Our team looked at a few videos of Don Norman speaking about design. The below video seems very related to the Design of Everyday Things reading:
We
thought the very beginning of this summed up much about design when he
says "You have to design for the people." The salt and pepper shaker
example shows that we have to consider what we are designing for, and
who will be using it. It doesn't matter which one you think is
salt... it matters which one the person who filled it thinks is salt.
The idea of WHO you're designing for also relates to our discussions on
community. If only one person interprets the use of an artifact (or
its affordances) in a certain way, others will either not know how to
use the artifact, or will be frustrated because it does not work the
way they expect it to (if they identify different affordances). In a
way, the community negotiates and determines what is good design.
When we negotiate meanings within our community, we are communicating with the social system. So when we interpret the use of an artifact, we are under influence of the social system, our community. Other members' interpretation and norms of the community both play a role in the process of our negotiation of meaning. If affordances cannot be visible and compatible to the social system it is hard to diffuse in the social system. That's why a designer has to at least understand the social system for his/her designs. This is proved by many famous popular creative inventions that they are compatible to social norms, human psychological models, or physical customs.
Questions:
- Are there social norms to help identify affordances and the meanings of those affordances(one hole and many holes)? What are the affordances of the shakers that contribute or not contribute to the negotiation of meanings?
- What are the everyday things of the learning environment? How have they been optimized for their purpose? Consider the affordances of a blackboard. Its writing surface is high-contrast. It's easy to erase. Chalk is cheap, and even when it breaks it still works. It does one thing very well. Now consider a "smartboard". Would a typical student know what to do without any training if a teacher called her to the front of the class to demonstrate a concept? At what point do the affordances of such technologies actually start to counteract their value? Chalk can't change colors, but it also doesn't run out of batteries. What is the process of diffusion of such an innovation as a smartboard through a typical school district, and is it always consistent with improving learning, or are there other factors (prestige, etc.)?
A personal example from Yunjeong relating design and affordances to community- In my first year of ph.d here at Penn State, I was surprised that almost all computers in our school lab were Mac rather than pc. I feel alienated because I didn't have a Mac at that time and didn't know how to use it. Finally I got a Mac and was worried about if I could use it well. I didn't read any manual but I finally came to use it with ease. Now I feel more like being a Penn State student (sounds funny though) and belonging to this community.
Related to learning, we thought about the conversation we had in class about a constructivist
way of teaching math. In the past, we memorized the times tables; even
if given explanations of the multiplication rules, most students just
memorized the tables. It's faster to see learning outcomes when a
student can correctly repeat the answer to a multiplication question
from memory. Compared with memorization, constructivist teaching on
math takes a longer period of time to see the learning outcome. Parents
may think this is less effective to learn math so that may hope schools
could abandon this new teaching paradigm. This could be an example of
difficulty with diffusion of the innovation because the community is
not willing to accept the change.
Our group also talked a bit about the idea of what Norman calls the technology paradox. In the reading, Norman emphasizes the importance of usability, meaning a design is for people to use. Usability is extremely important. But, of course, aesthetics and cost are also put into consideration. Norman calls it as technology paradox. In his later work, including "Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things" Norman's studies showed that things work "better" when they're attractive. More on that topic in the following video (it's a bit long, but you can get the general idea by just watching a few minutes).
This paradox does not only happen in the design industry but also in educational contexts. Take For example, in language learning, there are a lot of language games to be used in class that can be found online. However, not every game reinforces learning outcomes. Even those who do not aim at having fun could turn out bringing fun to class more than improving learning outcomes.
Questions we asked ourselves:
- How do affordances and aesthetics interact?
- Does a "beautiful" item appear to have more affordances? Are more affordances better?
- How do simplicity, affordances, and aesthetics interact?
We
think "beauty" in educational design related to play. i.e. making a
design beautiful is akin to making it fun, and something someone would
want to "play" with. Play is a very important part of discovery. So if
we're designing objects, tools, etc. for learning, we should ensure
that they are aesthetically pleasing (to get attention, create positive
feelings about it) and conducive to play, to ensure students are
motivated to engage with it, engage with it emotionally, and use their
creativity to discover its affordances so that the full learning
potential is realized. If
we can make discovery "fun", students are emotionally more engaged.
