Reflecting on Donald Norman’s Emotion and Design: Attractive Things Work Better, an important takeaway was the idea of balancing beauty with usability. For example, in a high-stress setting like healthcare, should a designer prioritize simplicity over aesthetics, or is there value in making things look good too? Norman’s argument that beautiful things “work better” because they make users more forgiving of small flaws is intriguing, but this could also lead designers to mask deeper usability problems with aesthetics. We also see this often in consumer tech, where sleek design sometimes hides complex interfaces. Could a beautifully designed device make users miss important issues if they assume it’s as reliable as it looks? And in general, does an attractive design make people more likely to trust or value a product, even if it has flaws? How do designers keep things both beautiful and easy to use across all types of situations, from routine tasks to high-stress ones?
The article on Margaret Hamilton’s journey was definitely inspiring and got me thinking about how often we overlook the contributions of people who don’t fit the traditional expectations of an industry. What struck me most was her foresight about potential astronaut errors (that had initially been dismissed). She saw risks that others didn’t, not because she knew more, but because she questioned the assumption of perfection in human operators. This made me think about the ways might current technology still rely on assumptions that could lead to serious errors. Are we relying too heavily on “perfect” tech and “infallible” systems, overlooking potential risks just because they seem unlikely?
Overall, I think these readings emphasize the need to balance beauty and function in design while staying aware of human error, showing that technology works best when it adapts to real, everyday challenges.