Category: Spring 2024 – Aya (Section 002)

Norman,“Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better”

While reading the article, I found really interesting how the author explores the relationship between usability, aesthetics, affect, and cognition in design. However, it also made me think of an alternative perspective that prioritizing one aspect over another could lead to more effective outcomes in certain contexts. For example, in industries where functionality and efficiency are essential, such as industrial machinery or medical devices, usability might take precedence over aesthetics and affect. In these cases, a minimalist and utilitarian design approach could enhance user performance and safety without being encumbered by unnecessary visual features. Moreover, some users may prioritize practicality over emotional engagement, particularly in professional or utilitarian settings where efficiency and productivity are the primary concerns. Thus, while the reading advocates for a holistic approach to design, acknowledging differing priorities and contexts is essential for making designs to specific user needs and preferences.

Her Code Got Humans on the Moon

Personally, I think Margaret’s strong commitment to following her passion, despite societal pressures, is truly inspiring. In today’s tech scene, where gender gaps persist, her story serves as a stark reminder of the importance of diversity and inclusivity. Examples of gender bias and the need for inclusivity in tech still persist, ranging from disparities in leadership roles to obstacles hindering the progress of women and other minorities. Hamilton’s legacy, from her pioneering days at NASA to her leadership in software firms, highlights the transformative impact of inclusivity and the crucial role she played in shaping the tech landscape. Her narrative also pushes us to continue striving for a tech world that’s more fair and diverse, where everyone, regardless of gender or background, has the chance to make their mark, just like her.

Don Norman’s Emotion and Design: Attractive things work better

The most interesting part of this reading for me (as well as the most important, I believe) was the part about Affect Theory, and how it influences design considerations. I was always aware of the tenets of affect theory, as in its essence it is a core part of behavioral ecology, or how the behavior of animals influences their survival and reproduction, although I never knew of “affects” by name prior to this reading. I especially liked reading about affect, especially negative affect, being a threshold effect, with low levels of negative affect increasing concentration. That is because the negative affect mainly draws instinctual reactions of fear or anger, and both of these reactions have evolved specifically to increase concentration in survival situations. But when the negative affect gets higher, the fear/anger triggered gets overwhelming and leads to anxiety and freezing up, which to be fair is another evolution-designed response to challenges that cannot be solved by “fight” or “flight”. In general, as Norman points out, negative affect causes “tunnel visioning”, while positive affect causes the “broadening of the thought process”.

So, knowing about affects becomes an important consideration in design. This part of the reading is also highly interesting. Norman compares scenarios where there is a degree of external negative (like in emergencies or dangerous work), neutral (most day-to-day actions), or positive affect (like in creative and safe spaces). In the negative affect case, Norman asserts that designs should emphasize function and minimize irrelevancies. For example, emergency exit doors should, by design, immediately tell users which way they swing (besides they should swing outwards anyway to prevent crowd crush, but that is a matter of building codes rather than design). This is a sentiment Norman has expressed earlier in “The Design of Everyday Things”. But in a neutral and positive affect scenario, it becomes important to also consider design, and small sacrifices of functionality for good design becomes increasingly more tolerable in positive affect scenarios. For example, we often find ourselves gravitating towards better-looking pencil boxes, better-looking soap dispensers, ornate wall clocks and wristwatches, and sleeker smartphones, among others. In each case, as long as the product scores high enough on our mental calculations regarding usability and cost-effectiveness, we often do go for the more attractive product.

And this is most apparent when looking at phone sales. For example, recent iPhones (like the 14 and the 14 Pro), actually have higher sales in colors like Purple, Gold, and Blue than even Black (an ever popular color), and significantly higher sales than Silver/White. iPhone colors (other than Red), generally do not cost a user more, so in the absence of any influence of design on sales, the expected result would have been a near-even distribution of sales across all color options, or at least a distribution that reflected production and availability (because Black is usually overproduced compared to other colors). The fact that the sales distribution is skewed goes to show that beautiful products are automatically seen as more attractive.

Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself

This reading was very inspiring. I had known of the work of female mathematicians like Katherine Johnson and Dorothy Vaughan on the Mercury and Apollo programs, mostly due to the film Hidden Figures. Their work on calculating trajectories and backup trajectories for the Apollo mission was instrumental in the program’s success and even saved the life of the Apollo 13 astronauts. However I was unaware of the key contributions of Margaret Hamilton to both the moon landings and modern software design, through her work on the Apollo In-flight Guidance Computer.

I was especially surprised at reading how, despite Hamilton’s insistence to include exception handling in the software (which is now essentially a software engineering 101 concept, as far as I’m aware), NASA had nearly rejected it as being too excessive. However, Apollo 8 had shown the importance of such error handling. I had also heard about Apollo 11’s memory overflow error before (apparently a result of the navigation RADAR being left on past when it was supposed to be used), but through this article, I learned that Margaret Hamilton was the one who came up with the solution to it.

