Click here to read the first post in my series on building a business education through MOOCs.
This week, I wrapped up Udacity's "Introduction to the Design of Everyday Things." This two-week online course was self-paced, low-intensity, and a lot of fun. Here are a few of my takeaways:
- Design is foremost about user experience, rather than aesthetics.
- Good designers have the ability to empathize with their end-users, and ensure that they find the outcomes they seek.
- Design thinking can be applied to all settings and career paths, whether through designing a web application or shaping the experience of a first-time Sweetgreen visitor during lunchtime rush.
Design concepts are often intuitive, but the right vocabulary can make your thinking more logical and precise. Here are a few terms I learned from the course:
Affordance: features or experiences that are determined by the properties of an object and the abilities of a person.
- For example, sitting is an affordance of a chair, made possible by the interaction between the design of the chair and the shape of the human body.
- Similarly, an anti-affordance prevents you from taking action. For example, metal bars in front of a pedestrian-only street.
Signifier: a symbol, sound or image that provide clues of underlying concepts or meaning.
- For example, a green light signifies that an electrical device is turned on, or a HIGH VOLTAGE sign teaches us not to touch that velociraptor enclosure.
- Similarly, a false signifier, like a fake CCTV camera, seeks to prevent crime by suggesting the area is under surveillance.
Conceptual Model: a highly simplified explanation of how things work, sometimes inferred, learned over a period of time, or passed from person to person.
- For example, the water cycle provides an easy-to-understand model of the continuous movement of water on Earth.
- A designer is responsible for helping users form an accurate conceptual model about a product.
System Image: the visual cues (shapes, forms, signifiers, or instructional models) that provide information about how to interact with a product.
- For example, a defibrillator is illustrated with three steps that clearly instruct people how to use the device under stressful circumstances.
These frameworks help designers to create intuitive and effective products and processes.
Bad design is often a result of confusing signifiers and system images. Take the example of Snapchat: I use it every day to send my friends kitchen mishaps and surreptitious videos of cute dogs. None of these seem significant enough to warrant a permanent text message, but they represent those everyday moments that bring us together. With Snapchat -- even more so than email -- I feel closer to friends who are scattered across the country.
However, my appreciation ends with Snapchat's user interface. During my first few months using the app, I would swipe wildly to figure out where to add friends, send messages, or view stories. I could never remember, and the app provided no clues to help me along. (According to this Slate article, I'm not alone.) Universally-understood signifiers -- such as a book for stories, an envelope for messages, and arrows to navigate between features -- would have made a big difference.
Another important question is: Am I solving the right problem? One of my college roommates was a systems engineer, and she shared a story that has stuck with me. Her professor presented a problem: Apartment residents complained about a slow elevator. The engineers could have replaced the elevators at great cost and time. What did they do instead? Install mirrors by the elevator doors. Now the residents had something to distract them, and the wait time no longer felt objectionable.
Finally, less is more when it comes to instruction manuals. I occasionally visit a co-working facility in Washington, D.C., that attracts a bright, entrepreneurial crowd. The other day, about six of us were gathered in the kitchen. I observed as two-by-two, members approached the "Pour-Over Brew Guide" posted on the wall. After a few moments of reading the poster, they returned to their laptops, defeated.
The problem? There was too much text and no images to illustrate the process, which made it confusing to determine a conceptual model for making pour-over coffee. (Which, I've since learned, is pretty easy.)
Now that I've finished the course, I look forward to applying these lessons when I write about complex international development processes in the future.