Reflection:
Vicente, Ch. 3
Fitting Design to the Body
When I think about design, it seems that considering the human body would be integral to the process (a ‘no-brainer’!). However, reading Vicente’s chapter makes me realize that often this is not, and has not been the case. His many examples serve to further illustrate the divide between mechanistic and humanistic perspectives. The first level of the Human Tech Ladder is crucial – if designs do not fit the human body they lack functionality and, as Vicente demonstrates, often cause severe consequences. I know that when I next hear explanations for mishaps explained as ‘human error’ or ‘pilot error’ I will think more critically about the situations and wonder what other levels of the ladder may be involved. Vicente clearly illustrates the need for designers to not only consider the technical ‘minutiae’, but also the conditions under which a product will be used and by whom – the human factor.
Once again, the question is ‘Why don’t designers always consider human factors in the design process?” (At least is would seem that human factors are often ignored.) I think that James may have touched on some of the reasons in our last class – often the decisions are imposed upon designers, because of cost considerations, availability of material, or other factors.
Norman, Chapter 4 – ‘Fun and Games’
“Technology should bring more to our lives than the improved performance of tasks: it should add richness and enjoyment” (p. 101).
“… it’s about fun, delight, the pleasure of the experience” (p. 100).
These are my favourite quotes from chapter 4. I think that they get at the essence of design, which optimally will go beyond mere function (not to understate function). As Norman notes, emotions are essential to people's curiosity and ability to learn and also facilitate coping with stress. Given this information, it seems only logical to attempt to address emotions in design. To achieve this end, Norman suggests that a “good way to bring fun and enjoyment to our lives is to trust in the skill of artists” (p. 101), which is perhaps another way of saying that a blend of humanist and mechanist perspectives is optimum.
Hi Robin,
ReplyDeleteI went through most of your postings (except the TED Talks video, no sound in the computer lab, you know) but I think I will just post my comment on your most recent posting. It seems like in your blog postings that you're making personal connections to the readings whether it is from the Nielsen usability website, the Norman book (I had to laugh at the teapot exmaple that you used and the popcorn pot. I have a plastic mixing bowl that I use every Sunday to mix my pancake batter in) or the Vicente book. I think it's really important to make these personal connections to what you're reading and learning about, so for future blog posts, keep doing that. As for the Vicente chapter on fitting design to suit the human body, it does seem like it would be a "no-brainer" that design should meet human needs. There are countless examples around us everyday when design doesn't meet human needs though. You pose the question in your blog as to "why don’t designers always consider human factors in the design process?” Yes, I think that there are certain pressures placed upon teams that create new products, be they budgetary, cost effectiveness, lack of product testing or what have you. Honestly, I think a major factor in all of this is what Vicente calls the humanistic versus mechanistic views of the world. The people that design these products may be out of touch with the technical or physical abilities of the people they are designing projects for. Obviously there is a wide variety of body types and sizes out there, so it's common to see people hunched over their workstations. But beyond the physical level, there is the psychological level that doesn't seem to be addressed at times either. I know that programming the time on a VCR seems to be beyond the technical capabilities for my Mom. I'm sure when I go home for Thanksgiving this weekend I will see her VCR flashing 12:00 at me (or it will be displaying the wrong time). For me, I see a lot of these designers as being out of touch with their audience as far as their technical abilities. Some designs seem to be counter-intuitive with the number of steps involved (think of the Mercedes-Benz that allowed drivers to check their oil electronically from the driver's seat) with certain expectations of the user. What do you think? Are the people designing the products we consume people that can't see the humanistic view of the world and see things in a purely mechanistic way?
Kevin