Reading further about this incident, I found out about another contribution of Margaret Hamilton to the success of the Apollo 11 mission, specifically when it came to interaction. While the “priority displays” exception handling mechanism was innovative, the low processing power and slow speeds of the Apollo 11 computers meant that there was a risk that the astronauts inputs and the computer could go out of sync while it was trying to load up the priority sub-routines. This was why Hamilton put a standing instruction that when the priority displays came online, astronauts should wait for 5 seconds for everything to load up properly before putting in any inputs, which helped prevent knock-on memory overflows and asynchronous input-output logic.

Overall, Margaret Hamilton’s work is highly inspiring and aspects of it can still be seen in software design today.

Can we make beautiful and functional things? Should functionality precede aesthetics? These are the questions that Norman tries to tackle in his article by also incorporating human responses–emotions in object designs.

The Chair Institute

I presented the image above because it is ‘catchy’. In my opinion, the chair above is a redundant object. Most people would agree that a chair’s sole purpose is to provide seating. A well-designed chair, instead, would give a comfortable seating experience for the user. It is made out of hard material, unadjustable, and unwelcoming. The chair above lacks those usabilities.

Aesthetics matter. It influences the user’s reaction, hence, its experience with the object.

I reflect the P01 feature within the spacecraft. NASA thought that such a feature was redundant. Why would you add a button that would never be pressed? (Spoiler: it backfired). Redundant features, if done correctly, would heighten the design. Think about the chairs you would encounter in the library. They are amazing. The chairs have adjustable armrests, heights, recline, and even headrests. These features and adjustability are the perfect pieces that create comfort for any user, in any kind of situation, whether they require focus, or just to nap after work. Would I still use them if they don’t have these features? I doubt it at all.

Don Norman’s exploration of the relationship between emotion and design in “Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better” offers intriguing insights into the intersection of aesthetics and usability in human-centered design. One aspect that resonates with me is Norman’s argument that attractive design not only enhances the visual appeal of products but also influences users’ emotional responses and overall experience. I’ve personally found myself drawn to products or interfaces that exhibit visually pleasing aesthetics, whether it’s the sleek design of a smartphone or the intuitive layout of a website. Attractive design has the power to foster a deeper connection between users and technology.

However, often overly complex or ornate designs detract from usability rather than enhancing it. It’s personally why I prefer Samsung products over Apple (controversial opinion I know). Additionally, Norman’s emphasis on the emotional impact of design raises questions about the role of cultural or social differences in shaping users’ aesthetic preferences. For older people or people not familiar with technology in general, they prefer simplicity and usability over aesthetic. For children, what we call “modern and chic” design, to them it’s boring and not aesthetic.  Overall, the article prompts me to reconsider the importance of balancing form and function in design and to prioritize user-centric approaches that prioritize both practicality and emotional engagement.

 

Margaret Hamilton’s story in “Her Code Got Humans on the Moon” resonates deeply, serving as a poignant reminder of the pioneering spirit and resilience of women in STEM fields. Her groundbreaking contributions to the Apollo space program not only shattered gender norms but also redefined the boundaries of what was achievable in the realm of technology. Hamilton’s ability to navigate the challenges of being a working mother in the 1960s while spearheading revolutionary advancements in software engineering is nothing short of inspiring to me. Her determination to challenge societal norms and carve out her place in a predominantly male-dominated field resonates profoundly with my own experiences of striving to be valued in a field like computer science.

The reading thus prompted me to reflect on the persistent gender disparities that continue to plague the tech industry today. There is also reluctance to acknowledge the contributions of women in STEM. It’s common for women’s credit being overshadowed by men such as in the case of Rosalind Franklin or Ada Lovelace. Similarly, people only remember Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, but rarely Hamilton’s pivotal role in making the mission even possible. As I reflect on her journey, I am reminded of the importance of forging ahead despite the barriers we face, and striving to leave my own mark on the ever-evolving landscape of technology.

Diving into Donald Norman’s ideas and Margaret Hamilton’s moon code journey got me thinking in ways I didn’t expect. Norman’s talk about how good design blends aesthetics with function kind of hovered in the background for me, until Hamilton’s story of crunching code for the Apollo mission brought it all home. It wasn’t about the looks; it was about making things work when it really mattered. Hamilton’s tale felt like finding clarity in a complex puzzle, showing that true genius in design can sometimes be all about the nitty-gritty of making things foolproof.

This mash-up of thoughts was more than just an academic exercise; it felt personal. It made me question my own take on what design really means and its impact. Going through their stories, I started seeing design not just as something that pleases the eye but as something deeply intertwined with solving real-world puzzles.

