Izma Shabbir

Reading Response 5

October 27 2024

This week’s reading on interfaces helped verbalize a concept that I think is missing in product design – designing ourselves/the humans into the experience. On page 206, Artful Design says you need to “design the human into the loop” (206). This idea resonates with my own design practice – you can’t make something or design an experience and then plop a human in at the end. The user needs to be integrated from the onset of the design process, because that will generate a fundamentally different product! Humans and users need to be embedded into the design process and, as a result, will have a markedly improved experience with the final design.

I really appreciated the example of a piano as a tool that remains unchanged regardless of the player. On page 208, Ge explains that the piano is an example of an interface that is unchanged depending on skill level – a beginner and expert sit at the same set of keys. The fact that there’s no ‘upleveling’ of the interface, means that there’s no power user mode. Honestly, I never had considered the reality of stagnant tools before. There’s a deep humility that is embedded within interfaces that do not adjust for skill. The same tool, in this case, the piano, exists for everyone who sits before it, yet the range of music produced is immense. The chapter transitions into the digital interface, and the creation of a mouse to help users navigate the computer. On page 212, the reading asks – what would a computer tool that was as nuanced as the tools for sculptors and watchmakers create? However, I think that all sculptors and watchmakers have access to the same unchanging tools, but the skill of the sculptor and watchmaker is what creates variation.

I found the drawings of the ‘ideal user’ to be really fascinating – what parts of the body does an interface demand of us? I am not sure if we should be striving to have higher or lower engagement of the body. Does having more of our bodies interact with a tool make the interface better, more nuanced? Or does it just make it clunky? How do you determine the distinction? This portion of the chapter reminded me of a large exhibition in the M.S. Design program. Every graduating student creates a person exhibition, called a “Personal Statement” – meant to represent the student as a designer. A few decades ago, a student’s personal statement was a dancer wearing sensors. Every moment she made created a sound, and she essentially became the instrument itself. This project is always celebrated as a really fascinating design project, but the readings helped me understanding that more specifically, it was a fascinating interface project!

Lastly, the reading kept centered around having “humans in the design loop” (218). It was an important reminder that we should not be designing tools and interfaces that get rid of humans – in industry we always call that “automating.” Some things should be automated – like those that humans are better off not doing. However, I think we often automate away really beautiful life experiences – like spending time with family, art, music, community building – in the name of efficiency or optimization. For example, Ajay’s e-Sitar and tabla are such beautiful examples of retaining nuance and culture while exploring technology. A huge part of percussive music culture in South Asian and Middle Eastern communities is existing in community with each other. Often sitting on the floor, we enjoy music, singing, poetry, and company while the instruments are played. I love that Ajay’s invention does not get rid of the communal and warm aspects of the instruments, but instead adds another layer of nuance.