I find it fascinating that there is this duality pertaining to how affect impacts the way humans function. Norman demonstrates that negative affect tends to have an effect on the mind that is contradictory to that of positive effect, for example, negative effect aids the focus process whereas the positive effect relaxes it; negative affect makes it harder to do easy tasks whereas positive affect makes it easier to do difficult tasks; negative affect makes simple tasks difficult whereas positive affect makes difficult tasks easier (4, 5). When it comes to a product, this duality has an even more noticeably contradictory impact on the engineers and the users. Positive affect can make the engineers design a product in a more comprehensive way, that is, to fill it with functions ranging from simple to advanced; this, however, can render some negative affects from the users especially when they cannot figure out how to operate the advanced parts of the product. Negative affect can sometimes make the engineers feel less incentivized to improve their product and only try to finish it, which can make the product become easier for users to operate. This may prime users’ minds and make them become more tolerable to trying advanced functions within the product when the engineers decide to improve it, as Norman argues, “although poor design is never excusable, when people are in a relaxed situation, the pleasant, pleasurable aspects of the design will make them more tolerant of difficulties and problems in the interface” (6).
Another point that Norman makes to which I find worth mentioning is the harmony between beauty and usability. Obviously, the product is useless when it is beautiful but not functional; similarly, the product is also hard to use design and appeal-wise if it is highly functional but not beautiful. However, I do not fully agree with him there has to be a balance between beauty and usability. This should be dependent on the purpose of the product itself and how it is going to be used. If users choose the product because of its functions, then there is no point that the product’s level of beauty should match its functionality; the product then only needs to be decent looking enough. Vice versa, if the beauty of the product is the main selling point, then that should be the manufacturer’s main focus in design and production.
As for the story about Margaret Hamilton and how her codes help the astronauts successfully land their mission, I really admire her determination to finish up the product that she helped start. It is about her integrity and not to give in when she has more to offer. When designing and creating a product, it is important to be as thorough as possible in terms of codes and functions. It is fine if the users decide not to use it, as in the case for most computers and laptops and their users these days. However, when the users want to maximize their laptops and computers, they will really need to use what is on the table, hard.