Design Principles I
From IEOR 170 Spring 2007
Required Readings
- The Psychopathology of Everyday Things. The Design of Everyday Things, Chap 1, Don Norman. (please check the in-class handouts for username/password associated with restricted materials)
Discussions
Please post your critiques/commments on the required readings below. To do that, first login by using your user name and password, then click the "edit" tab on the top part of this page (between the "discussion" page and the "history" page), New to wikis? Read the Wiki editing guide. . Hint - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.
Note
For students who have trouble in submitting their comments, please check this guide on edit conflicts.
[edit] Rey Doctora 18:51, 25 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things" Don Norman's article made clear that no matter how complex a product is, one should stress simplicity in design and also take the user into consideration when designing. Norman uses several examples to illustrate both good and bad design, such as the post office doors where his friend got stuck (a bad design) and the horizontal bar on doors that you push and not pull (a good design). I was especially surprised by his claim that there are around 20,000 everyday things that we encounter daily. I'd like to think that our mind should be overloaded trying to memorize all 20,000 things, but they are not. I'm also surprised at how easy it is for us to adapt to new products if the design is both effective, recognizable and takes into account the inherent affordances of the material used. Look at the mechanical pencil. I'm sure that when we purchased mechanical pencils as students, we automatically knew how to use them based on their design alone. Its simplicity, accompanied by a familiarity with the old pencils made of wood, have allowed us to become familiar with mechanical pencils easily.
[edit] Erin Palermo 00:14, 26 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychology of Everyday Things" This chapter was very interesting to read. The author brought up great points about the way that things are designed. I particularly liked the idea of there should be one function per control. Things get much too difficult to use when the design is needlessly complicated. Granted, sometimes we are limited in space on a particular object, and if the object has lots of functions, then it is difficult to find space for many buttons or controls. But in general, this idea is a good rule of thumb. I think a good way that this has been addressed with current technology is through making controls through touch screens. That way, you just need to design a good GUI, and not worry about having lots of buttons. But even this is difficult. The chapter is interesting when it talks about the door, because a door should be so simple to use! Designers can definitely over-complicate things. The idea of feedback is also very important. If a user has no sense if he is doing something correctly, he is much more likely to make an error. Feedback can allow a user to more adequately operate a device.
[edit] Bryan Boling 03:10, 27 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
Although technological advances often lead to more functionality in current devices, there can also be increased confusion and uncertainty on how to operate new technologies. I can completely sympathize with the author’s opinion of the modern office phone, with its variety of ambiguous functions. At work I’m constantly forced to immediately take messages and hand over phones rather than transferring calls, because every time I put someone on hold I undoubtedly hang up on them. Additionally, I have no idea how to use the speed dial on my work phone due to the vague functions printed above the buttons. Instead of making the extra effort of reading the manual I simply ignore a vast majority of the phone’s functions, treating it as a much simpler device. In this respect, the need for simplicity and ease of use in consumer products is quite obvious, but at the same time designing for an unknown user can be a challenging dilemma. To overcome the frustration that comes from using an unnecessarily complex device, I believe it’s necessary to design with the intention of being completely obvious regarding functionality. From the tone of this article, as well as the numerous poor design examples illustrated by the author, I’m sure he’d agree with this assessment.
[edit] Brian Loo 15:34, 27 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everday Things” I thought this article was a great reading. It was very interesting and intriguing. Out of the 3 chapters we read of this book, this by far was my favorite as it explained the every day things around us and kept it effective and simple. Additionally, I enjoyed how this article first started off with the door example and how difficult it can be to operate the simple door. This article highlights the key concepts that designers need to take into account such as mapping, visibility, and feedback. The most interesting part was how the author compares the car gadgets to a telephone. A car has tons of buttons, switches, and functions, yet it is easier to use than a simple telephone with not even half as many buttons. This is a direct result that a car for the most part has one button for each function. But a phone, has one button for many functions. Keeping devices simple and easy to understand without reading a manual are the best designs.
[edit] Onyi Lam 16:51, 27 January 2007 (PST)
Psychology of Everything Things explores the users’ psychology behind everyday’s common objects, which according to the author, amounts to over 20,000 of them. The first example that he raised design doubts was a door. While the example seems trivial and everyone knows how to use a door, designers always commit one design fault: visibility. The author notes that designers need not to compromise elegance with functionality. Another example that the author explored in great details was the British telephone system. Even though the design of the telephone seemed simple with the 9 number buttons and a “R” key, it was preciously this minimal design that made this telephone so hard to use because there are so many features with this telephone. The author also states that the phone is so hard to use because there are more controls than feebacks. In contrast, there are over 57 controls in an automobile and the users hardly have any issues with them because each button has a specified function. Less is not necessarily than more in design.
[edit] Urvashi 17:24, 27 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everday Things”
This is easily my favorite reading so far, as the author points out the several clumsy ways in which many products used in everyday life are designed. I completely agree on how the designs often make people feel technologically inept as I myself have felt this way before. The author has based his arguments on three things, and they are affordance, visibility and mapping. I especially liked the way he explained the affordance concept and how users instinctively know how to use certain features such as knobs and slots. It’s the job of the designer to figure these affordances out and incorporate them into the design of his product to make it user friendly. If a product is designed well, the user will intuitively know what to do with it and that should be the aim of a designer. Another noteworthy point was the number of possible actions exceeding the number of controls on a product. If there was just one control for one function then there is no question of confusing arising. It’s only when one is supposed to be able to perform multiple functions with one control that frustration with the product starts increasing as figuring that out is not an instinctive process. Technology definitely makes out life easier but designers need to learn when to draw the line at packing a multitude of complex functions into one device. They need to strike a balance between the several features of a product and the simplicity of the design, as only then will the product be a joy to use.
