Assignment 1: The Design of Everyday Things
Introduction
What makes a good design? I would say that it is a very subjective matter as different things are designed to fit our perspectives differently. For me, a design that does not need an extra exertion of effort and ease of execution preferably without any instructions needed regarding the usage, is an excellent design. Currently, there are various designs that are either aesthetically pleasing but not as functional or they are functional indeed but not as pleasing to the eye. In my perspectives, the new age designers are beginning to intertwine artistic features with functionality by finding the right balance as to not produce a redundant product. Although there are such efforts, yet there are designs that stands out among the rest as good and bad designs. Examples on each one will be elaborated as we go along this presentation.
GOOD DESIGNS
DESIGN 1
Good designs are objects that does not frustrate a user with its functionality or its primary service. It does not set the user astray in terms of getting the best out of its specific design. One such design in my eyes has been a water kettle.
This is a stainless-steel water kettle from the company of Cornell. It is an example of another everyday item that we use to prepare hot water for various use, in my case, it is to prepare my source of warm and clean drinking water. Its features include an overall steel surface and interior with a lid push-up and another knob for heat control. It is also equipped with an indicator of the suggested volume of water that can be heated to avoid overflow. It also has conduction holes at the mouth of the kettle to allows the escape of water vapour so as to not increase the internal pressure of the kettle.
This design of the kettle meets the principles of visibility, mapping, feedback and also principle of affordance. As we prepare to gear forward to the details, I would like to enlighten the readers on some information on the principles mentioned above by relating it to the hallmarks of the kettle.
a) Principle of Visibility
Principle of visibility refers to the basic aspect of the likelihood of users getting to know the function of a certain design by noticing the more visible aspects of the design. The more visible the design on the most prioritized elements, the more educated would be the users in term of the usage and precautions that may come with it. Visibility is not only in sight or the information on the surface that is imprinted on the design, but also by the sounds it makes. My water kettle has excellent visibility that provides clear indication with the position of the lid button that has to be pushed. The knob at the bottom of the handle is to be pushed upwards before being placed on the heating pad that is connected to the socket. During the process of heating, there is an orange light that indicates the ongoing heating process. This also acts as a precaution for me so as to not directly touch the stainless-steel surface during heating.
Once the heating is done and the water is boiled, the orange light goes off and the knob at the bottom of the handle is pushed downwards driven by pressure with a ‘beep’ sound. The sound made later prompts me regarding the completion of the process and later proceed to switch off the electricity supply.
These indicators are complying to the Principle of Visibility and eases me into using it while taking care of my safety.
Principle of Mapping
Principle of mapping defines a certain correlation between the controls and the effect the design impacts on the surroundings or the world in a larger context. In this case, the design of the kettle clearly impersonates the features of a regular kettle which has a sole primary goal of boiling water. It has only one knob to control if its service is needed. The knob also has string mapping as it comes with a clear stipulation of being pushed up for heating and it will be pushed downwards once it is done. With that, it does not cause any frustration or confusion as to how to figure out the functionality of it.
Principle of Feedback
Principle of feedback depicts the the clarity of the actions taken and also what has been accomplished as a consequence of those actions. This principle is crucial as it assists the user in feeling in the know of the ongoing process and being aware of the approximate duration and the aftermath of the action. The water kettle provides visual and audio feedback in terms of the orange light and the ‘beep’ sound it produces once the water has been boiled. All in all, the kettle fulfilling this principle makes the operation rather interactive and not monotonous.
Principle of Affordance
Principle of affordance describes the essential properties of a designed object that allows the people or users to have a notion of its functionality. Basically, a design that is able to afford, is equally equipped to give clues on the usage of the object. The buttoned lid on top of the kettle affords the user to push it to allow the inflow of water according to the original design. The button on the lid also acts as a signifier which gives a clear hint of its function.
Gulf of Execution and Gulf of Evaluation
Norman Interaction Diagram
Gulf of execution practically defines the difference between the intentions of the user and what the system of the design allows them to do or how well the system supports these notions. This gulf includes the first three stages of the Seven Stages of Action which comprises of intention to act, sequence to act and the execution of the action.
Gulf of evaluation illustrates the degree to which the system of the design provides representations that can be directly perceived and interpreted in terms of expectations of the user. Gulf of evaluation encloses the last three stages before reaching the goal which are, perception of the state of the world, interpretation of the perception and evaluation of the perception.
The design of the water kettle has its procedure explained through the Norman Interaction Diagram. The diagram later explains the width of both the gulf of execution and evaluation. The narrower the gulfs, the easier it is for user to make use of the design. This is because the I, as a user do not have to exert a considerable amount of time and effort to interpret the state of the system design.
