Carly Potter’s Reading Response #3

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13kYBycl7slAVPYXsDK2BapUH8A3Cx6z0SeFVdumBf70/edit?usp=sharing

THE DESIGN OF EVERYDAY THINGS

As I learned in Chapter 4 of The Design of Everyday Things, there are constraints that are involved in designing a product that seem to be universal, but as a result, tend to be more complicated due to the constant change in the world. The four kinds of restraint (physical, cultural, semantic, and logical) all have important jobs in letting people around the world determine how to properly use products that were designed by someone else. I like the author’s example of how there is a lack of physical constraint when considering the traditional cylindrical battery. There have been many instances when I have had to take a considerable amount of time in an attempt to figure out what way was the correct way to insert each battery. The designer should have fixed this aspect of the design product to make it even easier for the user to use its product without any difficulties. Designing batteries that doesn’t require a certain type of orientation in order to work properly is the next step in making products easier to use, but it is hard to make this change worldwide.

The problem with change, as noticed in this chapter, is that there is a legacy problem. If one thing is changed, that most likely means that many products would have to change, which isn’t a feasible task. I have particularly come across this problem when using laptops and phones. Once I upgraded my iphone and computer, my charging devices changed dramatically, specifically in its physical form. Although in the same brand, there were still huge changes that prevented me from easily obtaining necessary equipment due to things such as physical restraint. The charger I once needed was now too big for the device I currently have. It also gets difficult when you are in a public place and in need of a charger, but everyone has the charger you used to have and not the one that you now need. On the other hand, there is a specific part of cultural constraints that intrigues me. “Cultural issues are at the root of many of the problems we have with new machines” (128). There are culturally known definitions around the world, like a red light meaning stop and a green light meaning go. However, sometimes not everyone is caught up with these definitions because they change over time. This is when cultural constraints tend to get tricky and hard to keep up with-when everything around us is continuously changing.

Semantic constraints seem to have significant importance to the design of a product and I didn’t realize this until reading this chapter. “Semantic constraints rely upon your knowledge of the situation and of the world” (129). You have to use prior knowledge that majority of individuals have due to human interaction with things in our everyday lives. The example of the motorcycle makes sense to me because in order for a product to function correctly, the creator needs to understand the purpose of each design based on previous and current knowledge of the world. However, as stated, these meanings may change which would make their prior knowledge of the world no longer useful for future designs. Logical constraints show that the designer simply needs to use their good judgment and common sense in order for their product to properly come together. If there is a missing piece or if the orientation is off, then the whole layout of the component is thrown off. For example, if a car’s reverse shift actually put the car in drive and vice versa, then the driver and the car would be put in danger due to lack of logical constraint. It is important to recognize this because if one thing is off, then the user will not be able to use the product properly.

 

UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN

First and foremost, it is important to make sure that a product design comes with the aspect of affordance. It is important that physical characteristics match up with the functionality of an object. For example, rectangle shaped is more suited for a television than round shaped would be. Although it could happen, it wouldn’t be able to function the same way we are used to with a rectangle shape. When designing a product, the designer needs to make sure that the physical characteristic correlates up with the product and its purpose. It is also important to have a specific design that somehow relates to your design; it makes it what it is. There is a meaning behind every design and its name, which is crucial in order for it to potentially become a success.

Constraints, as described in my previous response, gives a system limitations in order for it to be easier to use and to decrease potential error. Something that caught my eye that differed from Chapter 4’s topic of constraints is that the two authors describe them in contrasting ways. My previous response explains how there are four kinds of constraints and this one explains that there are only two, which are physical and psychological. I am quite confused on the difference between the 2 types compared to the 4, but I assume that they relate in some way. According to the principle of consistency, systems tend to work in a more efficient manner when comparable parts are conveyed in similar ways. “Consistency enables people to efficiently transfer knowledge to new contexts, learn new things quickly, and focus attention on the relevant aspects of a task”. Instead of the user having to figure out how to work a system or product, this principle of consistency makes utilizing the product a more enjoyable and manageable process. After the function of the product is determined, then it is time to figure out the form of it. The beauty of the design will only truly come to you after you know exactly what the purpose of your product is.

The flexibility-usability tradeoff is something I have never heard of or have been familiar with until reading this article. I learned that the more flexible you make a product, the less functioning the product will be. The example the author used of personal computers being more flexible, and in turn, more difficult to use than video game players, makes sense because the user has to work more to figure things out if the product is more flexible. Hick’s Law is used to “estimate how long it will take for people to make a decision when presented with multiple choices”. However, what this law doesn’t take into account is all of the extra levels of searching and problem solving that go into different types of problems, depending on various details of the situation. As we know, there are a lot of different aspects that go into designing a product and sometimes it could become quite overwhelming. Ockham’s Razor shows us that it is better to go with the simplest design than the more complex design. In the end, it will always turn out better if you went about it in a way that was easier for you, the designer, to comprehend and to perform.

Carly Potter Reading Response #2

Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design Perspective on Information Technology

I found this reading to be very interesting from the start when the Lowgren and Stolterman started discussing Dynabook. Although what they explained was basically a more updated and advanced computer, it had more areas of focus than just technology which a lot of designers tend to put their emphasis on. It was meant for children and it would benefit their learning capabilities, which made me think about my design. Although it isn’t geared towards the younger generation and their ability to learn through technology, my design is designed to help a specific type of relationship. It shouldn’t always be about the idea of technology, but more about helping individuals with their specific problems through technology.

