This spring I’ve been enrolled in COGS 200 – the seminar course associated with the cog sci department’s talk series (this is a requirement of my IDP). This year’s lineup included speakers such as Ed Hutchins (former department chair), Scott Klemmer (peer studio), Eric Vinkhuyzen (parc), Bonnie Nardi (heteromation); yesterday was the last talk of the year, which was given by none-other than Don Norman.
I want to talk about Don. He is the founding chair of UCSD’s Cognitive Science Department, co-founder and consultant with the Nielsen Norman Group, and former Apple VP. He is currently the founding director of UCSD Design Lab. Don is 80, but unlike many elders of the ivory tower, he is certainly not a Luddite. Instead of both shunning and criticizing contemporary tech-ware like many prototypical golden-agers, he only engages in the criticism part. Don believes that a device or piece of technology should be easy to use, and if it’s not, there is a flaw in the design (not with the person using it). To be more precise, it’s not that Don believes everything should be easy to use, per se, but that things should be more user friendly. Sure that idea may be obvious now, but it wasn’t always, and Don was an advocate for ‘user-friendliness’ before it was cool (see: The Trouble with Unix: The user interface is horrid (1981)). Naturally, he wrote a best-selling book about it called The Design of Everyday Things.
No I’m not talking about another book by Professor Norman; I’m talking about thee designer apotheosis, in Don’s world. According to his formulation the designer, by definition, is someone who helps people bridge the “gulf” between execution (learning what to do) and evaluation (figuring out why an action did/didn’t work). If you’ve ever helped create a product and that wasn’t your main objective, you weren’t the designer, you were something else. Maybe you were the inventor, or the engineer, or the programmer, or the manufacturer, which are certainly important roles; but to reiterate, unless your main objective was to determine how to make a product/device more-better for humans, you weren’t the designer.
Maybe today Don will tell you that’s not at all how he defines the role of the designer. But that was his definition yesterday, mutatis mutandis. I know because he spent an hour explicating the complex mysteries of user-centered design, to me. To clarify, I introduced Don and provided an overview of his work; the goal was to craft a proem that could spark discussion ASAP. Why was that the goal? Well, for one this is an assignment, and it happened to be my week (there were two other students who could have started talking in the 10-second eternity between the time the instructor said “ok guys, go ahead and get us started”, and the time I opened my mouth… but they didn’t). Two, I barely know of Don. Yes, he is famous, but not in my field. Three, he was there, sitting right there in the front of class. How are you supposed to talk about the objet d’art when the artist is in the room? Four, to be honest I couldn’t give a shit about the psychology of design. But that was yesterday. I have since changed my feelings about the subject. All because of Don.
You see, product design is incredibly important to manufacturers and corporations. The tiniest detail can mean the difference between a product become highly profitable and one that flops. Thus, billions of dollars are invested every year in R&D; a chunk of which is spent on design consultants, for which Don has elite status. However, there is nothing remarkable about the intellect of Dr. Norman, the 80 year-old cognitive scientist. That is, aside from him being, at 80, far more sagacious than the average scientist studying psychology and human cognition. I presume this is because Don’s undergrad was in electrical engineering and computer science, at MIT. He was a student of the hard sciences, but somewhere along the way Don realized that he could be an elite psychologist. It was an interesting field, and he had lots of mental tools many psychologists lacked. So Don quickly worked his way to the top of the food-chain. He became intimately familiar with psychology jargon, inventing some of it; and now to listen to him talk, well, it’s just entertaining.
It’s just entertaining.
What do you mean ‘lost it’?
Well, literally. It responds to ping. It’s completely functional – great up-time like I mentioned. We just can’t figure out where it is.
It is the kind of tale any ITT/BOFH can dine-out on for months.
The story was that some bright young spark at the University of North Carolina realized a physical audit of their server equipment was overdue. After the techs went to visibly inspect the servers, they discovered that nobody could find a Novell server, ‘Server 54’ (one of their best) that was running NT. This suggested that nobody had actually physically maintenanced it, or even seen it, in at least FOUR years.
The search went on for weeks to no avail. Finally it was decided that the only option was to hand-trace all the network cabling throughout campus. Interestingly, one set of network cables led straight into a “solid wall” and looped back out for no apparent reason. There were no doors or even vent shafts to peek behind the wall. After the rest of the physical trace was completed, and the server still missing, it was decided it was time to cut a hole into the wall…
And there it was, Server 54, ol’ reliable, resting on shelf in an alcove that maintenance workers had sealed off many years earlier and forgot about.
If you are a grad student (I don’t pretend faculty read my blog) at a research-based university, it’s likely that you have heard the adage “Publish or die.” Well, the precept isn’t entirely true. After all, a “good” student will still be granted a PhD, published or not. The unpublished won’t be getting those top tier post-doc positions, but there are plenty of opportunities for a PhD student from a respectable university. What’s more detrimental for an aspiring doctoral student is the mastery of vocabulary, grammar, and spelling. Straight up, if you don’t get a reasonable score on the GRE (where over half the test is based on those factors), you die. Let’s face it, if your bachelors degree wasn’t in engineering, it amounts to shit.
I say you this — what the hell? If I was in charge of recruitment and acceptance for a graduate program, let’s say a neuroscience PhD program, I’d want the incoming students to have an exceptional understanding of …(get this)… neuroscience. Call me crazy. I would poll my faculty, and ask each of them to produce a list of 10 questions they’d want an incoming student to know. Then I would test potential students based on this pool of questions.
That’s just not how we roll here in the US. Esoteric vocabulary and impeccable grammar, that’s what separates grad students from undergraduates. Though, I’ve never quite understood the point of knowing a word that only 10 percent of aspiring graduate students know. Which means it is a word that nobody fuckin knows. But that’s how the GRE works. If everybody knew the word, then how can we tell if you’re smart!
Here’s the thing, devotees of grammatical studies have not been distinguished for any very remarkable felicities of expression. Correct English is the slang of prigs who wrote history and essays. A man would be a fool if he couldn’t produce and understand words spelled more than one way. It’s a uniquely human phenomenon, the capacity to deduce meaning from cmopeltyl scarbmeled wrods as if spelling is a footnote to an afterthought. But as long as you can looks smart by stealing quotes, substitute big words, and watch those split infinitives, you will do alright my friend. All others will die.