Skip to main content

Design for a Better World - Don Norman ***

Don Norman is, without doubt, one of the most influential figures in design - and particularly in making designs fit for human use. In his definitive The Design of Everyday Things he identified designs that 'probably won a prize' but that totally fail to make clear to the user how to use them. He pointed out that something as simple as a door, for example, had opportunities for design failure. Whether it was glass doors that couldn't be distinguished from windows, or doors you had to push that were fitted with a pull handle, he showed how a focus on appearance over usability could make for terrible design.

In this book he attempts to take on an even bigger target - the way that we move the world away from its natural state, what can go wrong with that and how better design - and more inclusion of design in our approach - could change things.

In principle, this is great, but unfortunately the book fails to deliver beyond broad brush concepts. Norman addresses how to communicate in meaningful ways, the importance of sustainability, moving from 'human centred' to 'humanity centred', transforming human behaviour and the possibilities for action. And in each of these areas, he comes up with some good ideas, but part of the problem is that the book itself falls over on the design front. 

I'm not talking about the dull cover, or even that the font is just a bit too small to read comfortably. It's more that designing a piece of writing to get a message across effectively involves making the text well structured and readable. It means telling stories well. But that just doesn't happen here. The whole thing is verbose - Norman doesn't get past the introduction before page 57. The text is extremely repetitive and feels very thin on detail. It simply doesn't read well.

There are a few other issues. Some of the arguments seem forced. A central message is that, while STEM is extremely important, we drive things too much from science and maths. Norman gives the example of the seasons, claiming the four seasons are arbitrarily based on astronomical data and don't reflect real experience. This is true in some countries - however, in the UK, for example, no one cares about the astronomical seasons, but there are four very clear, very different periods in the year that arise from a combination of weather and the behaviour of nature. There are also one or two oddities in the science Norman mentions. It's not too bad that he seems to say that tides are higher because the Moon is full, rather than because of the same reason that the Moon is full. At one point, though, he describes hydrogen as a power source like wind and solar, where it's actually an energy transmission medium.

I am a huge fan of Don Norman's work on design, but for me, this book doesn't do what I'd hoped it would in giving clear design-based guidance on building a better world for humanity. In some ways, this book parallels aspects of Hans Rosling's remarkable book Factfulness. It even overlaps in places, where Norman argues for better presentation of data rather than meaningless single figures like GDP, and gives examples of ways of presenting data that aren't as good as Rosling's. It's a shame Norman ignores Factfulness, rather than building on its starting point, which could have produced a much stronger outcome. In the end this isn't the design-based manifesto for the future that it might have been.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...