The one thing I can predict with certainty is that the principles of human psychology will remain the same, which means that the design principles here, based on psychology, on the nature of human cognition, emotion, action, and interaction with the world, will remain unchanged.
Affordances define what actions are possible. Signifiers specify how people discover those possibilities: signifiers are signs, perceptible signals of what can be done. Signifiers are of far more importance to designers than are affordances.
Everyone wants radical innovation, but the truth is, most radical innovations fail, and even when they do succeed, it can take multiple decades before they are accepted. Radical innovation, therefore, is relatively rare: incremental innovation is common.
Two of the most important characteristics of good design are discoverability and understanding. Discoverability: Is it possible to even figure out what actions are possible and where and how to perform them? Understanding: What does it all mean? How is the product supposed to be used? What do all the different controls and settings mean?
An affordance is a relationship between the properties of an object and the capabilities of the agent that determine just how the object could possibly be used. A chair affords (“is for”) support and, therefore, affords sitting. Most chairs can also be carried by a single person (they afford lifting), but some can only be lifted by a strong person or by a team of people. If young or relatively weak people cannot lift a chair, then for these people, the chair does not have that affordance, it does not afford lifting.
Signifiers can be deliberate and intentional, such as the sign PUSH on a door, but they may also be accidental and unintentional, such as our use of the visible trail made by previous people walking through a field or over a snow-covered terrain to determine the best path. Or how we might use the presence or absence of people waiting at a train station to determine whether we have missed the train.
There is no need to understand the underlying physics or chemistry of each device we own, just the relationship between the controls and the outcomes.
The seven stages provide a guideline for developing new products or services. The gulfs are obvious places to start, for either gulf, whether of execution or evaluation, is an opportunity for product enhancement. The trick is to develop observational skills to detect them. Most innovation is done as an incremental enhancement of existing products. What about radical ideas, ones that introduce new product categories to the marketplace? These come about by reconsidering the goals, and always asking what the real goal is: what is called the root cause analysis.
Most of human behavior is a result of subconscious processes.
We also tend to believe that thought can be separated from emotion. This is also false. Cognition and emotion cannot be separated. Cognitive thoughts lead to emotions: emotions drive cognitive thoughts. The brain is structured to act upon the world, and every action carries with it expectations, and these expectations drive emotions. That is why much of language is based on physical metaphors, why the body and its interaction with the environment are essential components of human thought.
Modern systems try hard to provide feedback within 0.1 second of any operation, to reassure the user that the request was received.
When people have trouble using technology, especially when they perceive (usually incorrectly) that nobody else is having the same problems, they tend to blame themselves.
We need to remove the word failure from our vocabulary, replacing it instead with learning experience. To fail is to learn: we learn more from our failures than from our successes.
Eliminate all error messages from electronic or computer systems. Instead, provide help and guidance.
The idea that a person is at fault when something goes wrong is deeply entrenched in society. That’s why we blame others and even ourselves.
Simplified models are the key to successful application.
The most effective way of helping people remember is to make it unnecessary.
Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.
One way to simplify thought is to use simplified models, approximations to the true underlying state of affairs. Science deals in truth, practice deals with approximations. Practitioners don’t need truth: they need results relatively quickly that, although inaccurate, are “good enough” for the purpose to which they will be applied.
Why is the conceptual model for steering a motorcycle useful even though it is wrong? Steering a motorcycle is counterintuitive: to turn to the left, the handlebars must first be turned to the right. This is called countersteering, and it violates most people’s conceptual models. Why is this true? Shouldn’t we rotate the handlebars left to turn the bike left? The most important component of turning a two-wheeled vehicle is lean: when the bike is turning left, the rider is leaning to the left. Countersteering causes the rider to lean properly: when the handlebars are turned to the right, the resulting forces upon the rider cause the body to lean left. This weight shift then causes the bike to turn left.
