Donald a. norman quotes

You won't catch me giving clear lectures.

Market segmentation s a natural result of the vast differences among people

Forget the complaints against complexity; instead, complain about confusion.

Innocence lost is not easily regained. The designer simply cannot predict the problems people will have, the misinterpretations that will arise, and the errors that will get made.

How do you discover a need that nobody yet knows about? This is where the product breakthroughs come through.

Only the most sophisticated of beings can lie and cheat, and get away with it.

The major problems facing the development of products that are safer, less prone to error, and easier to use and understand are not technological: they are social and organizational.

What makes something simple or complex? It's not the number of dials or controls or how many features it has: It is whether the person using the device has a good conceptual model of how it operates.

We are victims of our own success. We have let technology lead the way, pushing ever faster to newer, faster, and more powerful systems, with nary a moment to rest, contemplate, and to reflect upon why, how, and for whom all this energy has been expended.

Also note that invariably when we design something that can be used by those with disabilities, we often make it better for everyone

Too many companies believe that all they must do is provide a 'neat' technology or some 'cool' product or, sometimes, just good, solid engineering. Nope. All of those are desirable (and solid engineering is a must), but there is much more to a successful product than that: understanding how the product is to be used, design, engineering, positioning, marketing, branding-all matter. It requires designing the Total User Experience.

We delude ourselves if we believe that skilled behavior is easy, that it can come about without effort. We forget the years of tuning, of learning and practice it takes to be skilled at even the most fundamental of human activities: eating, walking, talking, reading, and writing. It is tempting to want instant gratification - immediate expert performance and experiential pleasure - but the truth is that this primarily occurs only after considerable amounts of accretion and tuning.

Go to the bookstore and look at how many bookshelves are filled with books trying to explain how to work the devices. We don't see shelves of books on how to use television sets, telephones, refrigerators or washing machines. Why should we for computer-based applications?

It is relatively easy to design for the perfect cases, when everything goes right, or when all the information required is available in proper format

The best kind of design isn't necessarily an object, a space, or a structure: it's a process- dynamic and adaptable.

In the university, professors make up artificial problems. In the real world, the problems do not come in nice, neat packages. They have to be discovered.

Technology may change rapidly, but people change slowly. The principals [of design] come from understanding of people. They remain true forever.

I've been looking at the iPod- the Apple iPod. One of the interesting things about the iPod, one of the things that people love most about it is not the technology; it's the box it comes in

User-centered design means working with your users all throughout the project.

In design it is important to shoe the effect of an action. ... Feedback is critical.

It is the duty of machines and those who design them to understand people. It is not our duty to understand the arbitrary, meaningless dictates of machines.

Knowing how people will use something is essential

In my opinion, no single design is apt to be optimal for everyone.

If people keep buying poorly designed products, manufacturers and designers will think they are doing the right thing and continue as usual.

Scientists are always skeptics.

When I use a direct manipulation system whether for text editing, drawing pictures, or creating and playing games I do think of myself not as using a computer but as doing the particular task. The computer is, in effect, invisible. The point cannot be overstressed: make the computer system invisible.

The current paradigm is so thoroughly established that the only way to change is to start over again.

The hardest part of design ... is keeping features out.

Isn't one of your first exercises in learning how to communicate to write a description of how to tie your shoelaces? The point being that it's basically impossible to use text to show that

No product is an island. A product is more than the product. It is a cohesive, integrated set of experiences. Think through all of the stages of a product or service - from initial intentions through final reflections, from first usage to help, service, and maintenance. Make them all work together seamlessly. That's systems thinking.

When a device as simple as a door has to come with an instruction manual—even a one-word manual—then it is a failure, poorly designed.

AS for all those mistakes I make - they are on purpose - to teach you how to deal with them

A big ethical question is what happens after people stop using the device. Does it degrade the environment? Could it have been designed so it would actually be good for the environment?

Products were once designed for the functions they performed. But when all companies can make products that perform their functions equally well, the distinctive advantage goes to those who provide pleasure and enjoyment while maintaining the power. If functions are equated with cognition, pleasure is equated with emotion; today we want products that appeal to both cognition and emotion.

If you're more susceptible to interruption, you do more out of the box thinking.

I think a successful company is one where everybody owns the same mission. Out of necessity, we divide ourselves up into discipline groups. But the goal when you are actually doing the work is to somehow forget what discipline group you are in and come together. So in that sense, nobody should own user experience; everybody should own it.

Readers always seem to think that the author has some control over the design of their books.

The designer has an obligation to provide an appropriate conceptual model for the way that the device works. It doesn't have to completely accurate but it has to be sufficiently accurate that it will help in both the learning of the operation and also dealing with novel situations.

It is not enough that we build products that function, that are understandable and usable, we also need to build products that bring joy and excitement, pleasure and fun, and, yes, beauty to people's lives.

I believe that the Apple Shuffle is an excellent compromise among the conflicting requirements of simplicity, elegance, size, battery life, and function

If you think of the product as a service, then the separate parts make no sense - the point of a product is to offer great experiences to its owner, which means that it offers a service. And that experience, that service, comprises the totality of its parts: The whole is indeed made up of all of the parts. The real value of a product consists of far more than the product's components.

I'm not a fan of technology . I'm a fan of pedagogy, of understanding how people learn and the most effective learning methods. But technology enables some exciting changes.

Attractive things work better When you wash and wax a car, it drives better, doesn’t it? Or at least feels like it does.

