the design of everyday things

the relationship between makers and users is not something i've ever really considered before this week's reading assignments. david norman states that the reader will not look at anything the same after reading his book, and after reading the intro and a chapter, i believe this is true.

the concept that user error is often not the fault of the user is brilliant and something i've never considered. humans are inherently hard on themselves and so our natural inclination is to blame ourselves and feel stupid if we can't operate an "everyday thing." but when there are no visual cues as to how to operate said thing, it is no surprise that it might baffle us. i think norman is fair in giving credit to designers, highlighting the difficulty in creating something that is easy to use, aesthetically pleasing, affordable, and facilitates pleasure of use.

he argues that it is when something (a button, switch, etc) is arbitrary, there is greater room for user confusion. the more functions something (a button, switch, etc) can perform, the more confusing that something is. when things have one distinct purpose, it is simple, elegant and easy to use -- all elements of good design.

norman writes, "if people keep buying poorly designed products, manufacturers and designers will think they are doing the right thing and continue as usual." so true. but we do keep buying poorly designed products. sometimes in the name of thrift, sometimes because there isn't an alternative that has been designed well.

i take a lot of aspects of the design of everyday things for granted. for instance, norman discusses the importance of the principle of feedback: "sending back to the user information about what action has actually been done, what result has been accomplished." feedback is something i take for granted. it is something that sometimes annoys me: the noise made when pushing a button on the microwave; the pop-up dialog box asking if i'm sure i want to delete something, etc. but if these feedback features didn't exist, i would make many mistakes, i am sure.

i'm currently interning at a media solutions/video production company. my supervisor has been working with a team of developers to create a custom content management system for a major client. it entered the beta phase of testing the second week i was there. my task is to stress-test the system, finding and reporting bugs, and to make suggestions for workflow enhancement. essentially, i am a test-user. when norman discusses the lack of testing prior to the implementation of the unintuitive phone system, it shocked me. it would be similar to my supervisor just throwing this CMS to the client without making sure 1.)the bugs were worked out and 2.)it was designed well enough for someone with basic understanding of CMS, but without training, to be able to hit the ground running with.

i have already found myself examining the design of everyday things and thinking about the ways that they have likely evolved from their original design, due to user influence.