[edit] Hong How Quek 18:37, 27 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everday Things”
I really enjoyed reading the article because it managed to articulate many key concepts such as affordance, mapping and feedback excellently through its clear, vivid examples of what constitutes bad (and sometimes good) designs. The author really brought home the point about how difficult it is to strike a good balance between functionality (or ease of use) and aesthetics, through his description of elegantly designed swinging glass doors that users had problem opening because they were unable to locate the hinge. When I read it, the Driade and Cartell series of Philippe Starck chairs came to mind. Even though the designs of these chairs were bold with sharp curves and corners, Starck made sure he didn’t compromise functionality as well—as can be seen by how the body’s contour can comfortably slump onto the chair and how the chairs are easily stackable as well- making storage easy.
After reading the article, I also better appreciate the need for ‘plagiarism’, as expounded in a previous article. People inevitably form mental models of their environments and the objects, and how they should interact together through experience. Even though a new design may end up being more efficient in the long run, users may still reject it because of unfamiliarity and a huge inertia to learn new ways of doing things. As designers, we should keep that in mind and not insist on fixing what isn’t broken.
[edit] Esha Datta 23:14, 27 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This chapter showed how important design is in everyday life and just how many objects around us are poorly designed. I agree with the point that many products these days seem to be overloaded with features and thus have very complicated interfaces. My DVD player and my oven are both examples of such products. In order to access a certain feature, one must go through a complicated set of actions to find it. Visibility, mapping, and clear labeling are also important issues in design. It took me almost a month to figure out how to silence a call on my cell phone because the button was not visible and in the most intuitive place.
[edit] James ChunJye Tong 23:24, 27 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everday Things”
This article is by far the most interesting one to read. The article has provided good and easy understanding examples to demonstrate how the badly designed products can cause frustrations in life. I agree with the author that visibility is very important to consider when designing a new product. Also, trying to put all the functions that the designer can think of into the product won’t necessary make the users’ life easier. It is interesting that improving the existing product might actually cause the users more trouble. Often times, I found that the products with simple designs are much easier to use and more reliable than the once with extra features.
[edit] Joshua Funamura 00:16, 28 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everday Things”
This chapter was a very interesting read, as it is written from a viewpoint I could relate to: the frustrated ordinary person who is constantly confused by hotels' shower faucets and annoyed by the same ambiguously-handled door time and again. Though the author seemed to dwell a little too long about the inadequacies of phone design, I liked the term "vestigial feature", used to describe legacy design elements that don't really need to be there. Another topic that I liked were the sections on natural mapping and feedback. I never really realized how good the seat controls were like the ones described in the Mercedes-Benz. Good design, as it possibly should be, goes unnoticed, while bad design causes frustration. However, the author also acknowledged that the success of the design is based on the user's intuition and background. So when designing something, how much can we assume? I suppose that's why the author supposes that it takes 5-6 tries to get a design right (but only 2-3 are allowed economically!).
[edit] Christine Shih 02:23, 28 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things” This book's purpose is to convince readers that humans are not always to blame for mechanical ineptness- many times, the problem lies in the design of the machine/device. Natural mapping, visibility, affordance, and feedback are usually found in good designs. I really liked the examples in this chapter- especially the one on glass doors and the strategically placed horizontal handbars which tell you which side of the door to push on. I never thought about the possible complications that could arise in a door design before. When I saw that picture with the Mariott glass door with a horizontal bar on one side and a handle bar on the other- it was like the first time I actually really looked at the design of a door. For some reason, I thought the handles would be the same on both sides (like door knobs). It made a lot of sense- the door was glass so that people using the door from opposite directions can see each other (and not collide). There was a horizontal bar (signifying push) on one side and a handle bar (signifying pull) on the other because the door needed to open in the same direction so that a person exiting and a person entering can use the door at the same time. I thought it was pretty clever and I wondered why I never noticed before.
[edit] Asmita Karandikar 15:20, 28 January 2007 (PST)
Chapter 1 of Don Norman’s “The Design of Everyday Things” titled “The Psychopathology of Everyday Things” was easy to relate to and interesting to read because I have found myself in many situations similar to those described, such as having difficulties opening doors, and being confused when trying to use a telephone. I also appreciated the anecdotes that were interspersed throughout the chapter because they kept the reading interesting and provided useful and appropriate examples. The reading goes on to highlight important concepts to keep in mind, such as making things visible, using feedback, and using mapping. While all these concepts are important, I especially like the idea of feedback, which I think is helpful because it is a way for the product to (in a way) interact with the user so the user will know if he or she is doing things correctly. I think the technology paradox discussed at the end of the chapter is an important one to keep in mind because while we are able to make more complex devices internally, it is important to keep in mind that the external interface of a product should remain simple so that it is easy to use.
[edit] Shady Guirguis 16:30, 28 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
This chapter was really interesting to read as it gave many real life examples. The chapter started out by describing the basic door, which we get in contact with on daily bases. I never thought about the design of the door, and why there are all these different types. I simply thought it was for looks; however, different models are for different uses. Another example that emphasized the importance of design was the difference between and office phone and car. A car has many complex functions, but it is easy to use since every function has a button. However, in an office phone, there are buttons that a new user usually doesn’t know how to use. The author in this chapter is trying to point out the importance of interface design. Objects now a day can get very complicated and most new users are too lazy to read manuals and will never use some functions on their machines. I agree with the author that every interface should be simple and easy to use by new users.
[edit] Andrew prasetyo 16:28, 28 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things" This article elaborates the importance of design in manufacturing. As the author mentions in the article, many products these days are too complex and confusing despite their fancy features. I agree with the author that many manufacturers today neglect the importance of design, especially how the “visibility” and “mapping” should be considered. The author also supports this article with many examples of bad designs, ranging from a pen/marker to complex refrigerator control. On the other hand, I think the author does not provide enough examples of good design. As a result, the article seems too subjective because I believe there are many good, though not perfect, designs out there.
