Video1:MAYA’s Human-Centered Design Practice
This video supports what we read in “Psychopathology of Everyday Things”, which argues that a good design should include several elements: Things are visible, understandable, single function and good feedback. A good conceptual model is made obvious and effective use of affordances and constraints, allowing us to predict the effects of our action. In both articles, they mention that innovation should be examined under social system with several stages of trial and error for an ultimately user-friendly purpose. It is related to what the video mentions “human-centered.”
In our daily life, there are some devices made from designer’s special consideration, but sometimes the special part will confuse consumers a lot. For example, there is a revolving door at the library, and we can not figure out the purpose of that door, for slow down steps? for fun? or other purposes? Norman has raised a question that why do we as consumers put up with these complicated designs that lead to more headaches than they solve? Is this because the complex design of the tool we are using makes us look like we are intelligent?
Video2:The future of design is human-centered
(This video is a little bit long,about 18 minutes. You can see some fantastic designs, but not for everyday things, and may think about if they are useful and really customer-centered. )
In relationg this to classroom, we could think about two questions:
1. How a classroom should be designed?
– Could a more comfortable learning environment promote learning? Can we have more ergonomic classroom designs? Does it somewhat fit into Maslow’s two basic needs- physiological and safety needs? There is a pie chart as reference that even colors also influence students psychologically.
2. How the material (e.g. lesson plan, worksheet, activity, etc.) used could enhance student learning?
– Is material design similar to everyday things design? Whose needs should be taken care? What components should be considered and could be related to our articles?
TRACY THOMPSON says
Re: your comment about the revolving door – from what I understand, they do serve a purpose. In areas where wind and other weather elements could come through the door, a revolving door creates a constant barrier between the outside and inside. For example, I used to work in an office building that had essentially a wind tunnel between the parking garage and the office. There was a revolving door and 2 “regular” doors into the building, and on windy days, the receptionists would hang signs asking people to please use the revolving doors if possible. When people opened the “regular” doors, everything on the receptionists’ desk was blown on to the floor, while the same thing did not happen with the revolving door.
However, that does raise another interesting question – do all the reasons for elements of the design need to be apparent to all users? If a revolving door is solving more than one problem (entrance to a building, easy to understand how to use, functional, stops wind/rain from blowing in the building), do the users need to know more than that it is used to enter the building, and that you push on it to get through? One might argue that good design hides the more mundane problem-solving, and doesn’t require the user to think about the extra functions. I think it’s an interesting line… between making sure that the user has an accurate enough conceptual model, so they’re not in a situation like the refrigerator control one described by Norman, but also not presented more information than they really need or care about.
Chris Millet says
When I was in Chicago last Summer, I noticed that most businesses used revolving doors almost exclusively, and hinged doors were often only available for emergency exits, secondary entrances (for deliveries, staff, etc.). The first really windy day we had there made this design decision very obvious. I’d bet the locals could probably tell we were tourists by our use of the hinged doors alone. But that’s what we were used to. The design didn’t become obvious until it was put in the context of some environmental condition (i.e. wind). Maybe that’s something we need to keep in mind as learning designers. The conditions which one is embedded in when encountering a design can very much affect how we perceive the affordances of that design. When we design technology for educational purposes, we should consider the potentially wide variety of conditions it is being used in, and the variety of instructional approaches that might leverage that particular technology.
NICOLE ROSE OLCESE says
The Maya video you included is fascinating – I looked up the company (had not heard of them before) and found that they actually operate in a sort of meta-design fashion – companies hire them to redesign products. A quote from the commercial (“If you can find unmet needs and make them with your services, you can make money”) related to the Manifesto that we read a couple of weeks ago. It seems like Maya internalized those theses – focusing on its audience/consumers. The focus then moves away from the product, or hardware, and centers on the user (as David Kelley would say), using that product for the meaningfulness that product produces.
If the purpose of Maya’s products is to allow consumers to engage more meaningful with life, then do their products becomes tools toward this end? Team 3 contrasted Pea’s notion of intelligent design with Norman’s. I wonder what Maya’s concept of design does to problematize this dichotomy? Perhaps Maya’s mission is a melding of the two? They acknowledge Norman’s beef with complicated tools by inventing uncomplicated ones – they extend Pea’s notion of tools by allowing for the transfer of meaning.
Brad Kozlek says
“taming complexity” is at the heart of the Norman reading. Without a doubt tools are getting more complex. The things we expect tools to do are more complex. reducing complex tasks to a simple interface is hard, and is probably one of the most important skills today, as our tools are indeed too complex to use. Web 2.0 was not about new technologies, per se. It was about making existing technologies easier to use, which in turn allowed more people to participate, which in turn yielded benefits from network effects. Daytum isn’t a remarkable in its functionality. You could probably do the same thing with a spreadsheet program from the 80s. Daytum is remarkable in its design, though. It is beautiful, and easy to use.
MATTHEW J HEFFRON says
I paid attention to one of the questions posed about how a classroom should be designed? The design of a classroom plays an important part in learning. The classroom needs to be comfortable and disruptions and distractions need to be kept to a minimum. It is one of the first things that a teacher must prepare when starting the school year.
LI-CHUN WANG says
Personally, I think the second question,is classroom material design the same as everyday things design,is quite interesting. My intuition is YES. I think any kind of design, even fashion design, is to solve a certain of problem(s) so the design should accommodate users’ needs. Though the goals and standards are set by school districts, materials have to be designed to support users’ need such as their learning styles. Making things visible, mapping, and feedback also can apply to classroom materials and activities. For example, a language activity practiced in the classroom needs clear directions(visible), fitting to appropriate psychological models (mapping), and students’ understanding of the language (feedback). Though a teacher may have to explain the directions, they have to be concise or students still cannot practice and it also took too much class time.