I was first introduced to the term “Norman Doors” in my Digital Multimedia Design 100 class. Upon reading The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman, I was eager to hear his thoughts on design; especially since poorly design doors are referred to as such after him!
While reading chapter one, The Psychopathology of Everyday Things I noticed that Norman does not identify User Experience (UX) Design because it is relatively a new term, but it capitalizes precisely on the notion that chapter one refers to regarding beauty and utility. UX design is specifically dedicated to optimizing utility without compensating aesthetics, hence making the entire experience enjoyable. Thankfully, the clunk and chunk design (out of necessity) that technology has always known, is finally being designed towards functionality as 21st century technology evolves.
Now, rather than enjoying the time things take, speed in the name of the game. This instantaneous-ocity; the demand of instant efficiency, is the new norm. In order to keep up with the times (and not just the Jones’s), we want things to be beautiful, functional, and expedited. Norman identifies two important characteristics of good design, “discoverability” and “understanding”. Meaning that the relevant components of said design must be visible and that they must communicate the correct message (2013, pg 3). Without these two characteristics, manuals, instructions and labels come into play. The wizardry of exceptional UX design is the minimization of complexity while maintaining discoverability and understanding; making the design, or process enjoyable.
Since all artificial things are designed, ensuring that the interaction of the thing designed is intuitive, is the key of Human-Centered Design (HCD). This sect of design acknowledges that the relationship between machines and human interaction gets cumbersome; in our digital age we need to play nice with machines. In order to minimize the ‘human-error’ trope, we need to understand the design principles that are necessary to behoove said interaction. Through this lens, designers consider the needs, capabilities, and behaviors of humans first, which enables harmonious machine-to-human communication/interaction.
Norman identifies four fundamental psychological concepts:
Affordances:
“What an object is for”
Affordance is a relational concept between the abilities of the object, and the capabilities of the person that is interacting with it. For example, motion detection – great right? Simple, right? Not always. There have been a few times upon exiting a public bathroom where I felt relieved, and not just for obvious reasons. I have caught myself saying “you have one job!” to motion detectors because often, they don’t work. Whether I am waving my hands or my tush in front of one (because public toilets always flush prematurely), they end up wasting time and become more of a hassle.
Motion detectors are supposed to afford a ‘hands-off’ interaction, but often at the cost of leaving the user feeling frustrated. Apparently I am not the only one; this article gives troubleshooting tips. In this instance, I would prefer an old-fashion pedal, which offers a hands-off function through a fool-proof design. One affordance that does come in handy (see what I did there?), is Google’s predictions function in the search bar. This automated, algorithmic prediction feature allows users to troubleshoot more readily, plus it offers some interesting insight into what’s currently trending.
Signifiers:
“Any perceivable indicator that communicates appropriate behavior to a person.”
Signifiers provide valuable clues. For example, the low-battery signifier on our mobile devices is straightforward; it depicts a battery against a black background with a thin red line. Users automatically perceive what is wrong. Note the charger insert at the bottom of the screen, that mapping design (described below) clues the user in to what should be done next.
An everyday-life signifier is an accessible pedestrian signal (APS), they are placed at crosswalks to signify when to cross the street. As good-natured as the spoken word “Walk”, a chirping sound being played is, it assumes that people will know what the chirping sound means, or that they speak English. Ultimately this signifier failed and is no longer the standard in the US. See reference
Mapping:
“A technical term used to identify the relationship between two sets of things.”
Recently there was a meme circulating around the internet that read “Land doesn’t vote, people do”. To me, it really showcased how mapping data visually has a significant effect on how we perceive information. In this instance the relationship between the numeric value of voters and their location is depicted. Larger circles represent more voters, where those circles are placed maps out voting geography.
Intuitive design really depends on how well mapping is taken into consideration. A good real world example of mapping is the design of buffet lines; restaurants like Chipotle and Pitfire Pizza take advantage of the way buffet lines allow people to intuitively know to go. When buffet lines are designed well, customers instictive identify where to wait in line, where to order, where to pay, and where to eat.
Feedback:
“Communicates the result of an action.”
Feedback indicates to the user what is happening. It must be immediate and informative. An everyday digital design that offers feedback is Apple’s iOS Screen Time app. The app tracks how much time users spend on their phone and itemizes the activity. This kind of informative feedback helps influence the user’s behavior to have better time-management.
Another example is the product SipChip. It’s a highly portable test that detects drink tampering. It offers the user feedback immediately by testing a drop of their drink to see if it is safe to consume. This real world example of feedback offers consumers peace of mind and safety.
Integrating affordances, signfiers, mapping and feedback principals into everyday design is what makes the difference in a user’s experience. With these design principals in mind perhaps our interaction, not only with machines, but but with each other and ourselves can improve too. Instantaneous-ocity doesn’t leave much room to indulge in the sacred moments found in the time that ‘things’ take. This ‘waiting’ period offers us time to indulge in the experience of said thing, that is if it were design to do so. In short, If things take time and if time is of the essence, than we might as well design everyday things to be enjoyable.
My point is that designing everyday things should yes, be efficient and yes, be pleasing to look at, while still allowing room for the sensory connection of that thing or process itself. Why design for the experience of something, if the experience itself is negated by the need for speed. Perhaps UX and HCD will be the gateway for us to slow down a bit and enjoy the process of things.