I realized my own moments of ‘aha’ often came when I was least expecting them, not while chasing some ideal of creativity but simply trying to work through a problem. Like Hamilton, the beauty of what I was doing often lay in the solution’s elegance and simplicity, not in how it looked. What I grasp now is that creativity isn’t just about coming up with something flashy; sometimes, it’s about the grind, the clever fixes, and making things work when the pressure’s on. It’s a reminder that there’s creativity in the chaos of problem-solving, a side of design I’ve come to appreciate in its own unique way.

Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better

While reading this passage, one of the aspects that piqued my interest was the discussion of the affective system. The affective system seems to awfully relate to utilitarianism in the sense that it judges and classifies aspects of life to binary entities of positive and negative. As utilitarianism is highly contextual and can be proven null based on certain contexts, I believe that affective system can also prove to be useless in certain contexts. There could be scenarios where the affective system judges something to be positive and yet the cognitive system could not make sense of it, which would imply that there are not enough information to make sense of it based on the contextual information alone.

Her Code Got Humans on the Moon—And Invented Software Itself

As a software engineer enthusiast, Margaret Hamilton has always been an idol to me. The way she not only contributed significantly to Apollo, but also paved the way for the present software engineers when she was the minority in the field. As stated by the passage, there have been numerous denials and harsh comments about her regarding her situation as a mother and also the situation regarding the P01 program, but ultimately she have proven many doubters wrong. I distinctly remember the picture of her where she held a stack of papers her height which consisted of her handwritten codes. To be writing such important codes without any IDE s, compilers or helper tools is beyond me.

The nexus between software engineering and design is profound, with user interface and system design serving as pivotal components. Margaret Hamilton’s contributions to Apollo and the broader field of software engineering exemplify this intricate relationship. Her remarkable ability to craft critical code manually, without the aid of modern tools, underscores the fundamental principles of design thinking in software development. This highlights the paramount importance of intertwining technical proficiency with human-centric design considerations to create impactful and user-friendly software solutions.

Margaret Hamilton’s narrative is more than just a historical anecdote; it’s a demonstration of the strength of fortitude, cunning, and vision in the face of personal and professional obstacles. Hamilton’s path covers a substantial progression in both her personal life and the area of technology itself. She started out as a young mathematician supporting her husband’s career and ended up being a trailblazing software engineer whose work was essential in bringing people on the moon. In spite of the 1960s social conventions discouraging women from pursuing “high-powered technical work,” Hamilton’s commitment and enthusiasm enabled her to create the contemporary notion of software. This story is interesting because it shows how important software was to the Apollo missions and how it became an essential part of current engineering and technology.

On a personal level, Hamilton’s narrative is tremendously motivating, particularly for someone navigating the complexity of contemporary technology disciplines. It serves as a reminder that prejudice and borders are frequently merely social constructions that are ready to be destroyed by anyone with the guts to question them. Hamilton’s commitment and tenacity inspire me to persevere in the face of adversity and to recognize the worth of hard effort and creativity in my own life. Her ability to manage her responsibilities as a mother and a top engineer in a field that is dominated by men forces me to reevaluate my ideas of what is possible and to pursue greatness against social norms. Her narrative inspires me to follow my goals with utmost fervor and to help break down barriers in technology and other industries, much as Hamilton’s work on the Apollo software did.

The reading “Attractive Things Work Better” explores how important aesthetics are to a product’s usefulness and efficacy. It clarifies how emotional reactions and cognitive processes are connected, implying that appealing products are not only more user-friendly but also have the potential to improve problem-solving and complicated task navigation skills. This idea contests the traditional division between form and function, contending that the two are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. The story suggests that aesthetics have a big impact on usability, transforming boring jobs into delightful experiences that boost productivity and efficiency.

This idea strongly connects with my personal experiences and observations. I’ve discovered how much aesthetics and design influence how I engage with and am satisfied with commonplace items and digital interfaces. For example, a smartphone’s slim form and user-friendly interface not only enhance its visual appeal but also revolutionize its usability by rendering complicated tasks seeming easier and more approachable. I have always thought about this as a child, where all these tasks we do using our smart devices seem so helpful and easy. As I think about this, I see how important it is to include aesthetic elements in my own efforts. The reading’s guiding ideas inspire me to think about how aesthetics and utility may work together to provide more satisfying and productive experiences, whether I’m developing a website, creating a presentation, or even just setting up my workstation.

This week’s readings have been interesting to read. Many times the concepts of usability and beauty come into play when people make their purchases, be it the new iPhone, a new mechanical keyboard with many RGB options, or just a shirt that has a rather unconventional design. Although, this is where we enter into this curious realm (at least for me) of the real effectiveness of these products.