[edit] Jason Hu 16:45, 28 January 2007 (PST)
It’s an interesting idea – that many of our failures to operate a thing are due to the faulty design of the thing itself. There are probably many things that can and should be designed such that anyone could intuitively use them. But I wonder when some minimal training for a device might make a better and more productive worker than one who isn’t trained and instead uses a much more generalized device. Or rather, are there tools and devices that cannot and should not be made such that anyone could use it immediately?
I’m still not sure how I feel about design Visibility and Mapping in service of a Conceptual Model. Certainly visible hinges, support columns, and handles make the intended motion/operation of a device more obvious. But do they make it more beautiful? I’m going to have to either totally segregate or carefully reconcile my idea of product design beauty (which involves simplicity and obvious intuitive function) and my idea of artistic beauty (which includes an appreciation for mysterious complexity, compelling strangeness, and perhaps post-modern pointlessness).
[edit] Timothy Manglicmot 17:35, 28 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things” This article presents very interesting ideas on good and bad design and concepts involved in the two. I enjoyed the way the article began by discussing how instead of people being clumsy it is in fact the poor design of items that makes people clumsy; this made me feel a lot better about myself as I often have trouble using a lot of different technologies. In addition I found the concept of natural design to be fascinating as in the case where the projector control used one button to control the up and down functions; intuitively I would assume one button to do one function and I would have undoubtedly struggled in the same situation. Another concept I found true in everyday life is the paradox of technology. This concept appears with every single piece of technology that comes to mind, with cell phones for example. My very first cell phone was very hard to use and not mention bulky. After a few years my next cell phone was incredibly user friendly; I didn’t even need to use the manual to figure it out. Finally my cell phone now can do a variety of functions, most of which I have no clue whatsoever how to use. These sequences of events follow exactly the paradox of technology, first high, then simple, and finally high sophistication, a fascinating concept which I would have never stopped to notice.
[edit] Michael Lovejoy 17:46, 28 January 2007 (PST)
This chapter was pretty interesting (although it wasn’t written too well – some confusing sentences and typos). I like how it presented many examples of good and bad design, even though they were from the early 1990’s. The idea that increasing technology creates more complexity is very true, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing in any way, as long as you can still do the basic stuff with simple controls. For example, using a digital camera is fairly easy, but trying to use some specialized features like changing the shutter speed are more complex. In this case, since I wouldn’t do it that often, I have no problem reading the manual to figure out how to use this extra feature that I probably won’t use again. It doesn’t make sense for every feature to have its own button – that would be ridiculous. Therefore I have no problem going through some potentially confusing steps to use an extra feature that was not in the old model. The example at the end of the chapter was also an interesting example of how many different features should not be included in one device. However, I believe that there can be many related features included in a device with few buttons. The iPod is an excellent example of many multimedia features included in one device with very few buttons, but it has realistic limitations. Overall, the chapter was a pretty good description of how human intuition plays an important role in making good or bad designs.
[edit] Christopher Ling 19:27, 28 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychology of Everyday Things" emphasizes the overall idea of all designs having a proper form and function. For example, the door where the customer was trapped in between the two doors or the enigmatic slide projector that confused the student and professor for the entire lecture represent faulty designs that can be corrected. I completely agree with the fact that everyday things that seem or should be extremely simple to use confuse people such as myself. I enjoyed the part in the chapter about receiving feedback. For example, a phone produces a distinct beep noise every time a number is pressed. I could not imagine and would be confused if my house phone did make any noise when dialing numbers. With over 20,000 different parts to the everyday things people use, design is important. I hope future products, such as laundry machines or DVD players, can be designed in the mindset of the customer, not the designer who already knows every detail about the product.
[edit] Ryan Panchadsaram 21:20, 28 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things It is hard to explain what makes a good design, but Don Norman does a good job at defining what it takes: a good conceptual model and making things visible. Each and everyday we are learning new objects – and the only way we know how to use them is to see their parts and understand their implications. Many of the devices we use go through a U-shaped life-cycle. When they are first invented their features are cumbersome; as times goes on things get simpler, efficient, and more powerful. As the industry stabilizes, new features are added to make products “stand-out”; however, standing out generally leads to more complexity. Tactile feedback is also important; Norman gives the example of a car’s instruments: since they are visible and respond accordingly, it is good design. The book was written in 1988, but if Norman saw the current Toyota Prius he would throw a fit. Many of the controls that used to be buttons and knobs have disappeared into touch screen options. Tactile feedback is lost and complexity arises.
[edit] Katherine Tong 23:11, 28 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Thigns"
I felt that Norman's descriptions of "visibility" and "mapping" really allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of design. When Norman explains that poor visibility and too many controls make a poor design and confuse users, I was reminded of the fact that my of my friends, including myself, don't read the user manual that comes with a device. Instead, we'd prefer to try to figure out how the device works on our own. When we can't, it's a poor design. I think this is due to a lack of visibilty. However, I'm sure if we did read the manual, using the machine or toy wouldn't be so difficult. With the example of the refigerator's cooling device, I'm sure the instruction manual would thoroughly explain how to use the controls, but some things (like the temperature control) should be simple and have easily identifyable functions.
The second thought that came to mind as I read Norman's work, was the evolution of the cellular phone. More and more functions are being added, such as speaker phone, video capture, internet connection, and as a result, I feel that the cellular phone is becoming more annoying to use. The menu is larger and you have to flip through more options to find what you want. Once again, Norman really drives at how important visibiltiy is. This article really showed me that a good designer needs to really be aware of how his product will be used, and how most people will identify its design. A good designer needs to " (1) Provide a good conceptual model and (2) make things visible."
