The reading talks about how everyday objects can be confusing and frustrating due to bad design rather than user issues. Don Norman notes after the swinging door example that “the relevant components must be visible, and they must communicate the correct message: What actions are possible?; Where and how should they be done?” This made me realize that for my last assignment, where the bubbles are added through key presses and popped by a mouse click, a new user would not know because I have not indicated anything. This is an error on my part because I did not take into account new students possibly browsing ideas for this class in the future or the professor when grading. Therefore, after reading that sentence, I immediately went back to my code for this week’s assignment—where the text messages change every mouse click—and added a text that says “Click for new messages.” The change made much more sense now and checks of the “discoverability” and “signifier” boxes that Norman mentions. It is also how I was able to apply some of the author’s principles of design to my interactive media assignments. In the future I could also consider the other 5 fundamental psychological concepts: affordances, constraints, mappings, feedback, and conceptual models. Mapping could be useful for the second part of Interactive Media when we are building our project to make sure that if I create something that requires a sensor or button to be pressed, then it should make sense and match what actually happens. A quick yet not obnoxious beep could play immediately after to show the user that it has worked, which is the feedback Norman was talking about. Lastly, the conceptual model, I think, is the most important because when the user looks at my p5.js project or my final IM project, they should have a mental picture of how it works without having to look at the code or figure it out.
On a more relatable note, this reading was extremely satisfying to me; having someone understand the frustration when it comes to design errors felt so validating. Something, though, that drives me crazy and was not mentioned in the way I wanted to is public washroom sinks. There is not just one that was memorable (in a bad way), but many. This specific one I remember was in a mall in Dubai, and from afar the washroom looks really clean, new, and functional. However, when I came to use the sink, I could not find the soap! The cleaner had to point it out to me that it was under the mirror. That is when I noticed the barely noticeable icons for the soap, tissues, and dryer. It does not stop here because when I put my hand under the soap icon directly, the soap was dispensing a little more to the right, so some of it ended up falling on the tabletop. On top of that, there was no light or sound to indicate that soap was currently being dispensed, or if there was, it was not loud enough for a crowded public Dubai mall washroom. For it to be improved, they should not sacrifice the easy functionality for the clean look, or if they really want to, then the icons need to be in a different color than the color scheme of the washroom or have it placed in a bordered box so that it is more visible against the mirror. To fix the issue of the indication that soap is being dispensed, they could first have a light shining right next to where it gets dispensed so they know where to place their hand and second have the light blink lightly when the sensor detects a hand so that the user does not move while the soap is being dispensed. Overall, this was a very fun read and an even more enjoyable analysis that will definitely make me think twice on my future projects to ensure no bad design and avoidable user error.