Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful by Don Norman

I have been thinking about taking “human-centered design” as my overarching position for the design of ebooks, because as I mentioned in my earlier posting, “human-centered design” approach, which I think is about making human’s experience more explicitly, will lead me to get deeper understanding about readers’ rich reading experience (including their emotion).

However, after I read Norman’s article “Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful” at http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered.html, I feel like I need to do literature review first about differences among ”user-centered design,”"human-centered design,”"activity-centered design,” “experience-centered (?)” and “the like.”

The following quote was taken from one section, “WHY MIGHT HCD BE HARMFUL?”
“But there are more serious concerns: first, the focus upon humans detracts from support for the activities themselves; second, too much attention to the needs of the users can lead to a lack of cohesion and added complexity in the design. Consider the dynamic nature of applications, where any task requires a sequence of operations, and activities can be comprised of multiple, overlapping tasks. Here is where the difference in focus becomes evident, and where the weakness of the focus on the users shows up.” 

Does this make sense to you guys?

An urgent question for my final paper: Heidegger’s hermeneutic vs. Husserl’ transcendental phenomenology

I selected Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology over Husserl’ transcendental phenomenology in understanding a reader’s reading experience because:

1)    Husserl’ transcendental phenomenology is based on the assumption that mind and body are separate. On the hand, Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology is based on the assumption that mind and body are not separate (i.e., intertwined together). In other words, Husserl’ transcendental phenomenology is based on the assumption that the meanings of the world exist out there, which is separate from human-beings, and human-beings need to find the meanings of the world. On the other hand, Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology is based on the assumption that the meanings of the world come to human-beings through human-beings’ interaction with the world. That is, Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology argues that the meanings of the world depend on the ways that human-beings encounter the world.  

2)    A reader will go through different experience, depending on contexts in which a reader is while a reader is reading. Is reading for pleasure or for academic reasons? In other words, a reader’s reading experience will be quite different, even in the situation where a reader reads the same reading material, but with different purposes of reading. For example, let me suppose that you are reading an academic article for two reasons: one for checking whether the article is relevant to your research topic; the other for mastering the whole content areas for your dissertation. The world of text for checking relevance will lead a reader to skim texts and pick up key idea(s), whereas the world of text for mastering content areas will lead a reader to read more thoroughly word by word.

3)    That is, as Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology argues, the meanings of text world are not fixed before a reader reads text. Rather, the meanings of text world are made through a reader’s interaction with text based on contexts in which a reader is (e.g., the purpose of reading). In other words, the world consists of different kinds of life-world, but what kinds of life-world will appear to a reader depend on a reader’s interaction with text and contexts in which a reader is.

Did I get Heidegger’s hermeneutic and Husserl’ transcendental phenomenology correctly? Does my argument (why I selected Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology over Husserl’ transcendental phenomenology) make sense? Did I justify my argument?

Phenomenological experience: Listening to music vs. Reading a book

I just found Yo-Yo Ma’s talk about his passion, people & music. It is a so insightful talk. I listened to this clip over and over and finally decided to write it down. I think he really does a great job in interpreting music from a phenomenological perspective.

Yo-Yo Ma’s talk about his passion, people & music

“[…] that my great passion in my life is not about doing anything but it’s actually people, over and over again figuring out where people come from, what they do, why they do it, and who they are, how they view themselves, and how others view them. And through that, music finally makes a lot of sense to me because I could then look at any music. […] Music is expression of people. Always […]”
“I always think music is some form of expression that does travel through time and space but using energy. Sound is something that is a form of energy. It is energy that moves through air molecular. Therefore, we hear the sound. We interpret the sound. I think that the sound that humans make inevitably is reflection of their both inner thinking patterns, feeling patterns, thought patterns, as well as their physical patterns. […] I think that sound as expressed by people will inevitably reveal internal working of people.”
“I think music does somehow express the inner working, the inner life of human being the way speech does, the way writing. If you read someone’s letters from three hundred years ago, you know the letter between John and Abigail Adam, you can really feel who they are as people. I think music is no difference. If someone wrote something in Philadelphia in 1700, you get a sense of who they are and what their influences were and deeply what they are trying to say. And I think that’s it’s by discerning what the patterns are in they choose and how they use melody, how they use different forms of rhythm and harmony. You get a sense of what the priority are and those priorities will reveal what their inner life priorities also are. ”

I got Jeff’s comment on my writing outline this afternoon. I decided to sit back and think about my feelings, instead of my cognition, while I am reading academic articles and reading for pleasure.

When I read a novel, I think I tend to forget myself as a reader and treat myself as one of characters in the novel. Therefore, I feel and think the way that that character feels and thinks. (I think I do not separate myself from a novel or an author when I read a book for pleasure.)

In the meantime, when I read an academic article, I think I feel like I am in the process of a job interview under a strong pressure. If an interviewer (the author) asks easy questions or talks about easy topics, I will be so excited and ready to answer the questions (more engagement in conversation). However, if an interviewer (the author) asks difficult questions or talks about very difficult topics, I will be getting to be so nervous and try to remember something I prepare for interviews.

What else am I feeling while I am reading academic articles??

BumpTop: I found meaningful signifiers for ebooks !

BumpTop ::

BumpTop from TED Talk

I just got this video clip link from my friend. It just reminds me of my previous posting about why people do not like to use ebooks. I argued that people do not like to use ebooks, because ebooks are a lack of signifiers. I think this interface design (“BumpTop”) does a really good job in adding meaningful signifiers into a “clueless” pdf file icon.

