Her Code Got Humans On The Earth
Margaret Hamilton’s story resonates with me as an aspiring software engineer, especially seeing how she navigated a world that wasn’t built for her. She was able to bring her daughter Lauren to the lab on weekends, letting her sleep on the floor while she coded into the night. That choice wasn’t just about balancing work and family, but showing both are achievable. This actually saved a mission, when Lauren accidentally crashed the Apollo simulator by pressing P01 during flight, Hamilton saw the danger immediately and warned NASA. They brushed her off, insisting astronauts were too perfect to make mistakes and did not take her concern seriously. But during Apollo 8, astronaut Jim Lovell did exactly what Lauren had done, wiping out all the navigation data. Hamilton and her team spent nine hours finding a fix to bring them home. Hamilton wasn’t just writing code, she was inventing the entire idea of software engineering in real-time, creating the practices we still rely on today. Her work reminds me that the best engineers aren’t the ones who assume everything will go perfectly, but the ones who plan for when it doesn’t. Her thinking of all branches of an act is what makes her an incredible software engineer.
Attractive Things Work Better
As someone studying computer science, Norman’s argument that “attractive things work better” initially felt weird to hear, like permission to prioritise aesthetics over functionality. But it makes sense as good designs should balance both aesthetics and usability, creating experiences that are functional and resonant. What really resonated was his point about positive affect making us more tolerant of minor difficulties. When I’m working with tools that feel good to use, I don’t rage-quit when I hit a bug. But when I’m already stressed and the interface is terrible, every small friction angers me more. This is why critical systems, like hospital applications, should be completely simple and understandable, while something non-critical like a coffee ordering app can afford to prioritise delight over efficiency.
However, I’m uncertain whether beauty can truly compensate for poor usability. Norman says “when we feel good, we overlook design faults,” but this happens far too often with modern apps. Apple’s system apps, from the clock to the calculator, are aesthetically beautiful but frustratingly impractical for users who need advanced features.
Still, I agree with his main point, we’re not computers evaluating products on pure utility. We’re emotional beings, and our feelings genuinely affect our performance. As engineers, we should build things that not only work but also make people feel capable and confident.