Let’s give a scenario: would you rather have a phone that is internally more powerful but with an old design, or have a more modern one whose design is more updated, although performance-wise it is slower? Both are going to have their software outdated at the same time; therefore, what would one person pick? If the person is inexperienced with technology, this performance difference is not notorious, but those who do gaming on phones might apply a different lens to it. Not only does beauty transmit different feelings, but it also offers different ways to use and interpret it. For example, if I am going through a software error, I prefer that the system outputs the information about the error with detailed logs (in minimalistic fashion) as they are rather than just show a blue screen with a rather, obscure error. The first is generally related to settings where people are expected to be more technologically literate, but the latter is displayed more simplistically and is easy to associate with a system crash for most people; the only downside is that the technician might spend a bit more time understanding what is exactly happening. As Norman suggests, the system has to be prepared for unlikely scenarios, as seen in Hamilton’s case right around Christmas in 1968, where some astronauts accidentally used a function accidentally, but there were functions to mitigate it.

Obviously, even for myself, I would prefer something that is appealing to both my eyes and easy to understand. This is due to personal experiences and the fact that I see a certain beauty in seeing lots of logs of reports without feeling afraid. It is very difficult for me to choose eye candy over functionality, since my lens is a more technical one.

Norman’s text, “Emotion & Design: Attractive things work better,” discusses the importance of aesthetics in design. As the authors say, attractive things work better after all. In the reading, the author makes a connection between affect and cognition, highlighting that our emotions and cognitive processes are intertwined. The author mentions that negative affect makes easy tasks hard while positive affect makes hard tasks seem easy. I agree with the author that attractive things simply work better and that they make hard things seem easy. In fact, just as the author asserts that ‘attractive things work better,’ I also believe that the aesthetic appeal of certain objects can sometimes lead people to perceive the usability of a design more positively than its actual usability.

This text reminded me of the interface of Apple products, especially the iPhone, as a good example of how aesthetics can influence our perception of usability. I believe that one of the main reasons for Apple’s success lies in its ability to seamlessly integrate form and function. The clean and minimalist design of its interface isn’t just visually pleasing, but its aesthetics also enhance the user experience by reducing clutter and cognitive load, making the iPhone seem easy to control. Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Apple’s design philosophy is its ability to evoke positive emotions in users. From the moment one unboxes an iPhone, they are greeted with a sense of delight and anticipation. The smooth, responsive interface only adds to this feeling, making every interaction with the device a pleasure.

In this way, I believe that Apple has mastered the art of using aesthetics to enhance usability. By creating products that are not only functional but also visually appealing and emotionally engaging, they’ve managed to cultivate a loyal fan base all over the world.

Regarding the reading about Hamilton, I was truly inspired by her dedication and passion for her career. Her unwavering dedication to both her career as a programmer and her role as a mother was truly remarkable. Rather than succumbing to societal pressures to prioritize one over the other, she fearlessly pursued both paths with equal fervor. Hamilton’s story is truly inspiring. It shows that with passion and determination, we can overcome any obstacle. She was a pioneer in the tech industry, breaking norms and proving that gender doesn’t limit success. Her legacy reminds us that dedication and passion can make anything possible, no matter what challenges we encounter.

 

The stories of Margaret Hamilton’s work on the Apollo software and Don Norman’s article on the role of aesthetics in design provide valuable insights into the complex relationship between form, function, and user experience.
Hamilton’s experiences showcase the critical importance of secure programming by anticipating edge cases. “Hamilton wanted to add error-checking code to the Apollo system that would prevent this from messing up the systems. But that seemed excessive to her higher-ups.” This example highlights the need for designers to think through all the ways a product might be misused, even if it means going out of their way for additional work. This is actually a core part of every group work we do. Since one student might specialize in something, it’s their responsibility to convey complexities to a manager or the leader. This of course assumes that leader is capable of listening and trusting their group members’ expertise. Unfortunately, most companies nowadays work around maximizing profit and such thoughts are the last things that come to their mind.
The pushback Hamilton faced raises questions about the biases we bring to the design process. The belief that “astronauts would not make any mistakes” is plain wrong. Norman’s article suggests that aesthetic preferences can vary significantly across cultures and individuals – the same as “Three Teapots”. This variability means that as designers, we must constantly challenge our own assumptions and try to broaden our perspective. We should allow for all possibilities to happen and design a product for the end user (who might happen to be an astronaut) that works without major flaws. Norman’s article also suggests that that an attractive design can enhance usability, but not replace it entirely. For example, our current smartphone UIs are much more attractively designed than a few years ago. Even so, this raises the complexity of usability. I have personally downloaded older more simplified launchers for my grandmother, simply because it is so much easier to use.
All in all, combining usability with aesthetics while having the end user in mind is clearly the way to go. Hamilton’s approach to software engineering shows that innovative work pays off, as the result was truly out of this world.