Reading Response #7

I'm assuming that this week's readings are based on Chapter 3 from Norman's book The Design of Future Things. I write assuming, because I'm writing these posts far in advance of when they are actually due because I know that I will have a busy semester ahead of me and I'm writing this blog post on January 25th. At any rate, there were a few notable quotations from Chapter 3 that stood out in my mind.

"Designers may think their designs communicate, but, in fact, they only signal, for communication only goes in one direction." (p.57) I think I selected this quotation because I realize that many of our modern conveniences "signal" to us, but we may have a hard time distinguishing between these sounds because they are unnatural, unintelligible sounds. For example, in my house we have a rice cooker that apparently is "smart" rice cooker, it's very easy to use, and the label on the rice cooker tells me that it is "neuro fuzzy", whatever that means. When it's finished cooking the rice, it beeps. The beep that comes from our rice cooker sounds very much like the beep that come from many of our other modern conveniences. Often times my son will hear one of the beeps and ask me what is beeping, I'm not always sure what is beeping or even where the sound is coming from. Norman seems to be more in favour of using "natural signals"  as he puts it, such as the sound of boiling water and the airspace in the spout of the kettle that allows it to whistle.

Another topic that stood out for me from this chapter was when Norman was discussing "risk compensation". When an activity is changed so that it is perceived to be safer, people take more risks, thereby keeping the accident rate constant (p.78) despite the addition of seatbelts, helmets, protective padding to football uniforms, anti-skid brakes and stability controls to cars, we still see accidents. Perhaps when it comes to cars, there are other factors involved such as distractions, applying make-up, shaving, other personal grooming habits, reaching for CDs, answering the phone, listening to music or even texting. Here's a great little film sponsored by AT&T to try and discourage people from driving and texting at the same time:


I couldn't help but think of the equipment changes in hockey over the years and how we still have high injury rates at all levels of hockey. Obviously, there are a lot of factors involved and it depends on what we're talking about injury-wise with hockey. It used to be that hockey nets were anchored down more, and that if you ran into the net it didn't move, and you'd feel it. This led to a lot of injuries of players, so nets now are still anchored but if enough push force is exerted on the net it pops up and out of its holes. This saved players from potential injuries but also let to players "crashing the net" more and "running the goalie" because the fear of getting hurt by running into the net was removed. Rules had to be changed to protect the goalies more, but you still see players falling all over the goalies and bumping the net of its moorings. I wouldn't want to agree with Don Cherry too much here, because he is opinionated about this topic, and has this attitude that only European sissies wear visors to protect their eyes (I'm sorry, but I'd be wearing a visor too Don, accidents happen and it is an added layer of protection to a particularly vulnerable part of the body), but he may not be completely off-base when it comes to protective equipment in hockey. The size of protective equipment has been steadily increasing, and you see players maybe not letting up before a hit because they have a feeling of invincibility under all that padding and equipment. I really don't have statistics to back any of this up, it was just opinion, and I'm not advocating that we go back to the way the game was played in the 1970s. I don't long for the days of watching Guy Lafleur skating down the wing with the air blowing through his hair (although Don Cherry might, but he say he missed the way Bobby Orr skated around people), I just think that despite the improvements in the safety equipment that is used in hockey we still see a lot of injuries.

Reading Response #6

I had a quick read through of Hodge's article on the 7 principles of effective icon design in which he outlines the basic rules for designing icons. According to Hodge these rules include:
1. Approach icon design holistically
 Make sure that all of your icons differ from surrounding icons and still work together as a whole.
2. Consider your audience
Cultural differences are important to consider when designing icons. What you think might be "universal" may not actually be so. This goes for knowing the age of the users as well. For example, in the first semester I remember us discussing in class using a floppy disk icon to represent "save". For older users familiar with disks it makes sense, yet for younger users this may not be understood.
3. Design for the size the icon will be used at
This rule discusses using the actual design of icons in Adobe Illustrator and how you shouldn't design the icons at a higher pixel size and then simply try to downscale them to smaller pixel sizes as they might appear to be blurry.
4. Keep icons simple and iconic
Hodge warns not to be tempted to add too much realism and detail to your icons, that simplicity might be better. As an example Hodge uses the below examples of icons to symbolize RSS feeds. At a larger pixel size it may be effective, but at a smaller pixel size it might be better to just keep things simple and straightforward.

5. Cast consistent lighting, reflections and shadows
If you use a light source coming from one direction then stick with it. Or you risk losing the integrated design of your icons.
6. Utilize a limited perspective
The range of perspective within your icon design set should work together. If you have icons being looked at from straight ahead then stick with that. If you place one at a specific angle, then make sure all the icons function that way. Imagine a camera being placed from a specific vantage point and looking at all the objects from the same perspective. This helps to maintain consistency in your icon designs.
7. Create consistent icon set styles
Lighting and perspective certainly contribute to the style of an icon, though there are many other factors that can contribute to the style as well.

Reading Response #5

In Chapter 2 of Norman's The Design of Future Things he revisits some earlier material by discussing the three levels of processing in the brain: the visceral level (most basic, automatic/subconscious level which is determined by our biological heritage), the behavioral level (based on learned skills, mostly subconscious level), and the reflective level (conscious, self-aware, the home of self and one's self-image). One of the quotations that stood out for me in this chapter was "The future of everyday things lies in products with knowledge, with intelligence, products that know where they are located and who know who their owners are and that can communicate with other products and the environment. The future of products is all about the capabilities of machines that are mobile, that can physically manipulate the environment, that are aware of both the other machines and the people around them and can communicate with them all." (p. 44) Norman also discusses the possibility of a symbiotic relationship with machines, in particular cars and their drivers. Norman continues to hearken back to the horse+rider relationship as an analogy of what future car+driver symbiotic relationships might look like, with "loose rein" and "tight rein" control that a horseback rider can exert over the horse. Norman thinks that this possibility of "loose rein" and "tight rein" control might be applied to the future car+driver symbiotic relationship with the car and its driver splitting up the visceral, behavioral and reflective levels. I don't think I agree with Norman's wishes for the future of automobiles. I like driving, I like being in control. I like modern advances in automobile technology such as power steering, anti-skid brakes and the various electronic controls and monitors of my car's engine, but I don't think I'd like to have to share control of the vehicle's actual operation with a machine. Certainly, it may be commonplace in the future to have vehicles drive themselves, but I would still want to exercise control, or have the ability to opt out. The last thing I'd need is a cautious car or worse a skittish car. I've seen horse jumping competitions where the horse "refuses" to jump and the rider gets dumped off the horse. I think that Norman has sort of romanticized the horse + rider relationship. Accidents still happen with horses and their riders even though we've been riding them for hundreds of years.
I was also a little bit disturbed when Norman mentioned the "handshaking" that might occur between machines and systems, with your refrigerator conspiring with your weight scale and your doctor to prevent you from getting eggs out of the fridge. I think there would be FOIP issues involved in Canadian law with regard to sharing medical records and private information electronically.