However, design that is not so bad but at the same time could be better is not easy to find. It is more like an irritant. We know that something is wrong, but we can't quite place it. It may gnaw our minds for the few minutes before and after we interact with it and goes away till we interact with the same piece again. Recently, I came across such a design that prompted me to write this post. Now, I am not really ranting about the design (although blogs are rants in most cases). Instead, I am posting this to see if any of you who come over here have experienced such nagging as well and hopefully knowing that the nag has a reason may help you be more at peach - a noble goal indeed!
The design in question is simple - a restroom. Rather, the sign to a restroom. The picture below is the corridor in my office building that I rarely visit. By looking at it (the viewpoint from when you get into the corridor), can you figure out where the restroom is?
I had the same issue. While thankfully I was not in a hurry to reach the said destination, it did take me a wrong turn and some careful looking on either side to find the right place (the different gender rooms are on either side of the entrance). Of course, there is a nice little universal sign in front of the door that indicates my destination. However, I could not see it until I was right in front of the door.
While this design is in general adequate and acceptable, it could have been made a lot better with just a simple tweak - make the sign perpendicular to the door so that it sticks out in the corridor (probably near the ceiling so that it does not hit someone in the face). This way, it will be fairly easy for someone to know where the restroom is without having to look at each and every door! It does not really cost much to make this change, but can make a difference in simple comfort.
Another example I have seen is the way doors swing in a cafeteria. For example, it's probably more useful to set up the doors such that you push when getting out of the cafeteria and pull when you are going in. This way, if you have your hands full with food, you just push the door. However, I have seen this being done the other way.
I am sure if we look into the software we write or use everyday, such simple to fix issues can be found in many places that only required a little extra effort to make a difference. Some good books to read in this regard are The Universal Principles of Design
and The Design of Everyday Things
. Hopefully it helps in increasing your attention to detail. It definitely helped for me.Can you think of such minor annoyances for which you could see some simple fixes that would make just the difference required? Please post a comment.
4 comments:
Sathya,
I find that since I've done a little studying on design, I find it more annoying than before I knew anything about design -- I suppose ignorance is bliss!
I am constantly noticing annoying design deficiencies, such as why do ovens not have a safety latch (500 degrees and no easy way to keep a kid out)?
However, I am also noticing how many great designs there are. For example, the US highway system with clearly readable signs (regardless of how screwed up a town or road name may be), ramps that are designed to handle your car at appropriate speeds, road curvature to drain off rain, guard rails to deflect your car from opposing traffic, etc.
In the examples you give, while yes, you are correct that the sign could have been better placed, I find that things that have a fairly narrow audience (repeat users, etc.) don't need to be as obvious. That is, most people that work in an office building already know where the restrooms are, so signage is less important. However, in a public place with a wide infrequent audience, such as a fast-food restaurant or a mall, properly displayed signs are more important.
I agree with you on the cafeteria door. Unless, the cafeteria is also an emergency exit. If you notice all commercial doorways open towards the exit. That's by DESIGN. It's so crowds can quickly escape in an emergency. I think it become more widespread law after the Coconaut Grove fire of 1942 in Boston. The nighclub had only one open exit - a revolving door. 492 people died in the fire. Since then, all revolving doors are flanked by swinging doors on either side and all doors open outward.
So, my question is this -- is the cafeteria considered part of an emergency escape route? If so, that's why the doors swing in. If not, then that's just stupid. =-)
Great post, as usual!
Great point on the oven - never really thought about it!
Definitely agree that US interstate system is a great example of good design (although I have found quite a few super-confusing signs, especially around exits!).
I agree with your statement on repeat customers vs. non-repeat. However, I won't accept that as a poor excuse for a design - the argument is what Steve Jobs is making for the iPhone - expecting users to hold the phone 'differently' instead of fixing the damn phone. Just because you will get used to the bad design is no excuse for bad design in the first place! I guess I noticed it more than others since I am an irregular visitor to the office - a consultant, if you will ;)
Normally, I would've just ignored it as an annoyance, but I remember seeing the sign as I had suggested (perpendicular to the hallway) elsewhere, which somehow stuck in my mind as a 'good' thing.
Reg. the cafeteria door, to my recollection it was not a designated emergency exit, although it had other doors from there to go outside the building. Even if it does, it kind of becomes a gray area - do you optimize your design for a 1% scenario or the 99% scenario (Pareto Principle)? Worst case, the first person to try to get out will pull the door and put a stopper. Is the reduction of that additional effort worth daily frustration?
Thanks for providing your viewpoints. I am going to keep an eye out from now on and post some pictures on more examples!
About the sign... Would it not be good design for you to have a sign above the restroom in your home? Isn't it true that the first time a guest visits your home and needs the restroom, they always ask and you point the way? "It's straight down the hall on the right."
So, why would you not adhere to good design standards in your own home? Or better yet, why are none of your light switches labeled, even if there's a stack of them together?
People usually try to balance necessity versus aesthetics. Basically, it would be ugly for you to have a sign hanging above your bathroom door. It would make your home seem less homey and more commercial. Having a well-labeled bathroom is less important than the aesthetics of your home, so you give priority to aesthetics design over functional design in that case.
The same may hold true for an office building. In high-traffic, irregular audience areas (lobbies, restaurants, stores, malls), functional design needs priority. But in areas where the audience is more regular, perhaps aesthetics (and laziness and cost) start to take priority.
I'm sure Brother P-Touch would prefer a world where priority was given to functionality over aesthetics -- label the world! =-)
About the doors in the cafeteria, I hear your perspective about accommodating the 1% over the 99%. However, the value of the 1% (saving a life) far outweighs the value of the 99% (convenience). Besides, it's probably not their choice -- it's probably building code. That is, they have to do it that way.
Great discussion!
OK. I'll bite. Here's my counter-argument.
I agree with the trade-off between aesthetics and function. However, the two scenarios are quite different. For one, the ratio of rooms/users to bathrooms is much smaller (2:1 or 3:1 at most) compared to an office (100:1 or more), so it is more complicated to give instructions individually. Second, homes normally do not change their design across tenants, while most office buildings constantly change (internally as well as tenant-wise). With such migrating population, it becomes crucial to ensure that non-moving parts such as restrooms are well-labeled. In this particular case, to me, the trade-off between form and function was so minimal that it could've been done without significant sacrifice. I understand that such trade-off may be a bit more complex in other cases.
While I agree that the 1% is more important than 99%, you should also take into account how much of an inconvenience it will be. Obviously, if this is something as complicated to use as a revolving door, the cost of convenience for the 1% becomes more important to the function of 99%. However, if it is just a question of opening the door and sticking a door stopper (one-time activity compared to every-time activity), then it may be worth the risk.
Of course, if the building code prevents this, you can't do much!
Nice follow-up!
Post a Comment