Præsentation Forfatteren Donald A. Norman ”Psychology of Everyday Things” 7 principper for brugercentreret design Sammenligning af Norman og Finns teorier Videoklip med interview af Norman Diskussion

Design of everyday things Donald Norman: The Design of Everyday Things, MIT Press, 1988, kap. 7 s.187-235

Kort biografi af Donald A. Norman Professor i Computer Science og psykologi Nyeste bog: “Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things” lægger vægt på følelsernes rolle i designet af et produkt.

Mål for Donald A. Norman Bevidsthed om design af produkter hos både forbrugere og designere Produkter som appellerer til følelser og forstand

”The Nielsen Norman Group” Jakob Nielsen: Brugervenlighedsguru Udviklet teknikker til forbedring af brugerinterface ”The Nielsen Norman Group” – et konsulentfirma “We are user advocates”.

P.O.E.T. Psychology of Everyday Things brugercentreret design brugerens behov og ønsker brugbare og forståelige produkter

Designprincipper 4 overordnede designprincipper: Gør handlingsmuligheder og begrænsninger synlige Gør konceptuel model og resultat af handlinger synlig Gør status synlig (current state) Gør brug af naturlige korrespondancer (mappings)

arbitrary paired full mapping 24 possibilities, requires: back right front left back left front right 24 possibilities, requires: -visible labels + memory arbitrary back front 2 possibilities per side =4 total possibilities paired full mapping

7 principper for user-centered design Use both knowledge in the world and knowledge in the head Simplify the structure of tasks Make things visible: Bridge the gulfs of execution and evaluation Get mappings right Exploit the power of constraints, both natural and artificial Design for error When all else fails, standardize

Use both knowledge in the world and knowledge in the head Brug af egen erfaring samt "viden i verdenen" Forståelse af sammenhænge og udførelse af handlinger

Use both knowledge in the world and knowledge in the head Norman taler om 3 konseptuelle modeller Design model User’s model system image

“the user has a good conceptual model “ Forudsætninger: Operationerne er mærkbar og hænger sammen med konceptet. Man kan se og genkende den tilstand som genstanden befinde sig i.

Simplify the structure of tasks Opgaverne bør have en enkel struktur Memory load (korttids/langtids hukommelse)

Simplify the structure of tasks Norman anbefaler 4 teknikker: Keep the task much the same, but provide mental aids Use technology to make visible what would otherwise be invisible, thus improving feedback and the ability to keep control Automate, but keep the task much the same Change the nature of the task.

Make things visible: Bridge the gulfs of execution and evaluation: The System should provide actions that match intentions. The system state should be visible

Get mappings right Designeren skal sørge for at brugeren kan afgøre forholdet mellem: Intensioner og mulige handlinger Handlinger og deres effekter på systemet Systemets aktuelle tilstand og det som kan opfattes ved hjælp af sanser og følelser. Opfattelse af systemets aktuelle tilstand samt behov, intentioner og forventninger af brugeren

Exploit the power of constraints, both natural and artificial Reduce the number of alternative actions at each step to at most a few.

Design for error Plan for it Allow the user to recover form errors, to know what was done and what happened Make it easy to reverse operations. Make it hard to do irreversible actions.

When all else fails, standardize Standardize the actions, outcomes, layout, displays Make related actions work in the same way. Standardization is simply another aspect of cultural constraints. The timing of the standardization – difficult to change

Good example: Scissors affordances: holes for something to be inserted constraints: big hole for several fingers, small hole for thumb mapping: between holes and fingers suggested and constrained by appearance positive transfer and cultural idioms learnt when young constant mechanism conceptual model: implications clear of how the operating parts work

Bad example: Digital watch affordances: four push buttons to push, but not clear what they will do constraints and mapping unknown no visible relation between buttons, possible actions and end result transfer of training little relation to analog watches cultural idiom somewhat standardized core controls and functions but still highly variable conceptual model: must be learnt

Kritik af Norman Social og kulturel kontekst ses mest som begrænsninger (constraints). Handlinger betragtes teoretisk som rationelle handlinger. Mange eksempler, men få konstruktive forslag til forbedringer af designet.

Norman vs. Finn Brugerdeltagelse: Norman: “Everyday people are not very good designers. They don't know what is good for them - or bad.” ”Users must be studied, consulted, and listened to.” Norman: Value at appropriate cost is more important than usability.

Undskyld!

http://www.jnd.org/Videos/NormanTechTV2004-MachineEmotions.wmv

Diskussion Eksempler på “dagligdagsdesign” som kunne have været designet mere intuitivt