Reading Don Norman’s The Psychopathology of Everyday Things made me completely rethink how I interact with technology on a daily basis. One line that really stayed with me was Norman’s insistence that “the relevant components must be visible, and they must communicate the correct message” (pg. 3). I realized how often I silently blame myself when I struggle with a poorly designed interface, whether it’s an oven with cryptic icons, an elevator with unlabeled buttons, or even a website with a confusing layout. Norman flips that perspective and argues that it is the designer’s responsibility to make the user successful. That shift felt empowering. It reminded me that confusion is not a personal failing but often the result of flawed design.
One example that drives me crazy, which Norman doesn’t mention, is airplane in-flight entertainment systems. The touchscreens frequently misregister input, and there’s rarely any immediate feedback. Even on otherwise advanced planes like the Emirates A380, the interface feels outdated and uninspired. Sure, it plays movies and basic games, but there is so much room for innovation. Applying Norman’s principle of feedback could solve part of this problem: a simple progress indicator would reassure me that my action registered and prevent the endless cycle of frustrated tapping. Beyond that, design could take a leap forward by enabling features like screen-mirroring from passengers’ devices, turning the system into a productive and personalized workspace. As Norman argues, “discoverability” should make it obvious what is happening and how to proceed, even in a stressful environment like an airplane cabin.
I also saw direct parallels between Norman’s ideas and my own work in interactive media. His discussion of signifiers felt especially relevant. In my p5.js projects, I often rely on subtle cues like highlight effects, error messages, or color changes to guide the user’s next step without lengthy instructions. This reading made me more intentional about those choices: I now see them as part of creating a coherent conceptual model that helps users immediately understand what actions are possible. For instance, in my recent race-car animation project, I could add small speedometer icons that signal users to click the cars and make them go faster instead of just writing instructions on the screen which feels bland. This would transform the interaction from guesswork into an intuitive and engaging experience, exactly what Norman argues good design should do.
For class discussion, I keep wondering whether “invisible design” can actually go too far. Minimalism may look sleek, but as Norman points out, interfaces still need to guide users toward the right actions. I’m curious whether making an experience completely over-simplified might strip away the sense of play and discovery that makes interacting with technology satisfying in the first place.
Overall, I really enjoyed this reading because it challenged the way I usually think about design. I found myself agreeing with most of Norman’s arguments, especially his claim that bad design, not user error, is often the root of frustration. This idea resonated with me because it takes some of the pressure off the user and reframes design as a partnership between human and object. I also liked how approachable and almost conversational Norman’s writing style was, it made the large concepts and conceptual models feel accessible rather than overly academic. If I had to critique anything, it would be that at times the examples felt a bit dated (doors and washing machines don’t feel as urgent as today’s complex digital interfaces), but even so, the principles were timeless. Rather than feeling frustrated, I came away from this reading motivated to pay more attention to how things around me communicate their use, and to design my own projects with more empathy for the user.