A designer has succeeded when his or her product pleases the user aesthetically yet is still user-friendly. The author claims there is a discrepancy between what the designer believes is a perfectly usable product and what is actually best for the consumer. Furthermore, there must be a direct and simple relationship between intended action and actual operation. He claims, "when simple things need pictures, labels, or instructions, the design has failed." They key to designing is making a product that actually functions as it appears it should.
The author also claims a good product is one that provides feedback, a way for the user to know he or she is using it correctly. The user should be able to test the product and not have to wait 24 hours to see if he or she is using it as intended by the maker, as in his example with the refrigerator.
Another key to a successful design is experimentation; to ensure its effectiveness, one must test it. Another key point in the article is that the number of functions should equal the number of controls. This ensures that there is only one function per control, not leaving the user confused. This point goes along with the author's claim that a control's movement should correspond to its function. If one turns the steering wheel to the right, the car should turn right.
A good design is one that considers the user's needs and demands, something cost effective, aesthetically pleasing and overall usable.
The author brings up an interesting point regarding the maturation of both an industry and its technicians. A simple product is created, and is fully usable, serving its purpose. Over time, however, the designers discover ways to expound upon this simple yet effective device and soon develop something that is more complex but not necessarily a better product. As he points out in the article, what good is something that is too complicated to use?
2. One product that I have had difficulty using is my Nike digital wrist watch. There are four black buttons and one that is pink. The problem with the watch is that there are these five buttons, but seven labels around the screen. One is clearly marked "set/light", and it does turn the light on easily but in order to set the time one must press and hold down. After that, there's no obvious way of knowing which button is used to adjust the hour and minute. I have yet to figure out what the pink button actually does. The watch is all around confusing, so confusing that I cannot explain all the things that are confusing about it. This watch addresses a couple of principles pointed out in the article. The first, there are no visual clues as to which buttons one should use to adjust the time, date, etc. Second, the number of functions exceeds the number of controls.
3. The designers of iPod got it right from the start. They created a simple product that provided an equal ration between functions and controls. They built a device that was aesthetically pleasing and with sufficient visual clues so as not to confused the consumer. Clearly the "Menu" button took one to the Menu, the pause button paused, the right and left arrows led one to the previous or next song, and the scroll wheel served one purpose. The iPod user knew exactly what would happen with each control and received immediate feedback; the iPod's intended action went along with its actual operation.
The iPod team knew their product would not succeed unless tested and proved, so they sent iPods to potential buyers for feedback. As pointed out in the article, many designers do not keep their audience's best interest in mind, and aim for aesthetics rather than practicality. The iPod, however, was practical and it was a good looking music player. I do believe the iPod met the customer's demands. While not cheap, the number of people with an iPod by the end of their first year is an indication of its success.
I think the iPod is the perfect example of a point Norman brings up later in his article. He talks about how as an industry matures and technicians become more competent, newcomers figure out ways to "improve" upon a simple device and create a product that is no longer simple. This is the case with the iPod. While many would disagree that products like the iPod Touch are confusing devices, but many would agree. As we talked about in class yesterday, iPod began with a simple product and now look at where they are. They had a perfectly understandable product, but over time the technicians got fancy and decided to add more functions and more applications. The iPod at the beginning of the iPod generation is in so many ways so unlike what it was at the start. For some it may be more confusing and less reliable, or for others it might still be the perfect thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment