Current Issue
When Norman meets Chinese… - 2 July 2005
by Christina Li
Read this article in Chinese (translated by Sean Liu, proof read by Christina Li)
Dr Norman has changed the way a generation of designers in understanding people and technologies. His philosophy of usability and emotion has been widely used in designing products for people’s everyday life in the west and is now also starting to have an impact upon Chinese design practices. What is Dr Norman’s view on Chinese design and usability industry then? Christina Li, on behalf of the uiGarden editorial team, brings us the experience of questioning Don Norman.
uiGarden Editorial Team
Don Norman
“Good design requires integration of a deep understanding of people, of the goals of the product, of industrial and graphical design, of interaction and human-centered design, and of engineering and manufacturing.”
Chinese products are now everywhere in the world. Have you ever knowingly used one that is not just “made in China” but “designed in China”?
We now live in a world-economy. As a result, it is very difficult to determine just where a particular product is designed. Was it designed in the United States? In Italy? Germany? Japan? China? Does it matter?
It is important that a product fit the lives of those who must use it, so products for people in China must fit the Chinese – and because China is such a rich and diverse country, it is wrong to think that a single design can fit everyone. But this is true around the world. It doesn’t matter where a product is designed or manufactured. It does matter that it fits the needs and lives of the people who use it.
Yes, I can not agree with you more – the most important thing is to design a product that fits the needs and lives of the people who use it. However, as you have mentioned, China has such a diverse culture. How do we weight cultural factors when designing for a broader population even if they are in the same country? Should a product have a ‘home team’ to decide how to adjust usability or is there a solution for global/international design?
Yes, one must always understand the actual people who will be using the product – even if the product is used in the same city as it is designed in, or on the other side of the country, or the other side of the world. Products need to be designed to serve the customers – not the designers – and this can only be done by observation of and interaction with those customers. So, yes, one always needs a home team.
What is your impression of Chinese product design?
China has many design schools, but most of these are dealing with visual images and appearance. Chinese product design is like everyone else’s: some truly excellent work and a lot that fails to inspire. Good design requires integration of a deep understanding of people, of the goals of the product, of industrial and graphical design, of interaction and human-centered design, and of engineering and manufacturing. It is rare to find all these talents working smoothly in any country of the world. I don’t see very much of this kind of design yet in China.
“User-centered design is often hard to establish because engineers don’t think they need it and the rest of the company fails to understand the benefits…The best way to convince people is through success stories.”
In China, user-centred design is only at the fledgling stage. What do you think are the potential pitfalls that companies that have just started to integrate user-centred design into their product design life cycle should be aware of?
The pitfalls are in NOT following user-centered design, for then one can get products that are ugly, that do not function well, and that are difficult to learn and to use. This lowers sales and increases support calls. User-centered design is often hard to establish because engineers don’t think they need it and the rest of the company fails to understand the benefits.
We suppose that is because engineers are always technology driven and emphasize more on innovations, whereas consumers are goal driven and just want to have their work done in an effective and enjoyable way.
I wouldn’t put it quite that way. Engineers and designers focus upon what they know, which is both technology and the way they themselves use products. But engineers and designers are not the typical customer, so it is very important to understand actual customers. Whenever I watch real customers, I am always surprised by how they use products. Engineers and designers need to be exposed to these observations – not told about them – they must make them themselves. I don’t think customers are necessarily goal driven. They have all sorts of reasons for doing things. When you watch television, are you “goal driven”? I don’t think so.
We have seen lots of stories telling how difficult to make user-centred design understood by engineers, programmers, marketing persons, etc. What are your ways to convince people that it is really important and to have them work with you?
The best way to convince people is through success stories. And the most convincing evidence is increased sales. Usability does NOT lead to increased sales, but it might lower service costs and it might lead to more recommendations. What we need is design that improves how much people like, enjoy, and use products. And these should translate into greater profits for the company. If they do not lead to higher profits, then they are not necessary.
The important point is that usability and design in general has to be evaluated within the total context of the product. Sometimes it can make the difference between success and failure. And sometimes it doesn’t matter. It takes a skilled manager to know which is the case in any given individual situation.
“…one culture finds annoying, another may find pleasing…”
Web sites are becoming more and more like an “everyday thing” in people’s life. Its design varies from culture to culture. Generally speaking, Chinese web sites are more colourful than western web sites. Some of them have lots of flashing ads and moving elements which are criticized by many western usability practitioners as breaking basic usability rules. Would you say that usability rules are the same for different cultures?
In Emotional Design, I point out that there are three levels of processing: Visceral, Behavioural, and Reflective. The rules that apply to the visceral and Behavioural levels are primarily determined by biology, and in the case of the Behavioural level, by learning and experience. These are apt to be the same across the world, so the principles of Visceral and Behavioural design are apt to be the same for everyone.
Reflective design, however, varies considerably with culture. Here is where different groups can vary considerably in what they find pleasant or not. Chinese reflective design is apt to vary very much from western Reflective design. In fact, different arts of China will have different preferences for reflective Design.
