Response to Chapter 1:
Humans have always been great at adapting to unknown situations. We connect related (or even unrelated) past experiences to build conceptual models of a new experience. This implies that every single individual might have different way of perceiving things. What seems easy to use to someone might be hard to another.
It is our job as designers to normalise these perceptions by designing multiple signifiers. These subtle cues will make affordances and anti-affordances more obvious for average people (I personally think it’s impossible to create a complete foolproof design due to multiple factors like technology advancement, education and cultural differences). After all, design has to be so obvious that it is transparent.
It seems that we have various “universally-accepted design standards” for various specific products (e.g. ISO, WCAG). These standards could very well form some sort of formula or basic template for a “good design”. Why do you think poor design still happens everywhere?
In the first place, what do you think of iterating on conventions vs. innovating? Does trial-and-error in innovation process hurt people’s common expectation (conceptual model)?
How do you think an “ideal” design solution should be? Given that there are so many considerations to take (usability, aesthetics, accessibility, security, environmental impact, time, money, etc.). I personally think the key is about balance, but is sacrifice really inevitable? Or should there exist a “perfect” solution?