[edit] Monica Tanza 00:09, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things” I thought this chapter was well written, easy to follow, and had appropriate examples. Throughout the reading, I kept wondering about technology with many features and how it’d be possible to have that follow a design that was visible. I was glad when this issue was addressed in the section about the paradox of technology. However, it still leaves the issue ambiguous as to what appropriate design would be in the region of technologies that have a lot of features but limited space to make the all visible (such as digital cameras, having them small is a plus, as is having a lot of capabilities). It’s obvious that this visible design is better achieved in designing a car, since they are larger and have more room to add buttons so that each button only has one function. I think this paradox of technology is just going to become a more pressing issue as technology develops and people want smaller products with the same amount of features. This is a design issue we are all going to have to consider and hopefully solve.
[edit] Nicolas Suryono 00:29, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This articles criticizes that most manufacturer tends to overlook design and put too much emphasis on product functions. The article stated a lot of product that have bad design even though its intended function is simple. The author gives a lot of examples of product that have bad design such as door and refrigerator. I think the article's main point is good enough but it is lacking in example of good design. The article does not states what are the criteria for a good design, etc.
[edit] Patrick Liu 00:47, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychology of Everyday Things”
This article was by far the best article we have had to read in this class. Although the article was a bit long, I found everything the author pointed out to be quite accurate. There are a lot of products in our industrialized world today that are not easy to use or are far more complex than they should be. The author points out that visibility is the culmination of natural signals and natural design. In the case of the European doors, I could see how natural signals and natural design plays a major roll in understanding usability. However, in the case of the telephone, besides the fact that buttons are for pushing and that the receiver is for talking into, there are no other natural designs or signals that explain usability. This is why the author also explains that “visibility indicates mapping between intended actions and actual operations.” Because visibility indicates mapping, I agree with the author that there should not be more buttons than actual operations or else it is nearly impossible for the user to remember what function the button exactly does or how to press the button to execute a specific function. I also agree that it is very difficult for a designer to meet the needs of both the manufacturer, and purchaser. There are so many variables and complexities when it comes to design, but with proper design they can be minimized.
[edit] Ricky Surachman 00:53, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This article provides explainations and great examples of what is a good design and what is a bad one. I really like the idea of "mapping" because it can really help the users when they are going to use a product. But there is one problem using the concept of "mapping". Categorizing parts or buttons on your product is not an easy thing to do, and in "mapping", categorizing stuff is the most important thing. I also agree with the part about feedback. But, again, not everything can give feedback to the users. But maybe in the refrigerator example, having a screen on the fridge that can tell what happen with the refrigerator when the users turn the switch will be really helpful.
[edit] Royapakzad 02:26, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
Norman’s article was by far my favorite article in this course. The author discusses people’s frustration of everyday objects especially ones that are designed under today’s standards and advanced technology. The example of the complicated and ill-designed projector reminded me of an experience that I once had with an iron that I had just bought and had difficulty turning it on. The iron had multiple buttons and switches and neither of them indicated how to turn it on. By reading this article I learned that the fundamental principals for designing are: (1) provide good conceptual model (2) making things visible and (3) provide proper mapping. In general designers should take a lot of factors into consideration, especially when it comes to designing newly introduced products, since, as the author explains, if newly introduced products don’t catch on in the first two or three times, then “it is dead” and that could be economically damaging.
[edit] Justin Hsu 02:34, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychology of Everyday Things
The article “The Psychology of Everyday Things” was the best and most relevant reading assigned to us so far. The author did a great job of introducing to us several important design concepts by showing us the successes and failures of several common appliances. The author’s descriptions of “visibility,” “conceptual model,” and “feedback” helped me better understand good design. After reading several of the articles, my thoughts on visibility began to migrate to “the more the better” mentality. But this article illustrates several examples where too much visibility presents a problem by overwhelming the user. By reading this article, I quickly realized that, like everything else, designers must pick an equilibrium level of visibility to optimize usability. I especially agree with the importance of feedback from personal experience. There must be some sort of indicator that shows the user that an action has been completed. Devices without any sort of indicator mechanism have left me feeling unsure and frustrated with its use because there is simply no way of immediately knowing if the action has been completed. The homework problem at the end of the article presented an extremely interesting opportunity for the author to actively demonstrate some of the main points within the article. The drawing of the bad example was humorous, but I was slightly disappointed when the author did not show us an example of how he would approach the problem.
[edit] Connie 09:33, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
Very interesting read. The author uses a lot of examples that everyone can relate to. I definitely agree that having a conceptual, visible model can lead to a good design. There are a couple of comments in the "Pity the Poor Designer" section that I would like to question. He said that the design of the hard plastic around the magnetic diskette was a good design because it could only go into the slot in the correct way. However, does the disc have any kind of communication on which side should go in so that the user never has to encounter trying the wrong insertion method? Same with the pen, the ribs along one side doesn't intuitively have the user hold the pen one way or another, that is also trial and error. Compared to the sound system in his car (where he adjust the front or back speakers), how is it any different? In the car if you turn it the wrong way, you turn it back. For the pen, if you hold it the wrong way you flip it the other way. Yet, the speaker is a less than acceptable design. I do agree that his solution to the speaker problem will be more user intuitive, but maybe in some instances it's not worth changing. In this case, it is how fast can a user correct their mistake versus having a manufacturer buy a different type of knob instead of two similar ones.
