Reading Reflection – Week #4

Personally, I found the first chapter of Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things to be an insightful introduction to human-centered design and user experience. However, some aspects of it struck me as somewhat contentious. Having already read some of my peers’ reflections on the infamous “Norman Doors” (which are also found on our campus), I was intrigued by the mixed reactions. Some people found the design intuitive and user-friendly, while others have consistently struggled with it over time.

This divergence reminded me of my early experiences with social media. When I was 9, I had an account on the Russian social network VK, which (even then) I found incredibly easy to navigate. I also had a Facebook account at the same time, but I could never quite figure it out due to its cluttered and complex design. Interestingly, when I later traveled to Armenia, I discovered that many people there had the opposite perspective: they viewed VK’s interface as poor in terms of user experience, while Facebook was considered relatively straightforward. To this day, I still find Facebook extremely annoying to use, overwhelmed by its numerous buttons and pages whenever I open the sidebar or attempt to navigate through it.

This brings me to a broader question: is user experience really as universal as Don Norman suggests? Are there only conceptual models — mental representations of how objects work, based on users’ past experiences — that determine the value of design? How do cultural differences influence or limit the usability of objects? When discussing Norman Doors, who do we consider as the elusive “ideal user”? Is there truly a universal standard for which almost anyone can be considered the model for evaluating a design’s discoverability?

Leave a Reply