The Psychopathology of Everyday Things

(Based on Chapter One from Donald A. Norman's The Design of Everyday Things.)

The first chapter of this book was undoubtedly relate-able and (surprisingly) interesting, in the sense that it was a new perceptive on everyday things. Norman's key points were that everyday we use a plethora of common items, some well crafted and easy to use and understand (good design) and some complicated, hard to understand, or just plain crappy (bad design). He brings up the point: "Why do we put up with the frustrations of everyday objects?" Also mentioning that if we either don't send negative feedback or use it even though it sucks, they designer and co. will never really know how it is really perceived. He also emphasizes that visible clues that are easy to interpret (or perhaps, with limited interpreting needed) make a well-designed object.

I am a chronic door-opening failure. I push when I'm supposed to pull and pull when I should push... and bathroom stalls? A nightmare! Why would they open up INTO the stall? (Apparently so that I have minimal room to navigate out of the bathroom.) On the same note, a couple days ago, my roommate and I spent nearly 5 minutes trying to figure out where the off switch was on a TV. That shouldn't be difficult at all! I know that there are many times a day that I can't figure out how something works or can't seem to work something that appears to be so simple. I mean, why are re-lacing shoes so hard? The design of these things are certainly factors to why they are so difficult to use or work. When a door has a long horizontal bar across the entire width, how am I supposed to know to push on the left side, or the right side? Hiding the buttons on a TV... subliminal message or design flaw? Norman refers to visibility a lot and I have to agree. Simply cutting the door's horizontal bar a few inches and relocating the TV's buttons to the side would have saved me time- and a bit of mild embarrassment. I mean a little home-based testing and trial wouldn't hurt anyone right?

Personal testing is one of the things Apple did with the iPod to help with the trial and error of new designs. They also did a kind of group critique, throwing out possible complaints they imagine users would have. This helps a lot with figuring out just how well the conceptual model is going to be for the customer. And like I said before, as a person who has never had an iPod, I find them to be really easy to use. (Even if it did take a bit of trying to get Mr. Jobs to agree with certain elements.)

I like what Norman said on page 29: "Designing is not easy... The needs of those concerned are different and often conflict. Nonetheless, the designer may be able to satisfy everyone."