Donald Normand’s “The Design of Everyday Things,” provides an in-depth analysis that essentially states that it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to perform and operate everyday tasks. Instead, everyday objects such as a thermostat, an oven, or your computer keyboard should be easily accessible and operational, even for those who are non-experts. Normand breaks this point down into five manageable parts: The psychology of everyday things, the psychology of everyday action, knowing what to do, the err is human, and the design challenge.  

 

The psychology of everyday things

 

Everyday things we use, such as a chair, a door, or a watch, should all be easily used by the average person. However, more often than not, we find large obstacles with our everyday things. Is this because an MIT engineer is not operating these objects? No, and as Normand points out, nor should that be the only case where you can use your everyday objects. Instead, if something isn’t working the way it was intended, this is usually because of a design creation flaw, not necessarily a human flaw.

 

In order to have effective and quality design, a designer must think about a few critical factors that relate to visibility. Visibility is the method of illustrating or visualizing the correct message from an object. Visibility can be explicitly visible, such as using a sign, or it can be interpreted without the need for conscious thought, otherwise known as natural signals. There are a few parts of a visible structure that should provide insight on how things work, these include affordance, constraints, and mappings.

 

Affordance

Affordance is the actual properties of the object in question; the properties that determine its use. Normand gives the example of a wooden chair. A chair affords support and is a simple design that does not require any signs to illustrate its purpose as providing support when sitting. Essentially affordance tells the user what they’re “allowed” to do with the object.

 

Constraints

In order to guide the user in using an object, constraints are usually developed by the creator. These constraints are purposeful, referring back to the chair example, while the design’s affordance is to sit with support, the constraint is that it only allows you to be supported in a sitting up position. You cannot lay down, like in a bed, because of the design of a 90-degree chair model.

 

Mapping

Another important aspect is mapping or the relationship between two things. Mapping provides the user with a “set of possible operations” of a certain object (p. 12). But one of the more interesting and commonly used mapping systems is called natural mapping. This is when a visible connection between what you want to do and what is possible with the object is possible.

 

These three clues make up what Normand calls a conceptual model of a device or object. These conceptual models need to be very self-explanatory as they are typically used for everyday objects. However, these clues are not useful on their own. Instead, feedback is a useful and necessary technique. Receiving feedback from users allows the designer to understand how people are using their product and if there needs to be necessary changes. And as technology continues to grow and expand, designing well-made products will become even more challenging and require more feedback from users.

 

The psychology of everyday actions

 

Normand moves to his next chapter discussing everyday actions and how certain tasks that appear to be simple yet are unable to be accomplished tend to make people feel inadequate or blame themselves - even when the object or task cannot be completed due to a technical error.

For example, Normand gives an example of secretaries not complaining about the return button being closely associated with the enter button on their computer keyboards, even though they were asked to report any problems with the device. The design was flawed, but they didn’t want to say anything because the task seemed so simple.

 

When someone experiences a misunderstanding, Normand defines the person as having a naive understanding. But continues to say that it is not just “quaint” or “ordinary” people who often make these mistakes (p. 36). Famous philosopher and scholar, Aristotle, made a famous mistake in regard to a theory of physics. Aristotle believed that things only kept moving if force was continuously applied; however, we know this is false because of Newton’s first law of physics – Things continue to move until an alternative force pushes against it to stop it, otherwise known as friction (p. 37-38). However, Aristotle thought this way because of pure observation and what he saw in everyday action. Although Aristotle’s theory was wrong, this thought process is common because of our ability to visualize what we see.

 

Normand has made it known that we often blame ourselves if we cannot complete a task that appears simple and continues on in his article state something called learned helplessness, may explain why we often choose self-blame. Learned helplessness is when someone fails at a task so many times, they think the task can’t be done (p. 42). This often leads to self-blame behavior that they just can’t do it so someone else needs to.

 

Normand also explains that we create situations where it is easier to blame the environment than ourselves. For example, when the bus is late and makes them tardy for work, this is when people blame the environment for their misfortunes. But if you were the boss of someone who was late to work because of their environment, you may view that person as irresponsible and perpetually late. It is often about who is making the perception that decides where blame is distributed.

 

On the other hand, when things go right for someone and the task was hard, they almost always going to give credit to themselves. For example, when someone gets a good grade on a test just because they’re “so smart.” Comparatively, other students in the class may view that student’s success as just getting good luck, therefore, a result of their environment.

 

In order to reduce the competition for blame, either on oneself or the environment, the easiest way to do this is through good design. In order to do this, Normand sets out seven stages of Action as Design Aids. Here, he presents seven questions that will allow designers to create fully functioning and easily used products – ones that can avoid gaps in the mental states from physical ones, also known as gulfs (p. 50). Below are the seven questions a designer must ask themselves about their product:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knowing what to do & the err is humans

 

I put these two chapters together as they both summarize how users look at a situation and how they figure out what can be done using the product and what cannot. Like the rest of Normand’s chapters, this one also describes how simple looking tasks can cause trouble. Specifically, when they have constraints.