[edit] Ryan Shelby 09:40, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
Finally, a book that talks about the sheer frustration that I have with the device I try to use everyday! This book dwells into the design of objects (simple and complex) and how users actually interact with these objects. The book provides examples of how basic, everyday objects such as a door can be designed to be either complex (pushed swinging glass doors) or simple (turned door knobs). Most user frustration is simply due to terrible placement of buttons, inappropriate labeling of said buttons, and unclear instructions of how said buttons operate. The book also points out the interesting relationship between ease of use and features. More often than not, the addition of more features causes a sharp decrease in an object’s ease of use. Users want their electronics and other devices to have lots of features; but, in the end, users really just want these devices to just plain work. Designers must try to have a happy medium between the seemly conflicting desires of the user. Users also must inform the designers when their designs have added more problems than they were supposed to remove.
[edit] Anar Joshi 10:30, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”: This article outlined some of the basic principles of design including visibility, feedback, and a clear conceptual model. Users interact with common objects in intuitive ways, like bouncing a ball or turning a door knob, but frustration occurs when these objects are designed in different ways. In order for a design to be successful the designer should employ natural signals to indicate how one should use the object. Another topic that the author addressed was the simplicity of design. He emphasized that the design of a simple object has failed when it needs pictures, labels, or instructions. I believe that while simplicity is often viewed as ordinary, it is generally more user friendly and can be designed creatively.
[edit] Karey Park 11:06, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This was a great chapter that was not only entertaining, but also very consoling. It is great to know that we users can stop blaming ourselves with our inability to use everyday things - the things that we are often harder on ourselves than we need to be for not being able to use. The author clearly looks down upon complexity and values visibility. He showed, through the example of the telephone, how crucial it is that both the button related to the function and the result of that button be very clear to the user. Both psychologically and practically logically, it makes perfect sense that if we see no change in the system, then nothing happened. The problem was only made worse by instructions that users either wouldn't read or read and not understand. The attitude presented seems to be one of near pity. If there isn't a problem with the instructions, it's something else. For this reason, the last section balances out the chapter well, so that it becomes more than a slam to designers, where everything wrong is highlighted, with no solutions presented.
[edit] Luna Dai 11:20, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This article discusses the design flaws that make everyday things tough to figure out and the characteristics of good design. Good designs are ones that users can figure out intuitively because they utilize natural affordances, visibility, mapping, and keep user feedback in mind. I especially enjoyed Norman's discussion about telephones. Initial telephone designs were very feedback oriented, probably because telephones were still relatively new for many and it was necessary to make the design very intuitive for unfamiliar users. Now that the telephone is highly familiar, telephone designers seem more interested in the extra functions available than in a simpler design. Interestingly, consumers continue to purchase the extra fancy high-tech phones. Of the four telephones at my grandparents home, my grandmother continues to seek out the oldest one whenever rings. Even the idea of having to press a button to receive a call instead of just picking up the phone gets confusing in the rush to get the call.
[edit] Richard Chen 12:25, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
The examples presented in this book were not only amusing, but also informative in that they provided a clear, depressing picture of how many poor designs exist—designs that usually leave the user feeling awkward and like a total moron. I also agreed with the author’s viewpoint that oftentimes, we must step back and question the design of an object—which was originally there—instead of automatically placing the blame on ourselves and not the people involved in creating and designing the device. Even more hilarious, I felt, was the example where he spoke of someone who had trouble with the clear glass doors, not knowing which end to push. I actually also know of someone who was in a fancy hotel that featured a complicated array of mirrors and clear doors. This unfortunate soul must have been in a real hurry, as he walked straight into one of the glass panels and ended up with a few stitches on his forehead. Thus, I think that the common theme underlying these two examples is that one must never put beauty and elegance at the expense of usability and user-friendliness. I think this book really drives home that concept—a concept that good designers practice on a day to day basis.
[edit] Alec Berg 12:10, 29 January 2007 (PST)
This chapter has a lot of good examples of bad design problems. A lot of the examples are common every day objects that should be easy to operate, such as a door or a washer/dryer. When I got to the refrigerator control section, I actually got up and looked at my own refrigerator temperature control. I found out that it is also confusing, although not as confusing as the example, and I’m not sure how to make the freezer colder. Also, my dad used to have a Mercedes-Benz with the same seat control features described in the article and I remember at the time thinking how cool it was that the buttons were oriented and shaped to show what was happening to the seat. I’m very surprised by how many bad designs there are around. I think companies should test their product on real people before bringing it to market, especially if they have added functionality or different displays. Products need to be intuitive for users to operate with clear mappings and affordances.
[edit] Siu Pan Lam 13:34, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This article provides a very good framework for a discussion of design principles, such as visibility, affordance, and natural mapping, by providing many real-life examples. I especially find it interesting to read about the time when the author’s friend was trapped in the doorway of a post office in a European city. This example illustrates the importance of visibility. In this case, it is crucial for the designer to be able to convey the message through his or her design of whether to push or pull the door as well as where to push the door. I totally agree with the author that it is important for the user to be able to open doors naturally without any unnecessary hindrances in the process. I personally have encountered the same problem of not knowing whether to push or pull the door sometime in my daily life, and I often find it frustrating to have to pause for a moment in front of a door to figure out whether to push or pull, especially when I’m in a hurry. As stated in the article, “there are probably 30,000 readily discriminable objects for the adult.” Clearly, if we have to learn how to use every single one of them, no matter how little time is invested into learning each, it would take us a tremendous amount of time. Therefore, it is the duty of the designer to design objects that can be used naturally without unnecessary confusion or hindrance.
