Physical Computing - Week 3b
Norman Readings
I agree with the Norman readings. The most important thing that I got out of the "Designof Everyday Things (DOET)" is that design should be visible. So many times, the aesthetic of the design is prioritized over it's function. Also, design should be intuitive (like the door examples). In contrast, too much functions can hinder the usefulness of the object. I believe one possible solution to this could be that similar objects can have the same functions, so that learning becomes uniform. An example would be a cell phone interface and touch pad. Most of them are similar regardless of how old the model is or the design. In any case, one should keep the design simple. All in all, I'm glad I own the book for Intro to Industrial Design.
In "Attractive Things Work Better," Norman makes a good point that people/users tend to forgive design flaws when the object is attractive. This is true, I believe for the older Apple computers (the IBooks and IMacs that came in funky colors). I have also experience a coulple of malfunctions with my Powerbook within the first 3 months. My speakers had to be replaced. I took it in, and because AppleCare also reinforced that my product would be in good working condition eventually, I wasn't upset. Partly because of the design of the Powerbook, and it's packaging. The same went for my 3rd Generation Ipod. The battery drains faster than the newer ones, but since I love the design of the older one with the red lights (keys), I will never sell it. On the other hand, I used to own one of the 1st generation G5 PowerMacs, and there was something wrong with the videocard. I had to take it back to the Apple store several times before they replaced it. I ended up selling it because I hated having to ask someone to help me lug 50 lbs. to the Apple Store everytime. I don't know if attractive things work better, but I do agree that people forgive the device or object if it is more attractive.
I agree with the Norman readings. The most important thing that I got out of the "Designof Everyday Things (DOET)" is that design should be visible. So many times, the aesthetic of the design is prioritized over it's function. Also, design should be intuitive (like the door examples). In contrast, too much functions can hinder the usefulness of the object. I believe one possible solution to this could be that similar objects can have the same functions, so that learning becomes uniform. An example would be a cell phone interface and touch pad. Most of them are similar regardless of how old the model is or the design. In any case, one should keep the design simple. All in all, I'm glad I own the book for Intro to Industrial Design.
In "Attractive Things Work Better," Norman makes a good point that people/users tend to forgive design flaws when the object is attractive. This is true, I believe for the older Apple computers (the IBooks and IMacs that came in funky colors). I have also experience a coulple of malfunctions with my Powerbook within the first 3 months. My speakers had to be replaced. I took it in, and because AppleCare also reinforced that my product would be in good working condition eventually, I wasn't upset. Partly because of the design of the Powerbook, and it's packaging. The same went for my 3rd Generation Ipod. The battery drains faster than the newer ones, but since I love the design of the older one with the red lights (keys), I will never sell it. On the other hand, I used to own one of the 1st generation G5 PowerMacs, and there was something wrong with the videocard. I had to take it back to the Apple store several times before they replaced it. I ended up selling it because I hated having to ask someone to help me lug 50 lbs. to the Apple Store everytime. I don't know if attractive things work better, but I do agree that people forgive the device or object if it is more attractive.
posted by Thinking Girl at 6:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home