Donald A. Norman Quotes

The hardest part of design ... is keeping features out.

Computer scientists have so far worked on developing powerful programming languages that make it possible to solve the technical problems of computation. Little effort has gone toward devising the languages of interaction.

Isn't one of your first exercises in learning how to communicate to write a description of how to tie your shoelaces? The point being that it's basically impossible to use text to show that

It is not enough that we build products that function, that are understandable and usable, we also need to build products that bring joy and excitement, pleasure and fun, and, yes, beauty to people's lives.

Technology may change rapidly, but people change slowly. The principals [of design] come from understanding of people. They remain true forever.

So what does a good teacher do? Create tension - but just the right amount.

In my opinion, no single design is apt to be optimal for everyone.

And to get real work experience, you need a job, and most jobs will require you to have had either real work experience or a graduate degree.

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.

Also note that invariably when we design something that can be used by those with disabilities, we often make it better for everyone

Beauty and brains, pleasure and usability - they should go hand in hand.

Go to the bookstore and look at how many bookshelves are filled with books trying to explain how to work the devices. We don't see shelves of books on how to use television sets, telephones, refrigerators or washing machines. Why should we for computer-based applications?

In the consumer economy taste is not the criterion in the marketing of expensive soft drinks, usability is not the primary criterion in the marketing of home and office appliances. We are surrounded with objects of desire, not objects of use.

The world is complex, and so too must be the activities that we perform. But that doesn't mean that we must live in continual frustration. No. The whole point of human-centered design is to tame complexity, to turn what would appear to be a complicated tool into one that fits the task, that is understandable, usable, enjoyable.

I believe that robots should only have faces if they truly need them

I think a successful company is one where everybody owns the same mission. Out of necessity, we divide ourselves up into discipline groups. But the goal when you are actually doing the work is to somehow forget what discipline group you are in and come together. So in that sense, nobody should own user experience; everybody should own it.

Design is really an act of communication, which means having a deep understanding of the person with whom the designer is communicating.

Innocence lost is not easily regained. The designer simply cannot predict the problems people will have, the misinterpretations that will arise, and the errors that will get made.

When you have trouble with things—whether it's figuring out whether to push or pull a door or the arbitrary vagaries of the modern computer and electronics industries—it's not your fault. Don't blame yourself: blame the designer.

Knowing how people will use something is essential

No product is an island. A product is more than the product. It is a cohesive, integrated set of experiences. Think through all of the stages of a product or service - from initial intentions through final reflections, from first usage to help, service, and maintenance. Make them all work together seamlessly. That's systems thinking.

User experience is really the whole totality. Opening the package good example. It's the total experience that matters. And that starts from when you first hear about a product experience is more based upon memory than reality. If your memory of the product is wonderful, you will excuse all sorts of incidental things.

I believe that the Apple Shuffle is an excellent compromise among the conflicting requirements of simplicity, elegance, size, battery life, and function

We delude ourselves if we believe that skilled behavior is easy, that it can come about without effort. We forget the years of tuning, of learning and practice it takes to be skilled at even the most fundamental of human activities: eating, walking, talking, reading, and writing. It is tempting to want instant gratification - immediate expert performance and experiential pleasure - but the truth is that this primarily occurs only after considerable amounts of accretion and tuning.

Complexity is acceptable as long as it is intelligible and necessary. We want to avoid needless complications.

Everything has a personality: everything sends an emotional signal. Even where this was not the intention of the designer, the people who view the website infer personalities and experience emotions. Bad websites have horrible personalities and instill horrid emotional states in their users, usually unwittingly. We need to design things-products, websites, services-to convey whatever personality and emotions are desired.

The major problems facing the development of products that are safer, less prone to error, and easier to use and understand are not technological: they are social and organizational.

It is relatively easy to design for the perfect cases, when everything goes right, or when all the information required is available in proper format

Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right.

We expert teachers know that motivation and emotional impact are what matter.

Attractive things work better When you wash and wax a car, it drives better, doesn’t it? Or at least feels like it does.

You won't catch me giving clear lectures.

If you're more susceptible to interruption, you do more out of the box thinking.

I've been looking at the iPod- the Apple iPod. One of the interesting things about the iPod, one of the things that people love most about it is not the technology; it's the box it comes in

The problem with emotion was that it was clearly something important, but-at least according to the old philosophy-it was something to overcome.

Am I an Apple bigot? No. I can critique their products and their customer service philosophy. But overall, they do better than any other player.

I prefer design by experts - by people who know what they are doing

I think there is a tendency in science to measure what is measurable and to decide that what you cannot measure must be uninteresting.

Technology usually provides a series of tradeoffs. Each asset is offset by a deficit...A major problem occurs when those who suffer from technology's defecits and those who benefit are not the same people.

Creeping featurism is a disease, fatal if not treated promptly. There are some cures, but, as usual, the best approach is to practice preventative medicine.

Our information lives will be better served when we are free to get to our information from wherever we are, with any device available.

AS for all those mistakes I make - they are on purpose - to teach you how to deal with them

I'm not a fan of technology . I'm a fan of pedagogy, of understanding how people learn and the most effective learning methods. But technology enables some exciting changes.

Too many companies believe that all they must do is provide a 'neat' technology or some 'cool' product or, sometimes, just good, solid engineering. Nope. All of those are desirable (and solid engineering is a must), but there is much more to a successful product than that: understanding how the product is to be used, design, engineering, positioning, marketing, branding-all matter. It requires designing the Total User Experience.

Behavioral design is all about feeling in control. Includes: usability, understanding, but also the feel.

When I use a direct manipulation system whether for text editing, drawing pictures, or creating and playing games I do think of myself not as using a computer but as doing the particular task. The computer is, in effect, invisible. The point cannot be overstressed: make the computer system invisible.

Having the best product means nothing if the people won't buy it.

Everyday people are not very good designers.

To me, error analysis is the sweet spot for improvement.

How do you discover a need that nobody yet knows about? This is where the product breakthroughs come through.