Design of Future Things Ch 3

Reference Information 

Title: Design of Future Things

Author: Don Norman

Publisher: Basic Books, May 2009

Summary

This chapter discussed the importance and implications of natural interaction. Many designs incorporate the use of signals, such as beeps and flashing lights, to inform users that something has happened. This author argues that instead, designers should use natural signals that humans are already used to, such as noises that already occur with a specific process. Natural signals such as environmental sounds and lights occur within the background, making them less intrusive, and are easier to identify, as identification generally happens subconsciously.

A whistling tea kettle - an example of a natural signal. Source:  www.theburningbiscuit.com

Implicit communication is discussed, which are natural side effects that can be interpreted by others and inform without interruption or need for conscious thought. The author brings up a design problem of understanding how to enhance a sound's value while minimizing its annoyance. The author then describes affordances, or communication between the designer and the user of a product. These explain perceptions of the world, and are not fixed properties. Providing effective, perceivable affordances is important in design, since it is necessary to show how to interact with a system, and how the system might interact with the world.

Finally, the author discusses predictability and natural safety. He states that a machine should behave predictably and let the person respond appropriately, so that the two can properly work together. Also, the idea of natural safety is based on the fact that as safety is increased, people tend to take more risks. Therefore, designers need to make dangerous activities look more dangerous, while actually making them safer.

Summary

I find the idea that the safer a task is, the more risks people tend to take with it to be very interesting. In theory, making something safer would be beneficial, but it is true that people tend to get complacent when the risk is removed, allowing more risks to be taken. Also, I found the example about bicyclists avoiding walkers to be very thought-provoking. Instead of trying to avoid the bicyclists while the bicyclists try to avoid the walkers, which always ends up with both moving in the same direction and hitting each other, it makes sense to give the responsibility to one of the two. In this case, the bicyclists present more danger, and therefore should be more careful, so acting predictably allows them to take the responsibility of avoiding people.