Do I want to remember to take a book to a colleague? I put the book someplace where I cannot fail to see it when I leave the house. A good spot is against the front door so that I can’t leave without tripping over it. Or I can put my car keys on it, so when I leave, I am reminded. Even if I forget, I can’t drive away without the keys. (Better yet, put the keys under the book, else I might still forget the book.)
When we expand from seeking aids from other people to seeking aids from our technologies, which Wegner labels as “cybermind,” the principle is basically the same. The cybermind doesn’t always produce the answer, but it can produce sufficient clues so that we can generate the answer. Even where the technology produces the answer, it is often buried in a list of potential answers, so we have to use our own knowledge— or the knowledge of our friends—to determine which of the potential items is the correct one.
Technology does not make us smarter. People do not make technology smart. It is the combination of the two, the person plus the artifact, that is smart.
The metric scale of measurement is superior to the English scale of units in almost every dimension: it is logical, easy to learn, and easy to use in computations. Today, over two centuries have passed since the metric system was developed by the French in the 1790s, yet three countries still resist its use: the United States, Liberia, and Myanmar.
Standardization is indeed the fundamental principle of desperation: when no other solution appears possible, simply design everything the same way, so people only have to learn once.
The Japanese have long followed a procedure for getting at root causes that they call the “Five Whys,” originally developed by Sakichi Toyoda and used by the Toyota Motor Company as part of the Toyota Production System for improving quality.
We make decisions based upon what is in our memory. But as discussed in Chapter 3, retrieval from long-term memory is actually a reconstruction rather than an accurate record. As
It is always better to have two people do checklists together as a team: one to read the instruction, the other to execute it. If, instead, a single person executes the checklist and then, later, a second person checks the items, the results are not as robust.
U.S. airlines carry about two million people through the skies safely every day, which has been achieved in large part through design redundancy and layers of defense.
Resilience engineering is a paradigm for safety management that focuses on how to help people cope with complexity under pressure to achieve success. It strongly contrasts with what is typical today—a paradigm of tabulating error as if it were a thing, followed by interventions to reduce this count. A resilient organisation treats safety as a core value, not a commodity that can be counted.
One of my rules in consulting is simple: never solve the problem I am asked to solve. Why such a counterintuitive rule? Because, invariably, the problem I am asked to solve is not the real, fundamental, root problem.
Two of the powerful tools of design thinking are human-centered design and the double-diamond diverge-converge model of design.
Human-centered design (HCD) is the process of ensuring that people’s needs are met, that the resulting product is understandable and usable, that it accomplishes the desired tasks, and that the experience of use is positive and enjoyable.
This is often called the spiral method (rather than the circle depicted here), to emphasize that each iteration through the stages makes progress.
Design and marketing are two important parts of the product development group. The two fields are complementary, but each has a different focus. Design wants to know what people really need and how they actually will use the product or service under consideration. Marketing wants to know what people will buy, which includes learning how they make their purchasing decisions.
the use of big data and market analytics is seductive: no travel, little expense, and huge numbers, sexy charts, and impressive statistics, all very persuasive to the executive team trying to decide which new products to develop. After all, what would you trust—neatly presented, colorful charts, statistics, and significance levels based on millions of observations, or the subjective impressions of a motley crew of design researchers who worked, slept, and ate in remote villages, with minimal sanitary facilities and poor infrastructure?
Build a quick prototype or mock-up of each potential solution. In the early stages of this process, the mock-ups can be pencil sketches, foam and cardboard models, or simple images made with simple drawing tools. I have made mock-ups with spreadsheets, PowerPoint slides, and with sketches on index cards or sticky notes. Sometimes ideas are best conveyed by skits, especially if you’re developing services or automated systems that are difficult to prototype.
How many people should be studied? Opinions vary, but my associate, Jakob Nielsen, has long championed the number five: five people studied individually.
It turns out that most cases are “special.”
An activity is a collected set of tasks, but all performed together toward a common high-level goal. A task is an organized, cohesive set of operations directed toward a single, low-level goal.
