The problem with doors is a classic design issue. What I always wonder is why they are not equipped with signs that tell people how to use them (e.g. push on this piece, etc.). Would that really be so difficult or expensive to do? This could be the difference between life or death if there was an office fire and tenants had to move quickly to exit the premises. Though at least for automatic doors I do notice more places where it says "automatic door" so nobody tries to actually push it.

Norman wrote this article seventeen years ago and mentions the difficulty of using car radios. I would be interested in his thoughts on what has been done to mitigate this issue, namely radio station and volume controls on the steering wheel so eyes can be kept on the road.

I looked at this article as more of a guide on how to refine a product than anything else. The affordances section reviews the concepts around the exercise in class last week. Have not thought about this subject before but did have an incident that reminded me of affordances. There is a new car in my family and I took it for a solo trip to run errands. It had a stalk on the steering wheel column for controlling the front and back wipers. The previous driver had left the back wiper on and as I was driving/stopped at liights, etc. I could not figure out how to turn off the back wiper. Finally, I pulled over, took out the owner's manual, and followed the instructions to stop it.

Reading through this article made me wonder if anyone at Ford had thought through the affordances (e.g. does the stalk indicate how it should be used?) Or apply the methods in the Controls section to determine the best way to create an interface to control windshield wipers? The bigger picture of course is what their overall refinement process is and in this case, why they designed the product in its current form?

This article reminds me of the phrase, "necessity is the mother if invention". The link is that product or service inventions are the result of an overriding need. Not sure what the authors mean on p. 39 when they mention looking for needs, not solutions. Are they referring to a process sequence - first determine the need and then a solution can be worked through?

Agree heavily on defining a needer group (p.41). This is what Harley Davidson, the motorcycle manufacturer did to save the company. They focused on Baby Boomers and learned that a motorcycle provided a freedom and midlife "escape" rather than just being a transportation source.

Finally, it would be interesting to learn what went wrong when researchers believe they have found a need but it really does not exist. Perfect case is the Pontiac Aztec of a few years ago. GM was convinced of the need for this type of vehicle but the public rejected this offering.

"Are conventional notions of user-friendliness compatible with aesthetic experience"? My response is, why shouldn't they be? The figure 2.5 phone combines practicality with a design that is appealing in an artistic sense. And it keeps in mind the familiar - a handset and buttons (obviously a much different product today!) but also offers an answering machine in an integrated product. In a sense, the phone becomes a home decorating piece from the perspective that a room can be filled with products that denote a stylish aspect from a common household tool (e.g. a phone or a lamp).

Interesting history of participatory design and how it evolved in different countries. Also glad design is recognized as a field of study (p. 43) because the necessary skills to be successful are significant and require considerable honing.

In regards to the core themes, the UK study indicates the need to design the social subsystem with the technical one. I equated this to issues seen with accounting software. There have been tremendous advances with the data produced by these systems that can be helpful for making managerial decisions. However, it is not accompanied by training regarding how to acquire, manage, and communicate findings. Would participatory design of the accounting system capabilities that highlights the various functions that might be underutilized help? Definitely because a good design cannot be created if the eventual users are not aware of product features. In fact, the point (p. 50) about end-user programming relates to this. Excel is a good example. It now has so many capabilities utilizing downloaded enterprise data that it can create analyses at a speed and accuracy unheard of even ten years ago.

Final point about a thought mentioned in this article is the p. 56 noting of design as a collaborative effort across stakeholders and functions. Too many times companies do not include all members of a team in design exercises. My retort: "get your people involved". Some of the best ideas come from those closest to the workflow.

Interesting article from the perspective of offering a project process by phase. But I do disagree with one premise on page 21: "but the realities of design are rarely, if ever, as clearly delineated as the process describe below". Why? Is it not true that as more people are educated regarding design thinking and the higher stakes of producing successful design that the process is in fact becoming more structured in terms of clearly identified pieces.

The points on discovery (page 24) often lacking aligns with what the head of a local consulting firm mentioned when visiting SI. His point was that "nobody is doing discovery". Truthfully, I am not sure why but do like to author's point that "the more one knows about a topic, the more one forgets what it is like not to know". That is why cross functional teams are more effective - ask the finance person or HR person what they think! Reach for a more objective viewpoint through people not as familiar with design.

Couple of other points: Page 29 view that a successful focus group depends on a successful moderator. But what about the personal biases of the moderator? I would suggest that it might not be difficult to have this bias, whether conscious or unconscious "persuade" the group to adopt viewpoints they would otherwise not endorse. How do you compensate for this?

Page 35:idea that intuition is a learned understanding and respect of process molded by experience. Agree somewhat but not 100%. I believe there is such a thing as intuition stemming from a "sixth sense" of what good design constitutes. Was all of Steve Job's design triumphs only based on experience and not "feelings"? Did Lee Iaccoca and the Ford Mustang design team in the 1960's (most successful new car introduction of all time) really on experience? How could they when the Mustang was a radically different type of car than ever sold before?

Good to see a writer integrate design strategy with overall corporate strategy. Impossible to have a winning company if these are not aligned. How can an organization be successful if there is no coherent strategy on how a product is designed that marketing can then determine how to promote along with appropriate pricing based on unique characteristics?

Table 3.1 and the accompanying chart are important as they force the designers to assess competitors and honestly develop answers regarding why their product is superior. For me, page 62 was the most important page because it suggests the question of why a customer should buy from you instead of a competitor? Many a company has stumbled because they could not answer it. Danino mentions Wii and how they assessed the competitive landscape - perfect differentiation example.