In the chapter “The psychopathology of everyday things”, Don Norman brings up a multitude of examples of bad design that hinders human experience with the object of said design. He proposes the idea of human-centered design as the ultimate goal of a good design. I do not think that the bad design in some cases is a problem that desperately needs to be fixed. For instance, confusing buttons of a dryer-washing machine is an example the author gives for bad design choices. I agree that the design is not human-centered and can be improved, but I find the emphasis on it being a problem unnecessary. The sales of such machines are profitable and people still buy the complicated technology despite the bad design, otherwise the production of such machines would be terminated. This could indicate that human-centered design is not the primary concern of the businesses selling the complicated technology. This also might suggest that creating a machine with more of a human-centered design is not beneficial to the company. Moreover, consumer can use fridges and washing machines for decades and I think the designers bet on the longevity of the product – it can be confusing at first, but not after 10 years of using the device and it is my understanding that the consumers are attracted to the bursting variety of features rather than the ease of use.
That being said, the author mentions that the good design choices come at an expense and have their fair share of constraints, but it is only discussed in chapter 6, therefore to make a conclusive judgement of the topic I would need to read about what author has to say in chapter 6. I hope the author can prove me wrong by offering worthy alternatives that would benefit the consumer and be feasible for the producers. Disclaimer: my points mentioned in the previous paragraph would apply to consumable goods, but not necessarily other products with bad design.
Skip to content
