This document collects the questions and comments students submitted
on the third set of readings from Donald Norman's The Design
of Everyday Things.
For Norman's keyboard examples: According to his outlines for a good technology, wouldn't touch screen keyboards on cellular phones and iPods be a bad technology? They allow for a bigger screen, yes, but you do not receive proper feedback when trying to type. These types of keyboards, since there is no texture to them, are painstakingly difficult to type on without looking at them, making the typing process slower. [+]
Norman says that for typical clients, the price, size and appearance is more important than the usability of the item. He also says that this can be changed if users complained strongly enough
. In which terms he says strongly enough and how can a user can complain strongly enough
so that items improve? [+]
With the constant advance of digital technology and computers, tasks that we perform seem to become less and less visible. Yet we seem unconcerned with this, and it appears that younger generations have no problem with this lack of visibility in design. What does this say about the future of design, and about human interactions with design? [+]
It seems that, right now, there are innumerable designs for every single thing. Will the development of new varieties of design continue, or will the "best" designs eventually win out? [+]
On page 185, Norman tells us to imagine the computer of the future. Can one really imagine something not created yet? Isn't our imagination limited by the current technology around u? [+]
The last chapter advocates for a design that is user centered, are those constraints feasible for designs?
Certainly
When Macintosh added the mouse/pointer did it also contain the hour glass or did that come later? That would show an increase in visibility and would make the design better.
Apple didn't come up with the mouse/pointer. But yes, even the first Mac
had a wait
symbol.
Norman talks about a smart calendar that could tell you if events conflict with other events on a certain date and other more advanced functions. Is this the direction that Joy thought would lead us to robots taking over the world?
No, this is straightforward enough that it doesn't represent objects
that are able to reproduce.
In ch 6 Norman assumes that automatic faucets are beyond the comprehension of the average person. I think he extends his analysis of design a bit thin. Is it bad design if the user is expected to use deductive reasoning to figure out how something works? If there are no handles, no knobs, no buttons or anything to turn on the faucet, perhaps the user would figure out that it was automatic.
I don't think he claims that they're beyond comprehension; just
non-obvious and therefore inconvenient. From my own experience and
observation, I would say that they're inconsistent enough that people do
have trouble figuring out how to use them.
This question is pretty simple, but how hard would it be for designers to use test groups on a new product before it goes into use?
Good designers to use test groups.
Norman mentions that a three-button mouse was standard at the time of writing. What did the third button do? Was it useful, and if it was what does an equivalent function on computers today?
The use dependend on the system and context. On the Linux computers in
the MathLAN, the middle button regularly serves as the paste button.
Norman talks about the Buttons on the mouse problem
, it seems this is could be solved by standardization. Why has this not happened?
(I've generalized in my response.) There are a variety of reasons
that user interface (UI) elements are not standardized. One is that
many user interface elements are now being protected by copyright or
patent, which discourages standardization. (For example, Apple owns a
patent on the pinch motion on touch screens. Others may not be willing
to pay Apple to license that, or Apple may not be willing to license.)
There are also a lot of folks who like to innovate
, even if their
alternate UIs aren't as obvious for users. (One of the big differences
between the early Mac UI and the early Windows UI was that all Mac
applications had to provide standardized keystrokes and menu items and
Windows didn't. But that didn't keep Mac as more successful.) And,
as in many other technologies, people don't pay enough attention to UI.
In chapter 6, Norman discusses a phenomenon he calls "creeping featurism." At first blush, this sounds a little Andy Roonyish. How are Norman's complaints different from a person just being stuck in their ways? Defend his argument.
In the section in Chapter 7 about simplifying tasks, Norman mentions the dangers of over-automation. What are these dangers? How is this argument connected to any other authors we have read this semester?
On p.197, Norman talks about the danger of "overautomating." When is automation a good and when is it a bad thing?
Norman says that today's items are too complex to improve everything. Also, he says that for example with cars, the new models are already in design before the old ones are released. So how do they know what things do they have to improve in the new car, what things worked and what things didn't, and what things can be done for making it better for the consumer?
I personally don't think some of the feedback functions on computers are as useful as Norman says. (For example, I don't pay any attention to the "working on it" mouse symbol in Internet Explorer). What ways of providing feedback could be adopted for computers? What feedback that computers now give is not useful?