[edit] Michael Chen 13:51, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This was by far the most enjoyable of all the articles that I have read. In fact, I would say that the article itself is a good example of design. Instead of using large amounts of academic terminology and generalizations, the author uses plenty of examples to make his point. And not just any examples, but rather examples that we observe and use everyday. Now that I think about it, the modern telephone truly is a horrendous design, and the sheer complexity of new cell phone is the main reason that I've stuck to me 4 year old one, despite the fact that it doesn't do half the things that the razr can do. No camera, no MP3's, and no bluetooth, but it can text quickly, and I can access any saved contact in less than 5 button presses. The author definitely bashes the current design trends of simplicity and form. It's what's functional, not what's pretty, that counts, and honestly, I could use an off/on button on my iPod. Plus, I now have a greater appreciation of automobile controls.
[edit] HAK-SEUNG KIM 14:09, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
The article demonstrates how important the design is, in terms of good or bad. The products with a good design make our lives comfortable. On the other hand, we can be very frustrated with having a bad design product. Sometimes, it makes us really mad. The author of this article gives many principles and examples of what the design should be like. However, sometimes, it is really hard to follow his principles. I guess big mass productions cannot satisfy everyone’s tasty even though some people think it is really a good design. By reading this article, I was also amazed with the fact that we have twenty thousand designed products in our normal lives.
[edit] Megan Whittey 14:12, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things (POET)"
I actually really enjoyed reading this article. I found it very informative but also humerous and easy to read, which was nice, a good balance. I liked the many examples he provided for good and bad designs and the many different stories he intertwined throughout explanations in his article. I found the refrigerator design one of my favorite bad designs. It's hard to believe people actually design everyday objects, like refrigerators and doors, as bad as they do. I feel this article was very helpful to read and helped alot with understanding our first homework assignment, with realizing the differences between a good and bad design and what to look out for. In designing a product there are a few main things you need to look out for such as how many functions the product has, how many buttons the product has to perform the many tasks it can accomplish, and, most importantly, customer feedback! Make sure your design works for your users. If your product has many functions, try and make sure there is one button per function, showing/illustrating/saying what the button does. But in having many buttons, you need to make sure they are placed strategically throughout the product so they are easy to find and convenient to use by the user.
[edit] Umber Masood 14:26, 29 January 2007 (PST)
This reading was interesting. It made me think about the everyday objects I use that are and are not designed well. The psychology of materials is also interesting; I didn’t realize that the property of a material could affect the way people treat it. Norman uses the example of a telephone throughout the reading to illustrate examples of bad design, and I am amazed that something that is used so much could be so complicated. The principle of feedback that Norman writes about is very important, and I have found that is easier to use something that gives feedback than something that does not. I agree with Norman that “providing a good conceptual model” and “making things visible” are the main principles of good design. If more things were designed with keeping these in mind, people would have an easier time using things. Overall, I agree with Norman. He uses good examples and his illustrations show the complexity of everyday things.
[edit] Karena 14:43, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everday Things” According to the reading “The Psychopathology of Everday Things” by Don Norman, the author gives good and bad design examples that we use everyday such as telephone and door. In general, the author claims that one critical element of a good design is simplicity. I agree that a good design should be user-frienly. However, I don’t think that simplicity means no function. We have to learn the new technology and functions so that we can make further improvements. Without devoting time and effort to learn and invent new function and technology, our life can be very inconvinent. Can you imagine that we are living without cars and everyone has to ride a bicycle to school and to the workplace?or watching a televison that only shows balck and white color? So I think it is necessary to find out more new funcations and technology.
[edit] Penny Yuan 14:45, 29 January 2007 (PST)
Psychopathology of Everyday Things:: Unlike previous, rather dry articles about the frustrations of design, Norman injects his own witty, but informative conjectures on this subject. He gives many wondeful everyday examples of frustrating design ranging from swinging glass doors to fancy Italian washer-dryers. I can definitely empathize with Norman as I've had my fair share of trouble using everyday objects such as microwaves and telephones. Norman also introduces the important aspects of mitigating bad designs such as creating a good conceptual model, making things visible, mapping and feedback. I would emphasize both the mapping and feedback principles in design as they help to create standardization and yet also allow the user to let the designer know of potential problems.
[edit] Tawan Udtamadilok 14:54, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The first chapter of Norman’s book uses several excellent examples to illustrate the differences between good and bad design. It is important to note that everything implies a function and that a designer can take advantage of these implications to create an effective product that is easy to use. Although the majority of the chapter focuses on the mind’s interpretation of products, I thought that the section entitled “Pity the Poor Designer” was effective in describing how a good design can be killed if it is not sufficiently tested or if it is incorporated into a product that is not well received.
[edit] Minhaaj Khan 15:01, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things
I liked this chapter because it got its point across without being repetitious or longwinded. I also enjoyed how the author linked his prior experiences to the content of the paper as this made the chapter more enjoyable and relatable. The author defined visibility as the mapping between intended actions and actual operations; stated simply, what you intend to achieve through an action and whether it is visible whether the action you intended has occurred or not (e.g. like you know if you’ve put someone on hold with a blinking light on the telephone). He talked about poor instructions on operating an everyday product such as a telephone and how as a result of poor instructions and a lack of visibility the product is designed poorly, even if it is innovative and has won awards (e.g. the glass doors). The concept of affordance was interesting; of how we associate everyday things/materials with a particular use (e.g. glass is to see through and break). The basic understanding I got from the chapter was the importance of visibility and feedback in what is considered good design; or stated in the words of the author, “the sensible, nonarbitrary, and meaningful relationship between user’s intentions, required actions and results.”
[edit] Sumeet Patel 15:18, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
I found this article very interesting in the fact that it used everyday life situations to describe design problems that we never think about. In high school the teachers used to say that it was the human’s who could not operate the machines when referring to computers. This article shows the opposite, that the design restricts us from using the object. I like how he went through numerous faulty designs of products that we use, that I never thought of like the office phone or the pen. I agree with the fact that designers are making everything much too complicated with too much user interaction. From that video we watched on IDEO, it was obvious that the cart they made was overly advanced to just store food. At some point, the consumer doesn’t want so many options and this article does a good job of pointing that out.
