Attractive Things Work Better
I found this reading surprisingly relatable (although initially with the 3 teapots, I was a little confused). Norman’s main point that beauty and usability aren’t opposites and that they can co-exist, really made me rethink how I view design. He talks about how our emotions directly affect how we perform tasks. For example, negative affect (like anxiety) actually focuses the mind, which I never thought about before. I used to assume all anxiety was bad, but Norman explains that in situations where quick focus is needed, like immediate problem-solving, that stress can actually help.
What also stood out to me was the idea that people are more forgiving of poor design when they’re in a positive mood. I’ve totally felt that. When I’m calm, I barely notice small glitches on Brightspace, but when I’m stressed, like submitting an assignment at the last minute, the same delay feels ten times longer and way more frustrating.
I liked his reflection about beauty too, especially the part about how true beauty isn’t just surface-level. A product can look good, but to be truly beautiful, it has to work well and make sense to use. That reminded me of how we say “beauty is in the character” for people; Norman’s basically saying that the same applies to design. Beauty in products has to go deeper than aesthetics, it has to come from function, usability, and how it makes us feel.
Overall, this reading made me realize that emotion is not a distraction in design, it’s actually a tool. How we feel shapes how we interact, and that’s something I’ll keep in mind whenever I evaluate or create something from now on.
Her Code Got Humans On The Moon — And Invented Software Itself
I really enjoyed this reading, especially the part where the author points out that one of the “founding fathers” of software was actually a mother. I thought that was both funny and powerful. It highlights how Margaret Hamilton broke stereotypes in a field that was (and still is) dominated by men. The story captured how she managed to fit into that environment, joking around with her colleagues and saying she was “one of the guys”, but also how she stood out because of her intelligence and persistence. What struck me most was how her higher-ups ignored her idea for error checking, insisting astronauts were “too well-trained to make mistakes.” It reminded me of a previous reading where we discussed how engineers often think so logically that they expect others to be perfect, almost machine-like. But humans aren’t machines, and Hamilton proved that. When an astronaut actually made the very mistake she had warned about, it became her “I told you so” moment, except it came with nine hours of problem-solving that could’ve been avoided.
As a computer science major, I found it fascinating that error checking wasn’t considered intuitive back then. Today, we’re taught to expect mistakes and build systems that can handle them, but that mindset didn’t exist yet. Hamilton’s work showed that great engineering isn’t just about logic, it’s about anticipating imperfection, because humans are imperfect anyways.