The more I read of this book, the more I feel like Norman is like an old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn. What makes his critique of objects and usability any different from someone who complains about everything indiscriminately? (Not a real question, I just want to throw that out for discussion tomorrow.)
For Norman's comments on video games: His students cited quality aspects of a gamer's approach to a new product. However, difficulty settings exist on almost every game spewed out by developers. Why, then, would it be a negative quality if a game's difficulty may be too high? After all, the consumers often have the opportunity to determine at which level they wish to enjoy the game. Many games nowadays even briefly explain the differences between each level of play, allowing for the satisfaction of both hardcore and casual gamers.
Norman claims a clock goes clockwise due to standardization and
nothing more. But doesn't it seem likely that the direction it turned
(and consequently the difficulty in reading it the other way) was
determined because we read from left to right? And could that be an
example of standardization itself?
How has tech like an iPhone proved Norman wrong by containing so
much complexity with so much ease of use for a normal user?
Do you think Norman would like new cellphones since the display and tones give feedback, or do you think he would find fault in the smallness of them?
Since our society has become more concerned with how our technology affects the environment, and Norman says that tools influence society (209), do you think the eco-friendliness of a product should be taken into account when judging it, or is that information simply irrelevant?
This is a discussion question for the class, how should we measure clothes today by their aesthetics or by how effective they are? This is something I always wonder about when I see people with torn up jeans in the middle of December and its 10 degrees Fahrenheit.
Does making things user–centered mean that we should not include the aesthetics or trends of the time?
When automating a task to make it simpler, doesn't there exist the possibility of making the task more difficult in some situations along with the user losing control over the task?
On page 206, Norman gives us a checklist to make certain tasks more difficult to prevent everybody from using it. What can of systems or rules can be put in place to prevent the task from becoming so difficult that it becomes a burden to even experienced users?
Like Petroski, Norman describes the different ways that the design of the object can go wrong and therefore we should have all these different aspects when designing or inspection and object. In chapter five, Norman has similar title to that of Petroski’s book. How are Norman's six categories of errors similar to the multiple charts that Petroski had about errors?
Norman talks about different ways to deal with error and one of them is forcing function. Give at least two examples where forcing functions are being used?
What is meant by "exploit forcing functions"?
Page 161 and onward is concerned with the concept of designing products for the non-existant "average" person. Wouldn't it be simpler to design for the expected least capable user of the device, assuming that those who have superior dexterity and insight can use it? (literally designing something "fool proof"
How would Petroski respond to Norman's assessment that "Over time,
this process results in functional, aesthetically pleasing objects." ?
Petroski's claim that we can never have a fully safe and functional
design would disagree, wouldn't it?
Norman makes the overarching claim that designs that win prizes are
usually aesthetically pleasing while compromising usability, and he
uses the San Diego Science museum as proof. Are his proofs really
compelling? I don't know that I buy his claim across the board.
Is it true that the switch from analog to digital clocks make
people less able to estimate the passage of time (p196)? I think it's
just a shift that has to take place but I don't think we've lost the
ability to understand the passage of time just because we're not
seeing it spatially represented on a clock face.
The book focuses on Everyday Things
, what are things that are not
Everyday
, and how should they be designed differently?
Norman emphasizes the featurism is a "disease" and often makes technology unusable to some degree and the solution to featurism is modularization and avoidance. In response to this, what would restraint and modularization mean for innovation or technology? Also how would engineers react to this as Petroski emphasizes engineers are always looking to innovate and create new and never-before-seen structures.
When Norman points to all the flaws of the computer he does not seem to be very clear about what exactly he would want to replace all the things that are wrong with current day computers. What would they be like? He says he wants them to be clear and visible but at the same time, his description of a computer sounds merely like some type of electronic calender. What about all the other capabilities of a computer?
Has anyone revolutionized the selective attention mentions by Norman on page 164? There must be ways to improve the means of selecting important focal points!
Chapter 6 discusses that a good design follows a process, the scientific method presumably. This idea is contrary to Petroski's claim, in that this is how technology fail, we assume things. Is that where the constant battle lies between Designers (engineers) and users.?
I'm not sure that I understand this question.
;
