Donald Norman Criteria: Applications and Importance - Coursework Example

Table of Contents 1.0.Introduction 1 2.0.Donald Norman criteria-Applications and Importance 2 3.0.Conclusion 5 4.0.References 7 1.0. Introduction Human centered design has been defined in many ways but all the definitions are characterised by a focus on the user, and involving the users’ perspectives at all levels of the design process. Norman (1998) defines the concept of human centered design as the philosophy based on the interests and requirements of the user with a view of making the product understandable and usable. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) describe the methodology as the process for incorporating workability engineering into the design process with a view of supporting the whole development process and create applications whose applicability may be user friendly. Involving users is a way of ensuring that the interests and needs of the users are met. This portrays the actual user involvement as not part of the user centered design by necessity. As explained by Verganti (2008), the whole of the process puts the intended users at the centre and helm of its development and design, clearly reflecting the profile of the users. In this paper several methods of viewing radical innovation to products and services, basic methodologies of improving products and services for acceptance are discusses in brief. In this case, the quality of product space is analysed, envisioning the product the products opportunities with the consideration of the higher as the best. In these contexts therefore, human centred design methods are depicted as form of hill climbing, well planned for improvements. In addition the paper is aimed at classifying the user centered design methods, grouping them into various aspects including the inspection, empirical, inquiry, profiling, participatory and testing methods 2.0. Donald Norman criteria-Applications and Importance Abras, Maloney-Krichmar and Preece (2004) explains that the methods are grouped into specific aspects not limited to means of gathering the data that the end users have direct contact to. However some of the aspects included are of relevance to the users design requirements and the implementation procedures. From the analytical perspective, user centered designs have been improved depending on the inefficiencies they pose from their functional dependency. The analytical perspective has demonstrated a wide scale of flexibility in the process which allows adaptability and improvement to the needs of the system and users (Norman, 1986). The core value that the design process aims to present to the end users need to manifest in the manner in which the whole structure of the product or system is simplified, exploiting the powers of the problems and constraints, getting the mapping rights and ultimately making the design process visible. However, involving the bend users at the early stages of the design is an excellent approach and key to the success of the real projects. At the initial stages, Norman’s criteria involve profiling the design by identifying the tasks that the users need to perform with the product or service. The user profiles are of inherent importance at this stage with a canvass of the initial market research in order to validate the profiles and create personas and ultimately ground the design in real users (Verganti, 2008). Norman’s criteria are successful methods owed its ability to identify all the potential vulnerabilities that may create problems to the end users of the product or services interfering with the usability. As asserted by Wilson (1993) in his book “Human-centered Design Processes for Interactive Systems”, the project puts the intended users at the centre of the design and development where the whole process is carried out in an iterative fashion until the objectives are attained. In Norman’s criteria, the methods are superimposed into one another bringing into the design a holistic method of improving on the quality of the products or services. The inquiry method of Norman’s criteria is relevant in making early design decisions in addition to the product development. Olson and Olson (2002) note that the inspection method leverage best practices to provide specific adjustments and enhancements of the product and the service. However much Norman’s criteria proved impeccable, it still presented a few cases of inefficiencies in some critical areas. Norman (1998) describes how the radical innovations that Norman investigated were conducted without careful analysis of the society needs and other stakeholders input on the modifications. Further they pointed out that he was unable to point out areas where radical innovations thrived but that only in incremental innovation. However, Norman argued that technology changes were the driving factors behind radical innovations which identify human centred design as invaluable way to improve the product or a service. Human centered design assumes that innovation should commence with the users-getting closer to the end users and observing their activities, consumption and usability of the product and services. In regards to this, the product or service can be improved as long as the satisfaction level to the users is acceptable. However, Wilson (1993) points out that some disapproval from the users’ standpoint may end up not corrected due the complexities that are involved in some stages of the whole design process. The same sentiments are offered by Verganti (2008) that the vulnerabilities of the whole design process which aims to improve the quality of a product or a service is analogous to the hill climbing case where any movement to the top may pose a lot of obstacles along the way, in this case the users being at the centre of the problem. As a new way of design team work rather than a set of individual techniques applied to the design, Norman proposes a contrasting methodology to the whole process as the only way to the realisation of an enhanced service and product. Garcia and Calantone (2002) both present principles that posit relevance in the improvement in the service and product to the end users. In both the cases the new work philosophy for the product and service, the first being the approach towards the tasks and users to be developed alongside the product and service. In addition to the development of the product, the design starts with gathering systematic, structured and objective data to present quality to the users. With the reality of the product, the repetitive way of the cycles including the modifications of the products from the start to the end points to the strengths of Norman’s criteria. Abras, Maloney-Krichmar and Preece (2004) propose models similar to Norman are that base upon the product life cycle and those that appeals to the users. For the development of the participative ergonomics and design methodology, several stages of the design as proposed by many authors were correlated, as well as the methods of integration, making the methodology an adaptable process in the design. As a result, the Norman’s criteria propose a method that adds value to the products and services and improves the formal quality of the product. Because users often had difficulty in articulating their needs in terms that designers could understand, these methods allowed designers to observe their interactions and draw insights from them. Norman (1986) showed that the principles of usability lie in users mental models, their understandings of how things operate based on their experience, learning on the usage situation. To develop some insight into these mental models, designers needed to understand not only users responses to proposed designs, but also the context of use and users personal perspectives. 3.0. Conclusion Considerations of the ergonomics can prove to be a successful aspect of concern in the economic, human and social perspective improving the user performance and experience thus translating on the product as enumerated by the user centered designs (Olson and Olson, 2002). As a result such an improvement contributes directly to the many health problems that relate to efficiency, comfort, safety and health. Currently there are wide variety of tools, methodologies and design for product development some of which incorporate activities of the users. For design to be truly user centered, adaptability in the cognitive and physical needs of the products was core. It is therefore recommended that the design process of the products need to deeply consider the emotional contexts user bring to the designed products and services. 4.0. References Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D and Preece, J. (2004). Human Centered Design. Albany, NY, 1997: State University of New York Press. Garcia, R and Calantone, R. (2002). "A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness." The Journal of Product Innovation Management no. 19:110-132. Norman, D.(1986). Cognitive engineering. In User Centered System Design, D.A. Norman and S.W. Draper (eds.): 31-61. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Norman, D. (1998). Human-Centered Product Development. Chapter 9 from The invisible computer: why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Olson, J and Olson, G. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Prahalad, K and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Verganti, R. (2008). "Design, Meanings, and Radical Innovation: a meta-model and a research agenda." Journal of Product Innovation Management no. 25:436-456. Wilson, P. (1993). Human-centered Design Processes for Interactive Systems. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press. Read More