DESIGN TEAM FINAL REPORTApril 9, 2002IntroductionDesign is a very broad subject. To make our research feasible we choose to focus on design from one perspective. Throughout our research we considered the term design to be defined as follows:1) The arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art 2) The creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs Another defenition of design that we thought suited our research was this: "Everyone designs who devise courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. The intellectual activity that produces material artifacts is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social welfare policy for a state" Simon, Sciences of the Artificial Other terms often used in researching design, which have mulitple meanings, are goal and task. Throughout our research these terms were referenced as follows:
Within the context of design, our research was conducted mostly on the theories of D. Norman in the book Things that make us Smart. This was not our only resource, but served as one of the main influence. After reviewing our sources we concluded that design should embody a representation that will aid in accomplishing the specified goal, and encourage the use of the most efficient mode of cognition to accomplish the goal. In the book Things that make us Smart, D. Norman does a nice job of explaining the elements in a representation that make a good design: Develop Representations That:
D. Norman, Things that make us Smart Achieving a representation that will aid in accomplishing the goal requires not only an understanding of the goal, but knowledge of the task. To further understand the task and how it will be conducted one must understand human cognition. Since human cognintion is central to creating a good design we discuss two modes of cognition that are often used in accomplishing a goal. Achieving a Successful RepresentationAs we have discussed, a succeful design must use a succesful representation of the problem. However, we now need to define what defines a succesful representation. Looking again to Donald Norman, we learn that human cognition has two primary modes (though there are more); experiential cognition, and reflective cognition. A succesful representation must fit the cognitive process of the user, thus to achieve a successful representation one must understand these two modes human cognition. Experiential CognitionThis mode of cognition leads to the state in which we perceive and react to the events around us. This might include activities where our concentration is engaged in a critical manner, and we must process information quickly (e.g. driving a car or flying an airplane). This mode of cognition requires the ability to store temporary results, to make inferences from knowledge and to reason backward and forwardexample: Traditional Learning
Reflective CognitionReflective cognition involves some thought, but is similar to the reflex in that the relevant information must already exist in our memory and the experience simply reactivates the information. This mode leads to new ideas, novel responses. This mode of cognition is used primarily when decisions must be synthesized from the information available (e.g. creating a spreadsheet, writing a paper).example: Video Games
Experiential and Reflective InterfacesWe have established that the representation of a design should match the mode of cognition expected of the user. A distinction must therefor be made between tasks that require one versus the other. Generally speaking, experiential interfaces should be used in situation where the user is expected to be a passive participant, whereas reflective interfaces should be used in situation where the user is expected to be intellectually active in the task.MisrepresentationWhat happens when a design uses a representation that does not match the cognitive mode of the user? Ideally a designed artifact should be invisible to the user, it should impart no more cognitive load on the process than the process itself requires. When a design fails, the artifact becomes a burden, and the user is forced to conform to the mode required of the interface. what follows is a discussion of several famous examples of designs that failed to provide representations as the tasks required.Infamous InterfacesSeveral historically prominent interface designs expose the problems that can occur when information is misrepresented. Situations where the interface should be experiential and are instead reflective can cause the user to hesitate, second-guess themselves, and lose focus of the overall purpose of the interface.Butterfly BallotA contribution of many factors resulted in the presidential election of the year 2000 to be decided by a small panel of judges. One of these strange factors was an interface that should have been experential, but turned out to be far too reflective for many users. The butterfly ballot was niether intuitive or familiar for many voters. To place a vote for Al Gore (D), one had to punch out the third hole in a card, even though he was listed second on the ballot. A voting process wich should have been clear and easy to do became awash in controversy and confusion because of poor representation of information.The Challenger DisasterAnother tragic historical example also had many contributing factors to its ultimate failure. One of these factors was poor representation. In the Challenger space shuttle disaster, it appears that had information been represented more clearly to NASA engineers, then the accident could have been avoided. Soon before the launch time for the Challenger, engineers were presented with some data displaying O-Ring damage at certain temperatures. The information was not displayed in a clear and understandable formation. In order to discern the meaning of the interface, one is required to reflect and scrutinize the display a great deal to determine that the Challenger should not have lifted off that day. After the accident, visual representation specialist Edward Tufte reorganized the same data presented to NASA engineers in a way that clearly shows the shuttle should never have been allowed to launch. Tufte's representation of the same information exposed the problem right away.These designs failed because they did not meet expectation of the target audience. In the examples just mentioned, the design required too much reflective cognition when the interface should have been strictly experiential Misuse of Experiential InterfacesAs discussed earlier, there are problems with the traditional classroom as an experiential interface. As the "Learning Team" discovered, learners often like more reflective situations such as discussion based or totally hands on environments.In ConclusionRepresenting information incorrectly can lead to results not anticipated by the designer. The goal of any designed artifact is to dissapear from the perception of the user. While a designed artifact may not be able to modify are cognitive abilities, it can make the task easier or harder depending on the utility of the representation with regards to the task. A representation that does not match with the cognitive process of the user becomes a nuisance."Solving a problem simply means representing it so as to make the solution transparent." Simon, Sciences of the Artificial "our goal should be to develop human centered activities, to make...the task fit the person, not the other way round" D. Norman, Things that make us Smart References
Design Independent Research Project
|
