Interaction with everyday objects

Impact of design thinking on decision-making

Reading Don Norman’s book, The Design of Everyday Things, got me hooked to observe how I interact with my daily-use objects. It subtly influences my thought process — extending to how I make purchases. Quite an amusing experience to say the least, and it called for a note down.

Smoothy or slimy

Object 1: A glass container resting on the flat part of one of its surfaces

The glass container has two flat surfaces, one flat-cum-curved surface, and one curved surface. It is resting on the flat part of flat-cum-curved surface in the picture.

I pretty much liked the design. Why?

• Assurance of no-break or no-fall due to sliding or slipping
• Usage facilitated even without lifting it from the platform
• Fresh and pleasing aesthetics

The same container held to rest on its curved surface

What is confusing about this design?

I did not appreciate nor understand why one of its surfaces was curved. The caveat — if the glass slides on this surface, it might topple and break eventually.

Should the user self-learn to not rest on this surface, the learning may happen after the fall. Accidental mishandling may lead to fall and break as well.

The confusion got to me — I didn’t make the purchase.

To open or not to open

Object 2: A glass bottle with a lid

The glass bottle has two opposite flat sides, and the other two, curved. My thumb is holding the bottle on the flat side — for your reference.

First impression, aesthetically sleek.

The sequence is shown to open the lid

Opening the lid was a smooth experience — all it takes is one simple press on the edge and pop it opens.

A good amount of effort put in, yet difficult to close the lid

However, closing the lid was an uphill task. It took me multiple attempts when I tried to close the lid as shown in the picture.

I looked for alternatives. I had to keep my phone away from capturing this, use the other hand to place the lid on the nozzle. That’s when it closed.

The impact? I didn’t make this purchase.

Grippy ride

Object 3(left to right): Strainer A, Strainer B. Which one would you purchase, and why?

Considering both the tea strainers have the same sieve size and material, the focus shifts to the comfort of the grip. That is, sturdiness of grip is the dealbreaker to make a purchase.

• Strainer A has a better grip, and comfortable to hold. As a bonus, it comes with a hook in the bottom — for hanging purpose.
• Strainer B fails relatively with regards to its grip, comfort, and needs more conscious effort to hold throughout its use.

TA-DA. I purchased Strainer A.

Key Takeaway

In the context of everyday objects, aesthetics matters but there exists a larger framework for judging good design.

It is simple math.

Aesthetics + Functionality > Functionality > Aesthetics

Scoopy-Licious

The functionality of an ice cream scoop

This design is simple and brilliant. With discoverable signifiers, as highlighted in blue, it solves one problem with two affordances.

Problem Statement: How do I serve a scoop of ice cream?

Solution:

Affordance 1: Make a scoop, Signifier 1: Self-discovered bowl-shape

Affordance 2: Serve a scoop, Signifier 2: Self-discovered handlebar

I didn’t purchase this but got inspired to come up with something new.

Wholistic redesign of the strainer

Pain-point: Post-straining, the sieve adds stickiness to the residue. The residue can be entirely disposed of, after multiple rounds of cleaning.

Scenarios:

• If there are very fine particles, they blend with the sieve.
• There is enough time spent waiting for the residue to dry.

The existing design affords disposal of the residue, yet conditionally. On the basis of this conditionality, there is a discoverable lack of disposal of residue, which is the anti-affordance of this object.

Overlapping the affordances of ice cream scoop with that of strainer

Problem Statement: How to make the strainer afford residue disposal?

Solution: Superimposing the handlebar and the scooping functionality of the ice cream scoop on the strainer brings in this affordance.

Prototype:

Rough sketch of the redesigned strainer

How does this model work?

1. Straining: Hold the centre handlebar
2. Post-straining: Use the side handles to scoop off the residue

Strainer + Ice Cream Scoop = Wholistic Strainer

Potential challenges to address:

• Ensuring enough hand space while straining — bring enough gap between the centre bar and sand handles
• Ensuring the object doesn’t get too heavy to hold — acknowledging the relative simplicity of straining over icecream scooping

The non-functional prototype is an attempt to project my pain-point, to begin with. It certainly calls for user interviews, and more research to validate the redesigned model.