[edit] Shilpi Verma 15:21, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things: This article explores the user’s psychology behind the usage of everyday common objects. In my opinion, this article is by far one of the most interesting articles that we have read. It is definitely surprising that products we use in almost everyday life can be so poorly designed. The analogy of “human error” and “technological error” is very true because many times a person feels technologically inept when something just doesn’t work, but in reality it is possible that the fault lies in the actual design of a product. The author gives some helpful examples to describe the flaws in the design of everyday things, such as the refrigerator design. It never occurred to me to figure out the temperature control in a refrigerator works, and how complex it actually is. The reading definitely made me think about all the products I use daily, and how the design has impacted the usability of such objects.
[edit] Michael Toulouse 15:23, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things:
As with some of the previous articles, the insertion of anecdotes makes the chapter a much easier read. There are some ridiculously poor designs given, like the slide projector which uses one button to go two ways, or the refrigerator that required a day between adjustments to see if it worked. The article makes a good point about intuitive controls, or at least those which don't require more than one explanation to grasp. Despite having been written almost 20 years ago, a very current dilemma was illustrated when the author complained about there being far more functions than buttons on a lot of products, and that as a result strange combinations have to be remembered. This could be mitigated by making the controls fit natural mapping, like the Mercedes seat control. The definition of affordance given in the article seemed a bit vague, merely referring to using common design elements in newer ones, but is still a valid and important point.
[edit] Yang Hung 15:38, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everday Things”
I thought this reading was fairly interesting. I agree with the author's view that many products have become too confusing and complex, even though technology has enabled products to have more and more snazzy features. The everyday examples that the author uses (pen, refridferator, telephone) were good in framing his thought in my mind. The parts in the article about visibility, mapping, and labeling seemed very much like common sense so I did not find any value in that. Also, I would have liked the author to mention examples of good design, such as the Nintendo Wii and its intuitive swing motions that a player uses to play games.
[edit] Marshall Anderson 15:36, 29 January 2007 (PST)
I found Norman's first chapter a nice supplement to the Raskin readings. He touched on some of the same things but also introduced some new concepts. One thing that I appreciated was that he mentioned the fact that there can be too much visibility. I have a huge remote for my stereo and it has so many labeled buttons it is truly a maze to do anything than the basic operations. I also liked Norman's discussion on feedback. I have noticed that even a lag in feedback can cause people to click things on the computer multiple times. The main thing I did not like about the chapter is that I feel that he does not fully consider the technical implications of his criticisms. For example, no matter what cooling system is used, dropping the temperature in the freezer will drop the temperature in the fresh-food compartment, period. It is basic heat transfer. In general I feel that designers know a lot more about things like acceptable compartment temperatures than the average consumer. In a way, removing some of the functionality protects the consumers from their own ignorance.
[edit] Rabia Siddiqi 15:43, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things
This article was very easy to follow because it discussed everyday objects and problems that most of us are familiar with. Errors occur with objects as simple as doors and as complicated as computers and often times they are the fault of the designer and not the user. I like how Norman stressed the importance of visiblity and conceptual models for the designer. When I was younger, I remember repeatedly having problems with VCRs. Some VCRs would automatically start the VHS when I inserted it, and others would require me to push the play button. Often I would put in the video without turning on the TV and push the rewind button. For those VCRs that automatically started the video, the rewinding would be in play mode and therefore would be very slow. I wouldn't realize this unless I turned on the TV. I remember wondering why there wasn't a display light on the VCR indicating that the video was playing. I was reminded of this when Norman discussed the significant of having a visible light that indicates the 'hold' function on company telephones. Another part that I found interesting was the story of the engineer and doctor couple in England who had a washer/dryer system that neither of them knew how to use properly, but had still purchased. This made me think about how consumers generally like to buy technologically advanced items because they perform many functions, even if they do not need (or will not end up understanding how to use) most of those functions. Instead of wasting their money and encouraging bad design, it would be more efficient to buy better-designed, simpler products.
[edit] Aubuchon 15:45, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychology of Everyday Things”
This is probably the easiest article to read so far this semester. It’s humorous and anecdotal. The author chronicles his self-esteem issues regarding his ineptitude in using a variety of products. He notices that he’s not the only one who has these problems, and slowly concludes that a great deal of the problem lies in poor design. He goes and gives a variety of examples of good and bad designs. These include refrigerators, products with numerous buttons and functions, and even the simplest of objects like door handles and glass doors. It’s funny that though the article is old, design issues still clearly exist with things like multi function calculators, which way do doors push, etc. The more complex products become, the more difficult they will become. I think the author rightly makes the take-home point, that even so, this difficulty can be minimized with good design.
[edit] Johannesleholm 15:46, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things: Norman’s introduction to the design of common objects was an amusing ride through thoughtful musings. With his unending references to new fangled phones, however, I thought a better title to be “The History of the Psychopathology…”. The dating of the piece does give insight into how ‘new’ gadgets (especially those invisible electronic ones) have caused so much frustration in past years; it may of taken a decade of blinking VCR lights stuck at 12:00, but many of the notoriously bad designs mentioned have evolved to ease the frustrated cries of consumers. Design should be increasingly studied and formalized as countless more new products, physical or not, are sold each year. I especially enjoyed visualizing that man stuck between 2 doors, on the verge of tears – or better yet someone walking into a sliding glass door. As someone who has experienced both (and the subsequent embarrassment), I wonder when we will start using more of the legal system to extinguish these art-pushing designers.
