After reading the chapter, I feel the author said exactly what I thought. Some designs are inhumane. NYUAD is a great example. I remember the designer of NYUAD was famous and great. However, some aspects of the design really piss me off. For instance, I understand the doors are automatic so that disabled people can enter. However, It also led to many other problems, including maintenance issues, slow reactions (leading to traffic), etc. Many different ways could fix this issue, for example, changing the opening method of the doors from swinging to sliding, adding specific gateways for people with disabilities, and so on. However, it might negatively influence the aesthetics of the design itself. I guess that is why it hasn’t been fixed.
Another thing about the article that interests me is that the author said the engineers are too logical. I immediately thought of a concept in design called “affordance.” This term generally refers to an object’s aspects that define its uses and how it could be used. If this concept can be applied to designing and making it evident how it should be used, it should become a good design. However, I also understand the difficulties in doing this, especially in machines with multiple functions or complicated properties. Still, it should be applied to many daily items since they are not that complex, and usually, people using it are not professionals.