Reading Response #10

In Chapter 6 of Norman's The Design of Future Things ("Communicating with our Machines") there were a few salient points that I wanted to discuss here on the blog. One of the key quotes that I took out from Chapter 6 was on page 141, where Norman states that, "as we move toward an increasing number of intelligent, autonomous devices in our environment, we also need to transition toward a more supportive form of two-way interaction. People need information that facilitates discovery of  the situation and that guides them in deciding how to respond or, for that matter, reassures them that no action is required." I selected this quote because it ties into themes that Norman explores in his book, that communication between man and machine needs to be continuous, non-intrusive and effective, and it also ties into elements of what Kim Vicente discussed in his book, The Human Factor. People need continuous feedback and communication from their machines whether it is a smart home, a smart car or a nuclear reactor, people need information that is "informing without overburdening" the users (p.149). The other quote that I found appealing in Chapter 6 was the last paragraph in the chapter that states that, "for effective communication with machines, the machines must be predictable and understandable. People must be able to understand their state, their actions, and what is about to happen. People need to be able to interact in natural manner." Ultimately, we're not there yet with our design of smart computer systems that interact with people. Even simple word processing programs often have their quirks that leave the users puzzled at times.

In Chapter 7 "The Future of Everyday Things", I have selected one really good quote from page 156, where Norman writes, "smart technologies have the capacity to enhance pleasure, simplify lives, and add to our safety. If only they could really work flawlessly; if only we could learn to use them." This quote to me, is one of the great "take away" quotes from the entire book because it encapsulates the potential benefits of technology in our everyday lives, whether it is at home, in the cars we drive, or where we work, but also the potential problems that can arise out of smart technology not being all that "smart" in communicating with people. Or perhaps it's just that the people who are designing our smart devices are not all that strong in communicating with actual people either and the flaws of the designer are passed on to their designs.

Reading Response #9

Norman discusses the potential design of future homes, or "smart homes" in Chapter that are made up of neural networks and have pattern-recognition, and learning ability. In other words, the "smart house" could recognize activity patterns and anticipate behaviors (p.119). According to Norman, smart homes seem to be of two main types: ones with intelligent autonomy (systems that attempt to infer the intentions of people) and ones with intelligent augmentation (providing useful tools, but letting people decide when and where they are to be used). I prefer the latter type of "smart home". Whenever Norman talks about these "smart homes" in this book I also seem to think of a Ray Bradbury short story called "There Will Come Soft Rains" in which a "smart house" goes about its business as if the occupants are still alive but there's been a devastating nuclear war that has killed everyone, and yet the house continues through its programmed routine. It's worth a read.

Reading Response #8

Once again, I'm assuming that I need to post a response to Norman's The Design of Future Things. This time, I'm looking at Chapter 4 called "Servants of Our Machines". One of the first quotes that stood out for me in this chapter was that "people have become slaves to their technology, servants of their tools" (p.94), which seemed to be a fair assessment of modern life. Many people seemed tied to their machines, for some people its their computers, for others their communication devices. I recently saw pictures of a wedding on Facebook (I'm friends with one of the people in the wedding party) where I counted at least 4 or 5 people with their bluetooth earpiece in the photos. In some cases, they were even wearing the silly thing in their ear in the official wedding photos. It seemed a little silly to me for the father of the groom to be wearing the bluetooth headset throughout the wedding, but maybe I'm being judgmental.

Norman also discusses cars (again) being a "computer of wheels", soon to be able to communicate with other cars around it on "ad hoc" networks for cars. Norman talks about the future potential of cars that drive themselves and that these "swarms of cars" might potentially not even need traffic signals since they'd be able to signal their intent and path and other cars would just go along with it and not hit them.

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.

Reading Response #4

The Use of Animation
Why is animation a useful tool?
The appropriate use of animation is a powerful tool for the classroom teacher. Typically, classroom teachers don't have the time to create their own animations, due to inadequate professional development time or skill sets necessary to learn animation-authoring tools. There are several basic options for teachers to use, typically they are Web 2.0 applications that allow for quick and easy animations to be created within a matter of minutes (for example, Go!Animate or xtranormal). Animation can allow teachers to emphasize certain key points or understandings in the curriculum and illustrate them clearly for their students. Personally, I don't make my own animations, very few teachers do, due to lack of time. However, it's easy to find great examples on the Internet. For example, in my Social Studies 30-1 class I show students the following video on the American electoral college system for electing a president. I'll probably also show my Social 10-1 students videos from The Story of Stuff project, like the one below.


Depending on your subject area, there are usually lots of animated online movies that could be used to help students understand key concepts. A simple Google search for "chemistry animations" yielded over 800,000 results, with the following looking very promising: chemistry Flash animations.

The Use of Animation on Prezi