Backtracking
__________

The Design Challenge: Why This Article Fails To “Teach”

Point one: Norman’s article is dated. It’s old. As a result, I many of his statements are deduced to mere observations that I think the average adult (certainly anyone who is in the tech field) can make and conclude without having to read the article. To wit, the section on “How to do things wrong” needs no further reading. All one has to do is look around and listen to conversations at a cocktail party and everybody’s a freaking expert – great at pointing out what’s wrong without any real solutions to proffer.

Point two: Observations, as a result, don’t truly address the design challenge, which is the title of his article. It certainly not the design challenges faced by today’s society – the consequential human factors such as the rise in a variety of new disabilities – carpal tunnel syndrome, rotator cuff and tendonitis ailments. The design of electronics primarily targets the GenX and Echo Boomer markets. Most boomers over the age of 50 can’t read their cell phone message without having to dig for eyeglasses. With the introduction of the World Wide Web, we have had to address the challenges of our right to privacy, something not considered at the time or development. Who would have thunk that cell phones could be used to detonate bombs?

Point three: Some statements Norman has made seemed ambiguous, and as a result, can be argued. Take the statement: “Computers have the power not only to make everyday tasks easier, but to make them enjoyable as well.” This needs to be qualified. Are we talking about personal computers? Manufacturing computers? Medical technology? I won’t disagree in large part, but it really depends on what we are talking about here and who the learners are.

Age plays a dramatic role in learning computer systems. I can’t imagine my 74-year-old father agreeing that using a personal computer has made things easier for him. Tell that to the millions who’ve become unemployable because they lack the skills and training to use a personal computer. Is it really easier for the older executive who has had a secretary for several years taking his dictation and typing up his memos to type his own email? What’s wrong with using the telephone?

Final point: Time is of the essence. It is my opinion that the point of any written form of communication is to deliver a message and that message must be communicated quickly, succinctly, with no room for misinterpretation; otherwise, its objective – which is to communicate – would have failed. So if I read something, in order for me to understand it, to grasp its meaning – to “get it” – the learning must occur, not in the second, third or fourth reading, but in the first, instantaneously, and without further explication. Without having to be an academic scholar.

On the Other Hand… User Centered Design Makes Sense

There is a logical sequence to Norman’s elaborating of the main principles of user-centered design, the implications and the suggestions he offers. Interestingly, his voice changes from scholarly writing to a more simplistic, direct and to the point style that I did not have to reread the chapter (except for purposes of writing my reaction) that it is almost hard to believe this was written by the same author.

While Norman makes sound arguments for user-centered design, there is one side thought that popped into my head as I read his suggestion: “when all else fails, standardize.” Ha! The only driving motivation to standardize is money. Microsoft has standardized office computing tasks and in so doing has monopolized the industry. That’s why Apple OS’s and Windows will never become synonymous. For that to happen, one company will have to buy out the other and kill it.