Week 5 & 6 | PComp | A Marriage of Design/Function (or Not) |

A couple of weeks ago , we read two pieces by Donald A. Norman – the first chapters of his books, Design of Everyday Things & Emotional Design. The latter text arises as both a clarification and a counterpoint to some of the fundamental arguments poised in the former text.

After reading, I thought of the objects that I use on a day to day basis whether a television, microwave, washer, dryer, smartphone, etc. I decided to even cast a wider net be including some of the User Interfaces that I encounter in today’s software & applications because Some of the same issue plaguing the design of everyday objects also affect the User Interfaces that we find in some of today’s software.

For example when I like to draw/illustrate, I tend gravitate towards application such as Sketchbook Pro due to its ease of use even though Adobe Illustrator may appear to be more feature-rich. As a user, I tend to avoid everyday objects with a steep learning curve. If I encounter a piece of technology that would take me several manuals to understand, I would gravitate towards it more user-friendly counterpart/competitor if available.

Simplicity not only in design and function is what attracts me as a user, and I find myself in a new position where I have the opportunity to work on the design side of things. In my wildest dreams, I never thought I would be able to design/create the objects I have in Physical Computing. Being in ITP, I finally feel that I have the tools to create the things that I’ve only imagined. I will admit that some of the things which I’ve created in physical computing carry a crude aesthetic; but, now, I’m beginning to understand the importance of design principles when it comes to fabrication and prototyping.

“Well-designed objects are easy to interpret & understand.”

Now, the Norman’s statement above brings me to this weeks assignment which involved finding a public piece of interactive technology utilized by multiple people and observe the following:

1| How do I assume this interactive technology is used?

2| Describe the context it is being used.

3| Watch people using it without them knowing they are being observed.

4| Note how the people use the technology. Does everyone use it in the same or different fashion? Describe the ease of use or its difficulty. What functions take the shortest and the longest times to use.

Instead of choosing one piece of interactive technology, I decided to choose two. Both perform the same function but are designed differently. Here they are:

To your left is the tried and true NYC MTA Metrocard kiosk and to your left is the Washington DC Metrofare kiosk. Both forms of interactive technology serve the same function: provide subway/metro cards for commuters. I utilize the NYC MTA Metrocard kiosks on a daily basis, and I had the opportunity to observe the use of the DC Metrofare kiosks while on a weekend trip to D.C./Virginia. As far as the context these machines are being used, the people I observed used the machines to purchase and refill their respective metrocards. This was the primary function that I observed. In some instances, the people I observed simply used the machines to determine the remaining funds on an old metrocard. I would say that though the use of the machines were primarily the same; there was a stark contrast as far as the ease of use. The NYC Metrocard kiosk was easier to use in comparison to the D.C. Metrofare machine. Though I will admit that most new users (read: tourists) struggled using both the NYC MTA Metrocard & the DC Metrofare kiosks, the new users displayed the most amount of confusion and frustration with the DC kiosks. As Norman noted that well-designed objects are easy to interpret and understand, the DC kiosks stick out due to there poor design. The users (both new and seasoned alike) appear to be confused as to what inputs they should enters as far as their starting point and destination. The UI appears to be intimidating since the front face of the kiosks presents what would appear to be too much information. The UI for the NYC MTA Metrocard kiosks seemed to be more simplified in comparison. The design for the DC kiosks appears to be more of a barrier rather than a help to the users that I observed. The design is not intuitive and it appears that that its designers never tested the kiosks primary function of usability with actually users.

“When simple things need pictures, labels, or instructions, the design has failed”

- I do not agree with this statement made by Norman. If this argument were true, all the simple things that we encounter on a day to day basis fail. I feel that there must be a balance. In the case of the NYC MTA Metrocard kiosk, some guide/instructions are necessary. In the case of the DC variety, it has obviously failed since its design relies heavily on too many pictures, labels, and instructions. Let’s use another example. Let’s say that someone wishes to reinvent a bit of technology. Remember when Apple’s iPod was introduced. That device revolutionized how we ultimately interacted with music. I would be lying if I told you that I was a bit thrown off by the iPod’s click wheel design. I did not have a conceptual model as to how I would operate this device, but I soon my conceptual model adapted to the one created by the Apple designer.

Though an emphasis on aesthetic is important, an object/user interface deviates from it purpose is usability/utility is severely compromised as a result for the pursuit of beauty. An everyday object must strike a balance between the two leading to a marriage of both design and function.