Be-goals are at the highest, most abstract level and govern a person’s being: they determine why people act, are fundamental and long lasting, and determine one’s self-image. Of far more practical concern for everyday activity is the next level down, the do-goal, which is more akin to the goal I discuss in the seven stages of activity. Do-goals determine the plans and actions to be performed for an activity. The lowest level of this hierarchy is the motor-goal, which specifies just how the actions are performed: this is more at the level of tasks and operations rather than activities.
Often the requirements posed by each discipline are contradictory or incompatible with those of the other disciplines. But all of them are correct when viewed from their respective perspective.
Each discipline thinks it is the most important part of the process.
The designer can consult handbooks with tables that show average arm reach and seated height, how far the average person can stretch backward while seated, and how much room is needed for average hips, knees, and elbows. Physical anthropometry is what the field is called.
Most people do not wish to advertise their infirmities. Actually, many people do not wish to admit having infirmities, even to themselves.
When Sam Farber wanted to develop a set of household tools that his arthritic wife could use, he worked hard to find a solution that was good for everyone. The result was a series of tools that revolutionized this field. For example, vegetable peelers used to be an inexpensive, simple metal tool, often of the form shown on the left in Figure 6.3. These were awkward to use, painful to hold, and not even that effective at peeling, but everyone assumed that this was how they had to be. FIGURE 6.3. Three Vegetable Peelers. The traditional metal vegetable peeler is shown on the left: inexpensive, but uncomfortable. The OXO peeler that revolutionized the industry is shown on the right. The result of this revolution is shown in the middle, a peeler from the Swiss company Kuhn Rikon: colorful and comfortable. After considerable research, Farber settled upon the peeler shown on the right in Figure 6.3 and built a company, OXO, to manufacture and distribute it. Even though the peeler was designed for someone with arthritis, it was advertised as a better peeler for everyone. It was. Even though the design was more expensive than the regular peeler, it was so successful that today, many companies make variations on this theme.
Would you use a walker, wheelchair, crutches, or a cane? Many people avoid these, even though they need them, because of the negative image they cast: the stigma. Why? Years ago, a cane was fashionable: people who didn’t need them would use them anyway, twirling them, pointing with them, hiding brandy or whisky, knives or guns inside their handles. Just look at any movie depicting nineteenth-century London. Why can’t devices for those who need them be as sophisticated and fashionable today?
Someone else’s kitchen looks complicated and confusing, but your own kitchen does not.
But just as we were about to commission the first production of a few hand-tooled working prototypes that could be shown to potential investors and customers (an expensive proposition for the small self-funded company), other companies started displaying similar concepts in the trade shows. What? Did they steal the ideas? No, it’s what is called the Zeitgeist, a German word meaning “spirit of the time.” In other words, the time was ripe, the ideas were “in the air.”
In an earlier era, there was close coupling between designers and users. Today, they are separated by barriers. Some companies prohibit designers from working with customers, a bizarre and senseless restriction. Why would they do this? In part to prevent leaks of the new developments to the competition, but also in part because customers may stop purchasing the current offerings if they are led to believe that a new, more advanced item is soon to come.
The lesson is simple: don’t follow blindly; focus on strengths, not weaknesses. If the product has real strengths, it can afford to just be “good enough” in the other areas.
spoken words are still likely to be turned into printed words (even if the print is simply on a display device), because reading is far faster and superior to listening. Reading can be done quickly: it is possible to read around three hundred words per minute and to skim, jumping ahead and back, effectively acquiring information at rates in the thousands of words per minute. Listening is slow and serial, usually at around sixty words per minute, and although this rate can be doubled or tripled with speech compression technologies and training, it is still slower than reading and not easy to skim.
The world of product design offers many examples of Stigler’s law. Products are thought to be the invention of the company that most successfully capitalized upon the idea, not the company that originated it.