DESIGN 2
Next, in the elaboration of good designs, I will be explaining on the features of a water bottle that I have experienced using which is extremely convenient, comfortable and most importantly, meeting the crucial principles of design. This design of water bottle is a cylindrical, slim and slender shaped bottle has a rubber hand grip that is slightly cleaved inwards to maximise the grip and to prevent slippery slips. It has a top cap that is able to rotated to be opened and also the topmost portion of the cap can be opened by a protrusion and is supported by hinges at the back of the lid.
Through the course of using this bottle to store fluid substances over the time, there are some principles of design that stood out which were very explanatory for its functionality. The principles of design applied on the design of this bottle are the principles of affordance, feedback and constraints.
a) Principle of Affordance
This principle generally denotes that the user is well aware of the methodical functionality of the design through the most prominent features that simply allows the user to know exactly how to maneuver around using the product. A design with strong affordance is a good design as the user does not have to exert extra efforts in terms of using the product or having to think of alternate ways of using it.
In this case, let us first have a look on the bottle itself. Humans make perceptions on objects upon the first impression or sight at the design. Here, we are looking at a bottle, perceiving the information of it being capable of containing fluid substance, thus it affords being consumed by the user. Next, we shall focus on the shape of the bottle. It is a cylindrical, slim and slender designed bottle that has a translucent surface, so it affords its amount of contents to be seen by the user.
b) The protrusion on the topmost portion of the cap
The cap of the bottle can be rotated and this is guided by the insertion of a signifier which are tiny rubber dots that indicate the protection of the grip of our fingers while rotating the cap open. The topmost portion of the cap can be opened upwards by an existing protrusion which affords the upward motion of thumb that springs open the topmost portion. This also serves as a strong visible signifier that informs the user regarding the opening of the cap. The topmost portion of the cap is supported by hinges at the back of the cap which is a strong signifier that hints that the topmost portion of the cap can only be opened by the motion of the thumb pushing the protrusion upwards. The hinges also signifies that the topmost portion cannot be opened in other ways such as in either left or right sides. The creation of a holder connected to the cap of the bottle also affords the bottle to be carried by being hooked on our fingers instead of gripping the rubber cleaved portion.
b) Principle of Feedback
This principle is extremely essential due to the fact it allows the user to have awareness of the actions being taken from the functionality of the design and the consequences or the accomplishments that will result from taking the actions. This will indeed create an interactive relationship between the user and the product.
Through the observation of this water bottle, how does the user exactly find out when the lid is opened ? When the protrusion at the topmost portion of the cap is pushed upwards by the thumb, there is a production of a ‘pop’ sound and the portion springs upwards. Similarly, how does the user confirms that the cap has been closed ? When the lid is pushed downwards, the friction between the cap and the body of the bottle will create a sound that stops once the lid closes. If the whole of the cap is being rotated to be opened, the halt in the movement of the cap will also serve as feedback to the user signifying the cap is completely closed.
c) Principle of Constraints
This principle limits the interaction between the user and the functionality of the design, in order to minimise possible alternate solutions or methods so as to allow the simplification of the interface and guide or prompt the user for the next appropriate action.
There are few branches of constraints which are the natural constraints or physical constraints, semantic constraints and the cultural constraints, to name a few that applies on this design of the water bottle. Because of these constraints, the number of alternatives for any particular situations is reduced and this is also directly proportionate to the amount of knowledge specificity in the human memory.
In this case, the water bottle first shows semantic constraint in terms of informing the users that the cap is a separate component of the bottle and it is able to detach from it. The method of detaching is later explained by the design of tiny rubber circles around the circular edges of the cap indicating the placements of the users’ fingers to rotate it open. Physical or natural constraint implies that due to the fact it is a bottle that carries fluid substances, it affords to remove or restore fluids into it through the opening of the passage beneath the cap. Cultural constraints applied on the bottle is an indication of the bottle being an obvious carrier of fluid based on its functionality fitting the mental representation of a generic bottle and not to be used for instance, to store food.
Gulf of Execution and Gulf of Evaluation
Norman Interaction Diagram
The gulf of execution and gulf of evaluation describes the differrence between the user’s intention of the design and how well the system of the design supports the intention of the user.
The gulf of evaluation is generally described as the degree to which the system or artifact provide representations that can be directly perceived and interpreted in terms of the expectations and intentions of the user (Norman 1988).
“The gulf is small when the system provides information about its state in a form that is easy to get, is easy to interpret, and matches the way the person thinks of the system” (Norman 1988: p. 51).
The seven stages of action is well described by the Norman Interaction diagram which captures the steps of the gulf of execution and the gulf of evaluation in the first three and the last three steps respectively.
BAD DESIGNS
Not all designs are good and also not all of the designed materials or products are bad. There are just some designs that are not forthcoming in terms of their functionality and rather frustrates users as the methods of usage is not clear enough and needs extra dollop of effort in order to figure it out. In short, bad designs degrade the user’s experience as they do not support the user’s intention of using the product, instead the bad design come across as hindrance as they create unnecessary obstacles for the user to climb over.
