The Paradox of Technology — A Design Challenge

Upgraded complex technology leading to less intuitive designs

The same technology that simplifies life by providing more functions in each device also complicates life by making the device harder to learn, harder to use. This is the paradox of technology.

- Donald Norman, The Design of Everyday Things (1988)

Let us take a step back and think if technology makes our life easier or harder? Does it simplify things or complicate it further? Is the paradox valid even now? I am not saying that the knowledge and know-how of technology is a bad thing. In fact, I am so addicted to my smartphone that I cannot step out of the house without it. The plethora of activities and tasks it does for me it just commendable and unimaginable. The problem, however, is the complexity, the design of the tech products (software/hardware) brings to us. Many products are designed very well and easy to use. However, many are just designed for features and not for ease of use. Is it the fault of users who does mistakes in using a particular product or is it a shortcoming on the product designer side?

Most of the time when we do mistakes in using a product and blame ourselves as dumb, the fault is on the designer side. This is a very bold statement, yet a true one. Let me take some examples from the real world to validate this idea.

Parking labels and signs

The sign displayed in the first picture below assumes that a driver will stop in the middle of the road, read and try to digest all the information, analyze through the current time of the day and situation and then decide on whether she should park there or not. On the other hand, the second image perfectly identifies the slot length, 2hr parking limit, and days for parking through minimal use of colors, shapes, and numbers.

ATM machine that keeps the card

The machines which take the card in and eject after the user gets the cash, assume that the user will remember about the card after the cash is withdrawn. Cash has immediate value for the user and hence many times the user might forget to take the card back after the transaction is complete. This introduces a lot of problems in reissuing the card on both sides — the customers and the bank. The designs have improved these days by ejecting and forcing the user to collect the card before the cash is presented.

Emergency exit doors

The door in the first image below assumes that the user will know which side the door will open. This confuses the user and creates problems especially in emergency situations. The door in the second image, however, perfectly gives a clear signifier of side the door from where it will open and where to press it.

Product designers can achieve other purposes of the product, through design. You must have noticed that the “cancel membership” option is very difficult to find on a website as if someone has intentionally tried to hide it. This also used to be the case in canceling subscriptions of apps on an iPhone. Moreover, the sign-up button (for new users) of any product will be somehow more prominent than the sign-in button (for existing customers). Both of the designs above are done deliberately to achieve the intended purpose.

Ways to overcome the paradox of technology

Though technology introduces complexities, it brings a lot of use as well. There are few ways by which product designers can avoid the paradox of technology and remove or minimize the complexity introduce due to technology. I will be taking a running example of microwave ovens to exemplify all the ways discussed below.

Know whom you are designing for — Microwave for old age should have different functions and set of options in different arrangements than the one used by a teenager or millennial. The size of the buttons and the type of food options will be different. A microwave used by a North American should be designed differently from the one designed for Indians with completely different sets of features. The default time setting will be different.

Keep the information to the point — The microwave should not have more than 2 steps to perform an action. It should directly identify the food it will cook, through images and signs.

Keep it simple — Instead of loading the right-side panel of the microwave with all the options, a designer can come up with a few options or combinations which are more relevant, and present it in an intuitive manner using different visual, audio, and sensory cues. More options can be presented if the user is further interested.

First user experience, then the number of features — The example that I gave above about reducing the 'number of features directly available' also applies here. Moreover, there should be ready to use option for the actions which are mostly used in a microwave. E.g. the “30-sec” option we have in microwave these days. This improves the user experience more than filling the pannel with very rarely used options. It frustrates the users when they are not able to use all options which they have paid for.

Natural mapping and usability

Good design requires the co-operative efforts of multiple disciplines. A great natural mapping of the components of the product and its usage matters a lot. I talked about the design of stoves in my last article. It shows, how natural mappings and constraints make it very easy to induce simplicity into the design.

Human thoughts are mostly run by the subconscious mind and that is why if we align the design to the subconscious information that will make more sense to the user. For example, subconsciously a user will first try to open any door by turning the doorknob to the right. If someday you design a door that opens by turning the knob to left, the conscious mind will have to come into play, and this might frustrate the user.

Moreover, while purchasing the product, usability is not even thought about. It is only tested when the product is brought in real-world daily usage environment which is not possible while making purchases. So, the user may get disappointed after a certain time when she explores the product. This is one point where the designer can induce the delight factor in the product. She can design the product by taking real-world working scenarios into consideration and this is where design thinking and usability studies pitch in. I will try to explore these topics in my future articles. But for now, let’s live with this fact that if the user mistakes in using the product then the fault is on the designer side, not on the user side — a bold yet true statement!

o o o