The underlying assumption of anything artificial is that it operates based on a set of logical rules and assumptions. Engineers verify their designs by checking their conformity to logical principles, deeming their work reliable only once it passes a set base of logical benchmarks. Norman Don argues that while engineers prioritize logic as the central guide in their design of new technology, the consumers of these designs, on the other hand, seldom operate based on logical principles when interacting with new devices. Indeed, we humans pride ourselves on being logical beings, but struggle with fundamental logic puzzles or, as Norman illustrates, actions as simple as opening doors. Instead, we rely on our accumulated experiences and previous interactions to inform our ability to use new designs.
Hence, Norman outlines the two most important characteristics of good design: 1) Discoverability and 2) Understanding. Indeed, the usage of a well-designed product needs to be understandable or at the very least discoverable with minimal effort and/or resources. I found myself surprised when I reflected on how many devices I use frequently that lack these basic properties. For years on end, for instance, I wondered why my clothes were still wet after multiple hours in the dryer on the highest heat setting. Only by watching another person drain the water in the cartridge on the upper left side of the dryer, a signifier to the affordance of emptying the cartridge, was I able to get my clothes dry in the first cycle. It is, thus, important to center the human user, not abstract logical frameworks, in the process of designing interactions and experiences involving technology via human-centered design principles and techniques.
The degree to which Norman was able to predict the current complexity of modern technology back in 2013 when he revised this text is astonishing. He hypothesized that we would get to a point where different technological devices, such as smartphones and watches, would merge into one, tapping into the complexity of designing gadgets that combine internet access and smart displays and making them intuitive for the user. Reflecting upon this now that such gadgets have become a part of our reality revealed to me certain insights that seem a little unexpected. While traditional wristwatches with a standard rotating knob were intuitive back in the day, I would argue that a child in our day and age would be more capable of navigating how to set up an Apple Watch over discovering that the knob of a wristwatch needs to be pulled first and then rotated to set the hands. Personally speaking, I am puzzled every time I have to find a particular station on an old radio but can do it within seconds on my smartphone. My grandmother, however, would probably be able to perform the former much more easily than the latter. With evolving technologies and cultural/generational differences, how can we ensure that our standardization of conceptual models of devices that perform similar functionalities provides “understandable, and enjoyable products” for everyone? Does standardization make sense as we innovate our understanding of effective design principles? If not, what would methodologies of comparing different design frameworks look like?