Design 1
This is an example of an everyday object that we use in mostly in office and school settings, to name a few. This device is indeed very technologically upgraded due to having multiple features that makes it an excellent tool to save time and getting multiple tasks done in a jiffy. Beneath all of the convenient features, this machine also provides frustration to the user as it frequently causes deliberation in the actions of the user, this is not a good sign especially in those settings mentioned above, work has to be done without any hindrances and certainly not tolerate any delay of time.
In this particular design, it does not completely comply to the principles of constraints and conceptual model.
Firstly, the reason this machine does not follow the principle of constraints is due to the fact of the placement of the buttons on the machine panel. From this, I observed a plethora of buttons that instructs the actions of the machine but is not strongly visible. The user has to deliberate and spend some time to observe each and every button to find the preferred mode of setting. Also, the typings on the screen is also not very clear with its instructions. It is not efficient enough in terms of giving the user a clear indication of the feature of the buttons. Each button offering a separate function and feature allows the user to think of other options which makes the process less task-specific and blurred goals.
Next, this design of machine does not follow the principle of conceptual model. Generally, the principle of conceptual model is the definition of our mental model of a basic design based on our previous experiences of the functionality. Although this machine looks like a normal photocopy machine, it does not necessarily fit the basic mental model of a photocopy machine in terms of the placement of the blank papers into the machine. Traditionally, the papers are uploaded from the top passage and gets printed internally and comes out from the bottom most passage of the machine.
As the machine is observed from the graphic above, the papers are placed on the bottom of the machine and the user might be perplexed with the function of the openings on the top of the machine. There are also no labels that accomodate the flow of this machine’s operation.
Here, it is observed the rotation of the freshly printed paper. The arrangement of the process and the placement of the paper is weird indeed at first.
Solutions for this design of machine to be more accomodating and easier to use is through the usage of labelling, especially in the position of paper placements and also reducing the number of multiple of buttons that requires the user to halt and think of alternate choices and further causing a delay in work.
According to the elaboration of the seven stages of action, the gulf of execution for this design would be to form the goals which is to photocopy documents, next to form the intention of the goal is to complete work assignments and later executing the operation by placing papers to photocopy. The gulf of evaluation would be to first perceive the state of the world,that is through noticing unclear placements of the paper and multiple buttons. Next, the step is to interpret the perception and add labels around the machine and reducing the functions of the multiple buttons to just a few. Lastly, the clear indication will ensure the whole operation runs smoothly.
DESIGN 2
The next flawed design that I have observed in my everyday life is the the the poles located in the centre of escalators to avoid uncontrollable crowd.
From the visuals provided, this design does not have the application of the principles of visibility and affordance.
Principle of visibility defines the visibility of certain attributes of a certain design that clearly depicts the function to its user and user need not waste time and effort to figure out the functionality. In this case, the pole does not have any visible features or signifiers that stand out in order to complete any assigned tasks, in this case is to keep the escalator steered away from people under the categories in the label. Additionally, a design with labels already is hinting at flaws in its design. Moreover, the existence of the pole is not visible at all in terms of its functionality and thus is considered redundant.
Principle of affordance correlates with the traits or features of a certain design that immediately sends hint of its usage to its user and need not deliberate on ways to use it. A design with strong affordance is a design with clarity of usage and does not frustrate the user. In this case, the creation and the placement of the pole does not have a defined function and therefore users might find it a nuisance to be placed in the middle of the escalator,especially when the mall is accomodating a large number of crowd.
Some crowd might even disregard the existence of the pole and have accidents bumping into the pole as they are communicating or on their phones. There is no visible features to warn customers about the placement of the pole too which makes it a hazardous design.
Solutions for this design would be to remove the entire pole and come up with ideas like labelling and provide clear passages where people stated in the categories on the pole are free to use the alternate choices instead of escalators. The mall can also invest in multiple lanes of escalators to accomodate the big crowd in the future.
The gulf of execution for this design would be to first, form goals which is to reach other destination in the mall. Next would be to form the intentions for the action would be to save time. The execution of the action would be to queue in line for the escalator. The gulf of evaluation for this design would be to perceive the state of the world, which is the disturbances the pole is causing to the crowd. Next, we would interpret the perceptions by removing the pole, adding labels and multiple lanes of escalator. Lastly, the evaluation of interpretation would be in clearer path of escalator and smooth crowd control. This would be illustrated in the Norman Interaction Diagram below.
References
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.
Maher, M., & Tang, H. H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 47-64.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal principles of design, revised and updated: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design. Rockport Pub.
Mattson, C. A., & Wood, A. E. (2014). Nine principles for design for the developing world as derived from the engineering literature. Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(12), 121403
Cognition & Design 