In his new book, The Design
of Future Things (Basic Books), Don Norman isn't afraid to call himself
out on statements he
made in his earlier, wildly popular publications such as The Design of Everyday
Things. The co-founder of corporate design
consultancy Nielsen Norman Group and the former vice-president of Apple
(AAPL) now says that he has changed his mind
on several design strategies he has advocated over the years.
For one, he now says that consumers
should try conforming to technology, rather than for engineers and designers
to focus
on adapting existing technologies for use. Why? Humans are actually more
flexible than machines. He also has changed his
tune on whether people should blame technology or themselves when a device
doesn't work. In the 1990s, he argued that
consumers were right to be angry at a device that didn't function with ease.
Today, Norman writes, he believes that if people
admit fault when using a machine, they might take the time to learn how
to use it correctly.
The focus of his new book, however,
is not on how he wishes to update his philosophies of design and innovation.
Instead, it centers on so-called "smart," or automated, gadgets and products.
Increasingly being produced and marketed,
these range from talking refrigerators that scold you for not keeping to
a diet to cars that are comfortable and easy to drive
to the point of distracting drivers from the dangers of the road.
The professor spoke about the
perils of automation and subtle but effective strategies for improving product
design,
such as offering sounds or visual signals that are more pleasant and instructive
than electronic blips and bleeps.
Below are edited excerpts from their conversation.
The book opens with two scenarios:
one, driving with your spouse, who is frightened by the sharp turns on a
winding road;
the other, driving with a car that expresses a sense of "fear" by tightening
seat belts automatically. The second seems like
it might be more effective in curbing reckless driver behavior. Did you
have a bad driving experience that prompted you to
focus on automation in cars and other everyday machines?
For a long time, I've been
interested in automation—in nuclear power plants, in the aviation industry.
I've been an advisor to
auto companies. The real impetus for the book was a trip I made to a Japanese
carmaker. We were talking about automated
lane-keeping. One executive told me how relaxed it made him feel. But a
problem with automation in cars is that we can forget
that driving is dangerous. How can we ask car drivers to be alert when it
seems like not much is happening when they're in an
automated car?
So you're saying that driving
should feel dangerous, rather than safe—and that paradoxically that would
make driving safer,
because drivers will be more aware? And this is a design issue?
Having your car give you feedback
is a good thing, yes. But only if this feels natural and nonobtrusive—and
in no way like
nagging or like a backseat driver.
Some design solutions could
be to have seats vibrate when a car is starting to go off the road.
The car doesn't say, "I'm scolding
you." There could just be a subconscious feeling of danger. Something subtle.
What I think is most helpful is to provide natural feedback and signals,
not blips and bleeps. We need rich signals that
people can interpret automatically. Wait a second…[sound of a door closing].
On the phone, you could tell what that was, right?
That's a door shutting….
Yes. Cars should do something
similar—provide natural noises to alert people about what's happening. If
it's raining outside,
why not amplify the sound hitting the roof, rather than shut out the noise?
One major problem with the
design of cars today is that you can be driving at 100 mph—which is quite
dangerous—and the
experience is comfy, smooth, and accompanied by nice music on the stereo
system. Of course it's impractical to design a car
so that driving it feels dangerous and shaky. But why not put passengers
in the warm, smooth, comfy situation but have natural
signals that give cues to the driver in terms of being alert?
Many designers say that one
of their goals is to design devices and machines that don't require a manual,
which pushes them
to design products that are intuitive to use. Is this what you advocate,
too?
Their heart is in the right
place. Even a pencil could use a manual, though—how many years does it take
to learn how to use it?
It's more natural to use one as a weapon! The term "intuitive" is badly
understood…. I don't use that term. Especially with complex
things that take weeks of training [to learn how to use properly]—cars for
instance. But even telephones require some type of training.
What I argue for is understandable design. This would be something that
would require telling me how to use it the first time.
When you explain it, I would say, "I see…" and you'd never have to explain
it again. Things designed with simplicity should be
learned to use simply.
Of course, the rule of thumb
for designers is that people don't read manuals. They want to go right to
the device.
With this in mind, why not make a device self-explanatory? Make it so that
it gives tutorials and enough feedback so users
understand what's going on—if you make a mistake, for example. Yes, it might
take longer to learn how to use something with
feedback, compared to using a manual. But people would enjoy the training
more. They'd feel like they were accomplishing
more from the beginning. I call it "just-in-time learning." It can be better
to learn and fail.
A device could be designed to offer pleasant and effective feedback just when you need it.
There is a need for a more formal basis for design. Designers need to learn how to collect evidence, how to transform, andWhat's important is to teach
designers how to make their skills translate into things that can be tested
and manufactured.