Both of the author’s idea about a new perspective on design called thoughtful design is a very humanistic way of thinking and I fully support it. “It is essential that members of the design discipline collectively find appropriate forms for growing and nurturing design knowledge” (Lowgren & Stolterman xii). One thing that I am personally scared about happening in the next five to ten years is the increased advancement in technology that could quite possibly turn this whole world into a place where the only form of communication is through technology. I believe that this is bound to happen, but with thoughtful design, we are allowed a socialized approach that gives us, humans, a healthier way to advance technology. It gives us an opportunity to still be involved in this change by experimenting and learning about all the new possibilities created by new technology and new knowledge” (Lowgren & Stolterman xii).

According to the authors, digital artifacts have been created as a result of mistakes and unintentional design decisions. This is why there has rarely ever been a perfect or fully thought out design that has been created. Based on thoughtful design, these accidents may be less likely to occur. “Thoughtful interaction design is built on a thorough understanding of the design process, design ability, the designed product, and design as part of a larger context” (Lowgren & Stolterman 2). If we go through the process of trial and error, while also acquiring outside opinions and coming up with new ideas within that design, there is no doubt in my mind that our technological advances would be perfect.

Drawing Connections How Interfaces Matter

Katherine Hayle’s remark explains how today’s culture involves interfacing of mobile phones and GPS technology which gives humans an opportunity to be able to connect through physical and virtual realms in a more fluid way. This, in some ways, relates back to my design of virtual touch. I am attempting to design this product in a way that makes it feel like the two users are physically with one another, while being thousands of miles apart. It is a concept that is quite difficult to grasp at first, but once reading this article it becomes a little easier to understand.

Distelmeyer brings up the concept of ‘seamless computing’, which is quite confusing for me to understand. I looked it up on google to try and get a better understanding and its definition is “two computer programs that are carefully joined together so that they appear to be a single program with a single user interface” (Techopedia). I know that it says cell phones would be an example of this because it is connected with cell towers and satellite networks, but I am curious to what other examples of technology could be used to describe seamless computing, as well.

I found this reading to be quite dense for me, especially since I am not familiar with graphic design and computer technology, so I came across difficulties when writing this response. I thought that I was able to connect this to my design of virtual touch but I could be misunderstanding. Virtual touch would have to involve some type of seamless computing, I believe, because feeling wouldn’t be able to travel through a phone without it. It is just hard to think of what ideas and systems could make that design possible. Hopefully in class I could have some of these questions cleared up.

Carly Potter Reading Response #1

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19nHXsK10aBtxzIJmjneUcEo5vQn-p6anJZ6dYqDqNPk/edit?usp=sharing

The article called “Design Thinking: New Innovative Thinking for New Problems” by Rikke Dam and Teo Siang explains “new ways of thinking in order to design better solutions, services and experiences that solve our current problems” (Dam & Siang). I really like that their idea of this particular development has a goal that goes above and beyond what I’ve seen many creators do throughout the years. Instead of attempting to solve easy problems, the creators wish to address problems with multiple issues that could potentially collide with one another. It is true that technology is expanding at an extremely fast rate and we often forget how important and crucial human connection is in everyday life, especially within companies and organizations. I have an appreciation towards this idea because computers and systems aren’t always able to figure everything out and solve the problems and issues that humans can. Us, humans, have a very specific type of knowledge that is able to solve complex problems and by using Design Thinking, they will promote the focus of human needs and their experiences as primary motivating factors to keep these industries moving forward.

The article “There Is No Interface (Without a User). A Cybernetic Perspective on Interaction” gives a new perspective to interaction by also adding more computer involvement to the mix. This idea more so relates to my individual project because it needs both human and computer interaction. Lasse Scherffig makes our roles as humans of specific importance in this idea of Human-Computer Interaction and I feel that humans should have that same importance in my project. The point of my creation is to focus on the humans interaction with the computer and the human so that the computer is able to trace the signal back to the other person. It takes both the human and the computer to make this idea come to life and for this reason, I am the most drawn to this article.

The article “Play as Research: The Iterative Design Process” by Eric Zimmerman gives a different type of outlook that I honestly prefer. I heard several ideas in class of people who would be able to use this article to their advantage. Many people had ideas that had to do with gaming designs and this iterative design process gives users and creators equal roles in the development of a game. This not only gives users a positive perspective on the game, but it also allows the designers to acquire more ideas that mix well with theirs. This process doesn’t technically work well with my project, however, I love Eric Zimmerman’s thought process because it will really promote games as a whole and benefit both sides. I agree with this idea and think that this is one of the most smart and productive ways to design a project, especially in this generation and beyond.

Biography

My name is Carly Potter and I am a senior at UCSB, majoring in Sociology. I came in as a junior transfer from a small CC called Los Angeles Harbor College. I have had experience working as a server for events at The Dalmatian Club, as well as working as an executive office assistant for Precision Dance Company. I do not have any experience in interaction design, however, the topic does interest me and I am super excited to learn all about it this quarter!