Don’t blame it on directions

While waiting for The UX book to come in the mail, I tackled the blackboard reading, The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman.

Donald had a writing style that was easy to read and relatable. I found myself agreeing and even relating to some of his experiences. The reoccurring experience with the telephones I can relate to, almost too well. While I wasn’t a part of a new telephone process in a job situation, I have multiple problems working my work phone.  After this reading, I don’t feel a self-conscience saying it.

When we are trying to work basic things in our lives, like doors, phones, or even microwaves, our mind looks for a simple solution to the goal. If it is not a simple, natural, or obvious solution, we become frustrated. Almost all of the usability problems are rooted in the design. Donald outlines major principals, that when are done incorrectly, lead us to frustration. One of those principles is Visibility.  The thought behind the visibility principal is all the necessary parts should be visible to give the user visual cues. Donald mentions hinges on doors, pull/push handles, and other natural design elements that can give us a visual clue.

The absence of natural elements to help our mind decode something, Mapping, can lead to frustration as well. Mapping has to do with successfully designing an interface that is correctly understood by multiple humans. It has to be clear on using the device and cannot be confusing. The input should lead to an expected output.

It sounds like a lot, almost confusing. The example used in the reading was what really made this idea make sense for me. Donald had bought a projector that was top of the line, however, it only had one button. Typically slide projectors had an eject slides button, an advance button, and a reverse button. With only having one button, the operator ended up ejecting the disks and advancing when they were supposed to go back in the sides. After reading the directions, a long push on the button advanced and a short when backwards, and honestly, I still don’t know what ejected the slides.

This seems like a problem; it is not easy to use as all. In the past, we were trained to look for these visual clues when using a slide projector, by removing all but one button, we naturally become confused. While providing a new, sleek design is important, the usability should not become harder! This idea of mapping is extremely interesting to me. I know this experience has happened to me multiple times before with different products, but I can’t remember what they are. I just remember the frustration.

Another idea Donald mention that could lead to the downfall of a device/product is affordance. Affordance refers to the actual and perceived properties of a thing. From what I understand, does the make of the thing make sense or does it evoke different uses. The example used was a bus stop made of glass. People kept breaking it, but once it was replaced with wood, it was only carved it. The reading mentions the properties of glass and wood are very different; glass is for looking threw/breaking and wood is for sheltering/carving into. It’s almost like a sub-conscience mapping we do of products.

Feedback, in addition to Visibility is very important. The user needs to know they completed the act successfully. When someone is using a product, technology is a good example, they have to know they are using it correctly. Whether it is the completion of the act, a physical alert, or even just success with the thing.

By using the two fundamental principals for designing for humans (make a good conceptual model and make things visible), things/products can be designed well and take all the previous principles into consideration. While it might seem a bit overwhelming if you are reading this post without doing the reading first, it might not help you. The examples he provides and the flow of the chapter help this information make sense.

Now time to wait till my other book arrives!