Beauty (or Fun) can be related to motivation. Motivation is important
in learning that makes the learning environment more sustainable.
I enjoyed Norman's article a lot, and thank you for posting more of his work here. These are some interesting questions you rose about the relationship between aesthetic design, play, and learning. I don't have much time to post anything right now about this, but I'll think more about it in the next couple of days and think it would be a good thing to discuss in class next time.
This is a great response for design. I really enjoy what Don said in the first video that we have to design for the people. Sometimes I ask myself if we are designing more or less for the whole social system or for the community that we are in? If we are designing for the community that we are in we must keep in mind that certain designs in our community may not be acceptable to the whole social system. For example, if we are designing a device for our community would the device be applicable to the whole social system? If not, does our device hold a real purpose if our community wasn't present? In the second video I like Don's example of the juicer. At first I looked at the juicer and ask myself what the device was? I laughed when he said he bought the juicer and and it's now part of the front room in his home. I have to question do people create designs for people to buy them to use for other purposes than what they are originally designed for? To answer your one question I think more beautiful designs have more affordances but I don't think all those affordances fit in to what the beautiful design was intended for. This fits well into the design of the juicer. Would the designer of the juicer (say a non-gold plated one) thought that his juicer would serve as a piece of art in the front of someone's house? I think the more beautiful designs are made, the more purposes they may serve to someone, but at what point do those purposes deviate from what the design was originally purchased for?
"Does a "beautiful" item appear to have more affordances? Are more affordances better?"
In the second video (Norman at TED in 2003), he talks about how neurochemistry involved with happiness is related to attending in wide manner, as opposed to the neurochemistry of anxiety, which is related to a narrow focus of attention. So, when we are happy we are able take guesses and figure out how a tool is used, but when we are anxious, the tool can be frustrating because we aren't able to focus on its use.
Both narrow and wide focus both have their places in human experience, productivity, and problem solving. What about education? Shouldn't we encourage both styles? Has education previously been focused on more narrow focus. Is wide versus narrow focus related to Lankshear and Knobel's mindsets?
Norman talks a lot about observing users to see if something is functional. I agree with this, to an extent. But it is also not the same of asking users what they want.
I keep thinking of this post from last year that struck a chord with me:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/no-never-surrender-to-your-users-facebook/
Norman has some really interesting things to say about design and how aesthetics affect our perceptions, and even our emotions, when we use a device. I wonder if sometimes the aesthetics and design might overtake the affordances and usefulness of the item. For example, the makers of the gold-plated version of the juicer tell the user not to even use it as a juicer because the acid can damage the finish. So what was the point of buying it? Did the user misspend his/her money and receive a piece of art rather than something with function? Is that a bad thing? I think I would be upset if I were the purchaser/user, because I need my purchases to both function well AND look nice. However, if I had money to spend on a gold juicer perhaps it wouldn't really be that big of a deal.
On a different note, something in the article that Brad linked to struck me. The writer says "Showing that you’re listening to feedback just invites more of it." This obviously is a negative thing in the mind of the writer, but I disagree that feedback is bad. If I am the developer of a product (and I AM in the classroom), I want to know how my users are responding to and understanding the product. If I never invite feedback then my product will never reach its full potential for the user, and my product is in danger of becoming like the "R" button on Norman's phone- confusing and without purpose.
I think listening to feedback is important for better design but I agree with Brad that observing users to see if something is functioning is different from asking users what they want. Observing them to know the intuitive use of artifact among people but listening to them requires a cognitive process, which many people may not be able to do. Thus what you get is not always accurate. It sounds really arbitrary and not comfortable reading the last paragraph of the article Brad linked. I understand what the author wants to say and agree it to some degree. I am thinking about innovation and diffusion that sometimes we also have to know how to smooth a change (like a new design). I think it is a fine line between listening and pushing.