On the other hand, Chinese web users seem more tolerant of annoying stuff on websites, and this makes a great excuse for Chinese web designers to ignore usability rules. So if users don’t mind, do you think that designers should work according to usability rules?
It depends what is meant by annoying. Flashing signs and movement are distracting and for people doing other tasks, they can be a safety hazard. Moreover, they lower task performance. This will be the same for everyone across the world.
But things that one culture finds annoying, another may find pleasing.
The world would be a dull place if all people were the same.
“Users are often wrong… But designers are also often wrong… The strategy is to observe, to watch, to be flexible.”
Are users always correct?
Users are often wrong. If you ask people what products they want, do not trust their answers: people do not know their own minds. They do not know what they will like and dislike until they have experienced it for themselves. Users are almost always wrong in predicting how something new will fit into their lives. That is why I advocate observation, not questioning.
But designers are also often wrong.
So, what strategies should be applied to make the correction without jeopardizing users’ acceptance of the final delivery?
The strategy is to observe, to watch, to be flexible. Try out designs quickly, before too much time and effort has been sunk. Use rapid prototyping. When a product is working well, even in ways you did not predict, exploit that. If a product is not accepted, go out and watch people to find out why. Change it.
The designer must always be observant, be empathetic, and be wiling to change.
I can see that rapid prototyping and observing users therefore is very important approach for user-centred design. Jakob Nielsen claims that testing on 5 ~ 6 users will get 80 correct result. Is there also a number for observing approach?%
I agree completely with Nielsen (after all, I am his partner). It is amazing how much you can learn by testing only a few people. And, as Nielsen points out, if you can afford to test with 25 people, it is far better to do five separate tests, each with 5 people. Test 5 people and then redesign according to your findings. Test the new design with 5 more people and redesign again. This is far more efficient and powerful than one test with all 25 people.
“It is a matter of attitude”
In China, usability study always sounds a luxury to senior managers. What solutions can you suggest for them so that they can buy the ‘luxury’ at an affordable price?
Badly done usability tests are not a luxury – they are a waste. But well run tests, done quickly and efficiently are not a luxury, they are a necessity. They will decrease costs, decrease service calls, and increase sales. Note that not all usability people know how to do tests efficiently. Often, they take too much time, study too many people, and concentrate on non-essential problems. In addition, the most effective (and cheapest) tests are those done BEFORE the product is designed – so that the findings can be used by the designers and engineers. If you test when the product is finished, it is a waste of money.
The most important aspect of “usability” – and of good design in general—is empathy and understanding of the people who will be using your products and services. This is not a luxury, this is a necessity for any successful business person. And it is not a matter of cost –it is a matter of attitude.
Yes. However, unfortunately, companies are always revenue-driven. Is there a good way to establish such attitude without thinking about money?
As I indicated in an earlier answer, I see no conflict here. If you do a good job with a product, it should lead to increased sales and lower costs. If it doesn’t, then the extra work does not matter. Examining revenue is a good test of the quality of a design. I contend that when companies ignore emotional appeal and functional usability, they are loosing revenue or increasing their costs (due to high service calls). So being revenue-driven is fine: I contend that good design increases revenue and lowers costs.
“I dream of harmony between the things in our life and the social, emotional, and experiential parts of our lives.”
Having read your book Design of Everyday Things, I always think about the design and usability of my everyday things when using them. Do you have the same experience? Does your research have impact upon your own everyday life? Do you observe yourself and your family’s everyday behavior?
I live my books. With Design of Everyday Things, I became extremely conscious of how the artifacts fit into our lives – and especially, how they fail to fit well. With “Turn Signals,” I became very conscious of how we interacted with things and the ways in which those interactions changed even our social lives. With “Things that make us smart,” I became very sensitive to how we use artifacts to make ourselves smarter, better at remembering, better at decision making, better at thinking. With “Emotional Design,” I became sensitive to the need for pleasure and enjoyment in all that we do.
So I become walking examples of my own books, more and more sensitive to the nuances of the artificial devices in our lives and the impact they have.
What is your vision of the relationships between people and technology in the next ten, twenty, and thirty years?
I dream of harmony between the things in our life and the social, emotional, and experiential parts of our lives. Artifacts are not just about making us work better: they are about living better, about enjoying life more, and about spreading these benefits to everyone, everywhere.
Yes, we will have a wonderful world if technology and emotion are in harmony with our lives. By the way, have you ever been to China? Would you like to come to China?
Yes, I’ve been to China, but that was a long time ago, when I was a Professor of Psychology, before I worked in Design. It would be interesting to visit again, to see all the change that has taken place. My book, Emotional Design, has been published in Chinese. That sounds like a good excuse to visit.
Actually, I now am planning to be in Shanghai in January 2006 (for an automobile show: I write a column for a magazine on automobile Interiors (Interior Motives)
I hope that I will be able to visit other cities in China during this visit.
You probably would not be able to match the current China with the image of China in your mind as China is changing everyday. Thank you for your time. We wish you a great trip to China.
Christina Li is the founder and chief editor of uiGarden.net. She is also the project coordinator of Sino-European Systems Network, – an EU founded project promoting usability in China.
Comments made
Possible Related Articles:
Latest Comments