I found this week’s reading really assuming because I could relate to a lot of the examples he gave. Specifically referencing the washing machine and glass door, I definitely have been in situations where the design of a product is aesthetically pleasing and minimalistic, but the actual usability of the product is misleading and frustrating to work with. The example I thought of was the integration of smart screens into the dashboard of cars. I grew up learning how to dial radio stations, DVDs, and cassette tapes, so when my family were able to purchase new cars, I was dumbfounded by the flat screen instead of the variety of knob and mechanism. While it was easy to figure out, I somehow found it a nuisance at times to have to tap or scroll through the interface. I also find it hypocritical because it can be super distracting and cause the driver attention to divert from the road.
I also could relate to the thinking process of engineers and having a set logical process. I agree with the author that it feel like a lot of products are designed for machines and are not user friendly. That is why clear communication, diagrams/ mappings, and symbols are so important because builds the relationship between the individual and the people that worked hard to create the product. In my own work, I find it hard to divert from my logic and fall into the pit of false confidence that led to fallacy. As such, I find great importance in the open projects and humanities because through these studies and experience can there be a bridge between hard logic and real case situations.