[edit] Shwan Kazzaz 15:48, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psycopathology of Everyday Things":
This article approaches design from a psycopathological perspective (as all good designers should), and evaluates the design and ergonomics of everyday objects. The main complaint is that most everyday objects such as TVs, VCRs, watches, microwave ovens, etc., aren't intuitive in their design and thus render many features useless to users. The article also speaks of affordances ("perceived and actual properties of something"), mapping (the relationship between input and output), and feedback (telling the user what just happened). These are especially important when, for example, designing a hold button on a phone. The user has some idea of what pressing hold does (affordance), the actual result of the input (whatever button must be pressed) has been mapped, and the user is given feedback when they press said button, such as a red light.
[edit] Patricia Wang 15:49, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
In this chapter of his book, Norman characterizes good design and examines a number of examples which describe misleading designs. Much of his focus is on visibility, affordances, and mappings. Among his examples, the design fails the user when one or more of the above three is neglected. I found it really interesting that false causality is the root for many cases of superstition. It seemed to me that visibility most heavily affects the quality and ease of use of a design, especially since it is so closely tied with the system feedback and the user’s sense of causality. Like in the “Task-Centered Design” article, Norman stresses the importance of user needs, indicating that it is valuable to have real users try a design before taking any more steps in development.
[edit] Luciana Cook 15:50, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things” I found this article to be insightful both as a user of products and as a creator. I sometimes wonder why is it that it is hard for me to use some devices if I am a tech savvy and pretty quick at learning new skills. This article has made me realized that there isn't anything wrong with me, but there must be something wrong with the design. If someone can't use something correctly, chances are that there are a lot of people out there that are having the same problem. This is why as a creator I must make sure I test my product with regular everyday people to make sure to tackle s many misunderstanding that people may encounter using it. Ofcourse I would not be able to make it so that 100% of the population will be able to use correctly, but with careful designing and a lot of testing it is possible to get the majority to understand the use of a product.
[edit] Ryan Jue 16:08, 29 January 2007 (PST)
“The Psychopathology of Everyday Things”
The article was a very interesting read on various examples of bad designs. One of the designs that stuck out was the 6 glass doors. The article talked about various methods to revise the design to make it more user-friendly, but at the same time, I felt that these changes might take a away from the ambient effect and design sleekness. It made me wonder if user-friendly designs can also be an obstacle to creative art side of the designs. So, would clever designs prefer to be works of art or have a high usability.
[edit] Rakesh Vij 16:33, 29 January 2007 (PST)
The Psychopathology of Everyday Things: This article discusses how the psychology of a user's use of devices. From copy machines, to radios and light-switches we uses dozens of devices a day that can be well designed or poorly designed. According to the author, a well designed device offers clues to its usage, and a poorly designed item will provide little and false clues to its usage. This reading was very interesting in its discussion of the topic. The author once again does a good job of using examples and ideas to get the point ac cross. The example that I liked the most was his inability to fly a jet plan which is understandable, but his inability use a door is not. I know that all kinds of things around me are poorly designed, but something as simple as a door wasn't clear to me. The author also discusses an analogy of "human error" and "technological error," through which it is explained that a user feels technologically incompetent, but actually the error was the result of a design error. Additionally in order to make a good design make sure you provide a good conceptual model. A conceptual model is what a users mind thinks about how to use a product when it is seen. The example used here is a pair of scissors, which provide a very clear concept of how to be used. This reading also went ahead and discussed several other design examples. In the end the chapter did a great job of making me realize the severe importance of design and the psychology behind it.
[edit] Fenelia Kosasih 16:20, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
I found this article to be an easy and interesting read. The author minimizes the use of technical jargon and provides numerous examples to illustrate his point. The author brought up the affordances of materials and illustrated how certain material used for panel shelters can lead to a certain type of vandalism. I found this really interesting - how the psychology behind everyday things and the affordances of objects can be utilized to create a good design. In the article, it was also mentioned how a good balance of visibility is important. He cited examples of how modern beautiful design can sometimes compromise on the visibility and as a result render the equipment difficult for beginners to use. And at the same time, the excess of visibility must also be avoided because it makes the equipment look intimidating.
[edit] YeeWan Cheung 16:22, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things" is very easy and interesting to read. The author Norman uses a lot of examples to demonstrate his points. Life examples made the reading more interacting with the readers because the readers can then relate the examples to his/her everyday life. Norman points out the importance of visibility is to indicate the mapping between intended actions and actual operations. There should be a right amount of visibility, not too less button like the projector example or too much visibility that makes things get too complicated, to allow the users to naturally interpret the products’ signals “without any need to be conscious of them”. Norman also discusses the concept of affordance is to provide strong clues to the operations of designs. Taking advantage of affordances enable users knows what to do without any instructions. Finally, Norman gave a few suggestions to the designer. First, the designers need to fully understand what functions the current devices contributed to the user (like the hold button in a phone system) before remodeling the devices. Then, the designers have to evaluate the mapping, and make sure “all the desired functions can be operated with minimum confusion”. And finally, the cost, manufacturability, and aesthetics should also take into account.
[edit] Raymond Kim 17:17, 29 January 2007 (PST)
"The Psychopathology of Everyday Things"
This was definitely an enjoyable reading which presented many ideas regarding good/bad product design with some excellent examples. Functionality is the most stressed point according to Norman with aesthetics, cost, etc. following closely behind. A great example was the discussion of cars vs. phones and how cars with their complex engines, buttons, etc. can be so easy to operate and yet phones which really provide only one function can be so difficult. While reading the article I was constantly reminded of the concept of plagiarism and how overlooked it really is. Many designers simply don't follow the time old rule of "learn from other people's mistakes." I think it's very important for today's designers to first take a close look at current designs to avoid repeating the same old mistakes.
