural design, and (3) their”prestige”, which is related to reflective design. Nowadays, therefore, the aim of designers is to e up with products or systems that are not only useful and usable, but which are also thought to convey positive emotions and feelings through their aesthetic features. Aesthetics and users’judgments Many years ago, social scientists demonstrated the importance of aesthetics in everyday life. For instance, a person?s physical appearance influences other aspects of social interaction [28]. Similarly,products? aesthetic qualities are deemed to play an important role in marketing strategies and the retail environment [29]. Only recently, however, has the relationship between system aesthetics and users? judgments been analyzed in the area of HCI ., [30,31]. In particular, close correlations have been observed between judgments of aesthetic quality and a priori perceptions of usability, that is, perceptions formed before the system is actually used [32,31]. Tractinsky and colleagues [31] claimed that “what is beautiful is usable”. For Hassenzahl [33], it is the “goodness” of a system that is the main issue, not its “beauty”. According to this author, goodness is judged on the basis of a bination of impressions – hedonic identification, pragmatic values (., perceived usability) and mental effort (resulting from actual usability),whereas beauty is determined solely by hedonic feelings. According to Norman [6,7,34], attractive systems work better. They are perceived as functioning better and lead to better user performances. In the context of Websites, Shenkman and Josson [17] examined Visitors? first impressions and found that the best predictor of overall judgments by typical Website users was the impression of beauty. For their part, Lavie and Tractinsky [35] analyzed users? perception of Website aesthetics. They identified two main dimensions:“classical aesthetics” and ”expressive aesthetics”. T