In the world of products, original ideas are the easy part. Actually producing the idea as a successful product is what is hard. Consider the idea of a video conversation. Thinking of the idea was so easy that, as we see in Figure 7.3, Punch magazine illustrator du Maurier could draw a picture of what it might look like only two years after the telephone was invented. The fact that he could do this probably meant that the idea was already circulating. By the late 1890s, Alexander Graham Bell had thought through a number of the design issues. But the wonderful scenario illustrated by du Maurier has still not become reality, one and one-half centuries later. Today, the videophone is barely getting established as a means of everyday communication.
A rule of thumb is twenty years from first demonstrations in research laboratories to commercial product, and then a decade or two from first commercial release to widespread adoption. Except that actually, most innovations fail completely and never reach the public.
Note that popular legend has it that the keys were placed so as to slow down the typing. This is wrong: the goal was to have the mechanical typebars approach one another at large angles, thus minimizing the chance of collision. In fact, we now know that the QWERTY arrangement guarantees a fast typing speed. By placing letters that form frequent pairs relatively far apart, typing is speeded because it tends to make letter pairs be typed with different hands.
There are two major forms of product innovation: one follows a natural, slow evolutionary process; the other is achieved through radical new development. In general, people tend to think of innovation as being radical, major changes, whereas the most common and powerful form of it is actually small and incremental.
Most design evolves through incremental innovation by means of continual testing and refinement. In the ideal case, the design is tested, problem areas are discovered and modified, and then the product is continually retested and remodified. If a change makes matters worse, well, it just gets changed again on the next go-round. Eventually the bad features are modified into good ones, while the good ones are kept. The technical term for this process is hill climbing, analogous to climbing a hill blindfolded. Move your foot in one direction. If it is downhill, try another direction. If the direction is uphill, take one step. Keep doing this until you have reached a point where all steps would be downhill; then you are at the top of the hill, or at least at a local peak.
Reliance on technology is a benefit to humanity. With technology, the brain gets neither better nor worse. Instead, it is the task that changes. Human plus machine is more powerful than either human or machine alone.
The best chess-playing machine can beat the best human chess player. But guess what, the combination of human plus machine can beat the best human and the best machine. Moreover, this winning combination need not have the best human or machine.
The best chess player in the world today is not a computer or a human but a team of humans and computers working together. In freestyle chess competitions, where teams of humans and computers compete, the winners tend not to be the teams with the most powerful computers or the best chess players. The winning teams are able to leverage the unique skills of humans and computers to work together. That is a metaphor for what we can do going forward: have people and technology work together in new ways to create value. (Brynjolfsson, 2012.)
a pair of amateur American chess players using three computers at the same time. Their skill at manipulating and “coaching” their computers to look very deeply into positions effectively counteracted the superior chess understanding of their grandmaster opponents and the greater computational power of other participants. Weak human + machine + better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human + machine + inferior process. (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2011.)
“The key to winning the race is not to compete against machines but to compete with machines. Fortunately, humans are strongest exactly where computers are weak, creating a potentially beautiful partnership.”
the power of the unaided mind is highly overrated.
The power of the unaided mind is highly overrated. Without external aids, deep, sustained reasoning is difficult. Unaided memory, thought, and reasoning are all limited in power. Human intelligence is highly flexible and adaptive, superb at inventing procedures and objects that overcome its own limits. The real powers come from devising external aids that enhance cognitive abilities. How have we increased memory, thought and reasoning? By the invention of external aids: it is things that make us smart. Some assistance comes through cooperative, social behavior: some arises through exploitation of the information present in the environment; and some comes through the development of tools of thought—cognitive artifacts—that complement abilities and strengthen mental powers. (The opening paragraph of Chapter 3, Things That Make Us Smart, 1993.)
Automobiles were designed to fall apart. A story tells of Henry Ford’s buying scrapped Ford cars and having his engineers disassemble them to see which parts failed and which were still in good shape. Engineers assumed this was done to find the weak parts and make them stronger. Nope. Ford explained that he wanted to find the parts that were still in good shape. The company could save money if they redesigned these parts to fail at the same time as the others.