Talk:The Design of Everyday Things

A fact from The Design of Everyday Things appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Donald Norman rewrote his 1988 book The Design of Everyday Things after some industrial designers felt affronted by an earlier draft?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Design of Everyday Things.

Wikipedia

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Industrial design Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

DYK nomination[edit]

Cool. This can probably be expanded to more than a single sentence about doors because his exposition on idiotic door designs is fairly widely cited. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I bet so. The way I wrote it sounds like trivia but I know it's been so widely received that it's a point worth making. --Pnm (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will contribute to this after the turkey holiday, sometime next week. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get to this when I intended, but I will do so when time permits... Ningauble (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human Computer Interaction[edit]

DOET is a relatively popular text in HCI. In the preface to the 2002 edition, Don Norman states that many people asked "whether the lessons of DOET also apply to computers and digital and wireless devices" and comments that "at first I was surprised at these questions - of course they do; wasn't the answer obvious?" xiv

"I was absolutely talking about computers. I deliberately didn't use computers and other digital devices as examples because I wanted to show that the very same principles that applied to the design of doorknobs and light switches also applied to computers, digital cameras, cell phones, nuclear power control rooms, and aircraft - and, of course, vice versa". xv

Is this worth mentioning? 87.112.108.105 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think we should mention this connection.  Otherwise, there's nothing in the article that would lead people who are not very familiar with HCI to know that this is one of the most important texts in HCI.DrJill-from-NH (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New version isbn[edit]

The 'Expanded and revised' version of 2013 has new ISBN(s): ISBN10 0465050654 ISBN13 9780465050659 and/or ISBN10 0262525674 ISBN13 9780262525671 but I'm not sure how to put multiple ISBNs in the box? Can someone help me? Thanks peterl (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Affordance vs Signifier[edit]

The article reads: "Examples of affordances are flat plates on doors meant to be pushed". I think this is actually an example of signifier. It doesn't make the door openable, it just signifies that it can be opened if you push it on the plate. Ivant (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A sign saying "Push" would be a signifier of how to manipulate the door. As an affordance, a push plate is itself a possibility for manipulating the door, and is readily perceived as such. About this the book says, "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." (Ch. 4, p. 87 in the 2002 Basic Books edition) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose merging Seven stages of action, Gulf of execution and Gulf of evaluation into The Design of Everyday Things. The creation of multiple articles for every other concept and idea from the book 'The Design of Everyday Things' is completely unnecessary. The content from the three articles can easily be explained in the context of the The Design of Everyday Things article. Thenightaway (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]