Normand addresses four different kinds of constraints to be weary of physical, sematic, cultural, and logical. Physical constraints limit the things that can physically be accomplished, but it is purposeful so it can prevent the wrong actions for happening. Sematic constraints depend on the situation at hand to determine the following actions. Cultural constraints rely more on the situation of a social environment and how to respond using social schemas. Finally, logical constraints sound just like the title, the constraints found are put on by logical factors.

 

In Chapter 5, Normand dedicates this section to express how, as humans, we make mistakes. This fact is inevitable and impossible to change, therefore, the goal of a designer is to limit the possible mistakes and prevent error. In order to do this, designers are advised to only put forth information that is required, and do this by using constraints effectively.

 

The Design Challenge

 

The design challenge refers mostly to how design has evolved over the years. Normand gives the example of the telephone. Each portion of the device was developed and included to the machine over a period of time in order to enhance the machine and make it more efficient. And once something “works,” innovation and change no longer seem necessary for that object. This is a common design flaw, though, when something works but continues to be evolved and changed.

 

However, there are other design flaws such as a lack of balanced usability from the audience and poor aesthetics that make the object unappealing, therefore, reducing the success of an object as its desired effect reduces from these flaws. In order to have a successful design, the user must be taken into consideration at all times. Normand notes, though, that the user in question should also be specific and direct, not a broad audience that has too many needs to be accompanied for.

 

The moral of Normand’s numerous chapter is this: usability is crucial in daily life, therefore, products need to be easily understood and comprehended by the everyday person and it is up to the designer to accomplish these goals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using Normand's long and seemingly repetitive chapters, I now find it impossible to forget that usability is an incredibly important factor is design. At first, I was slightly confused why a technical writer would need to read this article, as it seemed more applicable to an engineer who was trying to design an object of use or practicality. However, I learned rather quickly that it is the job of a technical writer; to explain information when it is not clear upfront. 

 

Still, a majority of the points in this article seemed to point at designers in the form of engineers or developers and explicitly stated how their designs need to be less complex and more easily accessible to the everyday user through interpreted information. Which made me wonder if this article was actually advocating for fewer technical communicators and more implicitly interpreted information. In which my first thought was, is this guy trying to kill my future career?  However, throughout all of his chapters, he mentions that everyday tasks should be simple and straightforward, he does not mean technical information and complex situations/tasks do not need technical communicators because they always will. 

 

When I finally started reading more thoroughly about the content itself, I realized I hadn't thought of technology strictly in terms of its design. And, like Normand mentioned, I only notice when the design isn't working, not when it is. I think this is a part of our millennial culture, though, we just expect things to work and to be designed just for our needs - even if we don't know the needs that we have to have satisfied.  I'm speaking strictly in the form of physical design, though; objects such as iPhones, laptops, and TVs. This is why the keep coming out with new and "improved" iPhones when the first four prior worked just fine. 

 

I think this article though was too strictly focused on the design qualities of physical objects in everyday life. What about the digital objects we use such as websites or advertisements? These designs are also incredibly important to analyze and are part of our everyday lives. The design of an online content creation, though, is much different from the creation of a chair. But I think a lot of the methodologies apply, for example, usability. 

 

When you create a website, the primary concern you should have is whether or not a viewer could navigate through your work. If they can't, your website has little to no value. Furthermore, visibility is incredibly important. To people understand the purpose of your website? Is your advertisement clear in the message it is communication? Most of the time, I think this question is no. These are two important areas I think Normand should have included in his analysis effective design tools - especially in this day in age where everything is digital and online. 

 

I think the design of the website Facebook could easily be applied to the ideas and methods presented in Normand's work. For example, Facebook affords communication and connections with others around the globe; The constraints in place by Facebook are that one cannot look at a stranger's photo without friending them, this constraint is positive because it reduces Cat-Fishing and creepy or bad situations; Mapping through Facebook, or a set of operations possible on the site, include posting pictures, chatting with friends, looking at other people's walls - all within the allowable constraints imposed by Facebook. And finally, the visibility of Facebook is definitely not natural, but Facebook provides a step-by-step guide for new users in order to help them use the website.

 

Just from my analysis of Facebook, I think more websites or digital creations should have been incorporated into Normand's work. Granted, however, this book was published in 1989; therefore, Facebook was not yet in existence yet. However, I think the information presented in Normand's piece is still relevant today, this information should be updated, though, to include a more modern version of design - which is digital design. 

 

Reference

Normand, Donald. (1989). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: NY: Basic Books. 

​