Two signifiers which caught up my attention were that 1) this interface enables a user to manipulate a size of a pdf file icon (that is, if a user thinks that one specific pdf file is more important than the other, s/he can make a icon size of that specific pdf file bigger.) ; 2) this interface also enables a user to feel a weight of a file (a weight is a somewhat redundant signifier, along with a icon size, but it still does a good job as a meaningful signifier.).

Why do people hate ebook? The answer was a signifier!

I have been thinking about signifiers about the book. Actually, I was so surprised that pbooks (paper books) is full of signifiers. I think I need to keep finding signifiers of pbooks for my own fun, secret activity J

Anyway, ever since I was interested in ebooks, I have kept asking to myself why people do not want to use ebooks. Some researchers believe that because people have been so accustomed to pbooks for many decades, people do not want to use ebooks. Therefore, some researchers believe we need to keep using the metaphor of pbooks for the design of ebooks (even though some researchers believe that ebooks need new metaphors). Personally, I think the 3D shape of pbook for the design of ebook is not the ideal solution in the long run, because if we stick to the metaphor of pbook, we might not find a better metaphor for “ereading“.

One day, I looked at pbooks, with colorful and diverse shapes of book covers, on my bookshelf. I suddenly realized that the reason people do not want to use ebooks might be the lack signifiers of ebooks. Look at pdf files saved in your computer desktop! Oh my god! All pdf files are exactly same, except for the file names.  Look at pbook on your bookshelf. Each book cover of each book (the spine of the book) tells us many facts/stories (signified) even at a simple glance:
dusty vs. pretty new look
thickness
cheerful vs. serious picture
publisher
edition
my personal story (e.g., when I buy, why I buy)

I do not know yet, but I think I start to think about how to create meaningful signifiers for ebooks.

All in one: Phenomenology, Structuralism, Objectivity, Subjectivity

Yesterday, I attended James O’Donnell’s talk at Lilly Library, the first talk in the History of the Book Seminars.  Right after I got out of the seminar room, I talked to myself, “Oh my God, I feel like I have been to the new world.” Professor O’Donnell introduced us a very short history of the book from the book in old days (14c ?) to wikipedia.org. The book in old days is just a piece of art. The meaning of the book in old days seems quite different from the meaning of the book in nowadays. I felt shameful that I thought that eBook is a simple physical “device” to read. Also, I felt like I miss something.

SO, I decided to try to identify diverse questions from diverse perspectives not to miss something that might be so important and to get diverse insights for the design of eBooks:

Phenomenology:
What kinds of experience do readers go through cognitively and emotionally while they are reading? What kinds of joy or sufferings do they experience?

Structuralism:
What kinds of tasks do readers conduct while they are reading? What is each task mean (signify)? For example, readers are flipping a page back and forth. What does this flipping activity mean (signify)?

Objectivity:
Are there any common features that need to be considered to support readers as human beings? For example, are font sizes large enough for normal human beings to read?

Subjectivity:
What does a book mean to each individual? Is it a simple device to read (just one of commodities)? Is it one of private belongings, such as iPod?

Any comments ? Any corrections ?

Stefan Sagmeister: Yes, design can make you happy (from ted.com)

Hum…., Before I watched this video clip, I thought that “design can make you happy” seems a plausible statement, but it sounds very difficult to make it happen. However, after I watched it, I talked to myself, “Okay, it might not be as difficult as I thought.”  

1) 2)

In this video, Stefan Sagmeister shows two different kinds of signs: one from a subway station; the other from an artist’s work. Stefan explains that the second sign makes people happy, because “… this says something different than normally said.”
This principle seems very applicable to any design…,

In this semester, I am also taking Educational Motivation from Education. I start thinking about how I can make eBooks (or any technology) intrinsically and extrinsically motivational.
Any thoughts?

 

“Sociability” and Interaction Design

Nowadays, everybody seems talking about the importance of “sociability” in design. I have no doubt with the importance of “sociability.” However, I feel like people talk only about positive aspects of “sociability.” In fact, when I read the following paragraph from today’s reading. I felt so shameful that I thought that “sociability” might be an option in design.

“To designing for usability, utility, satisfaction, and communicative qualities, we should add a fifth imperative: designing for sociability. When IT systems fail to support the social aspect of work and leisure, when they dehumanize and de-civilize our relationship with each other, they impoverish the rich social web in which we live and operate, essential for both well-being and efficiency.”

Is it true that “sociability” should be a fifth imperative? Is “sociability” always a good thing? What is the relationship between “privacy” and “sociability”? Is “privacy” a subset of “sociability” in a bigger picture? or Are “privacy” and “sociability” against with each other?

Actually, the above doubtful questions came from my interest in the design of ebooks. I have been interested in “the design of (mobile) ebook (devices)” and “reading activities” – if I am lucky enough, I want to pursue this research interest at least until I finish my dissertation.

Are “ebooks” and “reading activities” related to “sociability”? Should “sociability” be a fifth imperative in the design of ebooks? People might say “yes! why not?” (especially, from a social constructivism perspective, I guess). However, from my own experience, social interaction with friends was sometimes less helpful than my own interaction with texts (sudden comprehension after reading over and over). Do I still need to concern about “sociability” in the design of ebooks? Shouldn’t “sociability” be an option? Doesn’t it depend on readers’ learning styles, for example?

My final question! So, what criteria (or factors) do I need to take into account in judging if “sociability” should be a fifth imperative (if “sociability” should be an option)?