As the technology matures, it becomes less and less relevant. The technology is taken for granted. Now, new customers enter the marketplace, customers who are not captivated by technology, but who instead want reliability, convenience, no fuss or bother, and low cost.

When you have trouble with things—whether it's figuring out whether to push or pull a door or the arbitrary vagaries of the modern computer and electronics industries—it's not your fault. Don't blame yourself: blame the designer.

Good design is also an act of communication between the designer and the user, except that all the communication has to come about by the appearance of the device itself. The device must explain itself.

It was always amusing to be inside Apple and read what journalists said we were doing

If you think the products don't match what you want from a product, don't buy it.

Will robot teachers replace human teachers? No, but they can complement them. Moreover, the could be sufficient in situations where there is no alternative––to enable learning while traveling, or while in remote locations, or when one wishes to study a topic for which there is not easy access to teachers. Robot teachers will help make lifelong learning a practicality. They can make it possible to learn no matter where one is in the world, no matter the time of day. Learning should take place when it is needed, when the learner is interested, not according to some arbitrary, fixed schedule

Having the best product means nothing if the people won't buy it.

Everything has a personality: everything sends an emotional signal. Even where this was not the intention of the designer, the people who view the website infer personalities and experience emotions. Bad websites have horrible personalities and instill horrid emotional states in their users, usually unwittingly. We need to design things-products, websites, services-to convey whatever personality and emotions are desired.

I believe that robots should only have faces if they truly need them

I think there is a tendency in science to measure what is measurable and to decide that what you cannot measure must be uninteresting.

Learning should take place when it is needed, when the learner is interested, not according to some arbitrary, fixed schedule

User experience is really the whole totality. Opening the package good example. It's the total experience that matters. And that starts from when you first hear about a product experience is more based upon memory than reality. If your memory of the product is wonderful, you will excuse all sorts of incidental things.

So what does a good teacher do? Create tension - but just the right amount.

Hypertext makes a virtue out of lack of organization, allowing ideas and thoughts to be juxtaposed at will. [...] The advent of hypertext is apt to make writing much more difficult, not easier. Good writing, that is.

Rule of thumb: if you think something is clever and sophisticated beware-it is probably self-indulgence.

Computer scientists have so far worked on developing powerful programming languages that make it possible to solve the technical problems of computation. Little effort has gone toward devising the languages of interaction.

In the consumer economy taste is not the criterion in the marketing of expensive soft drinks, usability is not the primary criterion in the marketing of home and office appliances. We are surrounded with objects of desire, not objects of use.

Beauty and brains, pleasure and usability - they should go hand in hand.

Change the attitude toward errors. Think of an object's user as attempting to do a task, getting there by imperfect approximations. Don't think of the user as making errors; think of the actions as approximations of what is desired.

Complexity is acceptable as long as it is intelligible and necessary. We want to avoid needless complications.

I prefer design by experts - by people who know what they are doing

Behavioral design is all about feeling in control. Includes: usability, understanding, but also the feel.

And to get real work experience, you need a job, and most jobs will require you to have had either real work experience or a graduate degree.

The designer shouldn't think of a simple dichotomy between errors and correct behavior; rather, the entire interaction should be treated as a cooperative endeavor between person and machine, one in which misconceptions can arise on either side.

To me, error analysis is the sweet spot for improvement.

In their work, designers often become expert with the device they are designing. Users are often expert at the task they are trying to perform with the device. [...] Professional designers are usually aware of the pitfalls. But most design is not done by professional designers, it is done by engineers, programmers, and managers.

Technology usually provides a series of tradeoffs. Each asset is offset by a deficit...A major problem occurs when those who suffer from technology's defecits and those who benefit are not the same people.

The argument is not between adding features and simplicity, between adding capability and usability. The real issue is about design: designing things that have the power required for the job while maintaining understandabili ty, the feeling of control, and the pleasure of accomplishment.

Design is really an act of communication, which means having a deep understanding of the person with whom the designer is communicating.

We expert teachers know that motivation and emotional impact are what matter.

Creeping featurism is a disease, fatal if not treated promptly. There are some cures, but, as usual, the best approach is to practice preventative medicine.

Simplicity design axiom: The complexity of the information appliance is that of the task, not the tool. The technology is invisible.

Attractive things work better.

People Propose, Science Studies, Technology Conforms.

A good designer will actually design the company.

The problem with emotion was that it was clearly something important, but-at least according to the old philosophy-it was something to overcome.

Am I an Apple bigot? No. I can critique their products and their customer service philosophy. But overall, they do better than any other player.

Simplification is as much in the mind as it is in the device.

A challenge to the designers of the world: Make signs unnecessary.

Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right.

Our information lives will be better served when we are free to get to our information from wherever we are, with any device available.

The world is complex, and so too must be the activities that we perform. But that doesn't mean that we must live in continual frustration. No. The whole point of human-centered design is to tame complexity, to turn what would appear to be a complicated tool into one that fits the task, that is understandable, usable, enjoyable.

The design of everyday things is in great danger of becoming the design of superfluous, overloaded, unnecessary things.

Any time you see signs or labels added to a device, it is an indication of bad design: a simple lock should not require instructions.

Serious accidents are frequently blamed on "human error." Yet careful analysis of such situations shows that the design or installation of the equipment has contributed significantly to the problems. The design team or installers did not pay sufficient attention to the needs of those who would be using the equipment, so confusion or error was almost unavoidable.

Everyday people are not very good designers.