Exercise 1

Object 1	Object 2	Object 3

When first moving to MIT, particularly Simmons Hall, I was very confused by the windows. There are so many of them that you would think they would be easy to open, however, I wasn't able to open any of them without the help of a roomate. I was so confused that I thought they were all decoration. Immediately this poses a great learnability issue in the design. My roommate taught me the way to open the window is to first pull up the left handle and then rotate the handle at the bottom clockwise. My initial thought was that it was a very unintuitive way to open a window. In addition, both handles are essentially holding the window shut and are very difficult to open. This poses an even greater safety risk as in the case of an emergency, it would be very difficult to open the window. Additionally, individuals with disabilities may have a very difficult time opening the window. There is also an efficiency issue as the window is not very easy to open and requires a nontrivial amount of strength to open. To improve the design of the window, we must address key DOET principles. First, the window should provide a clearer affordance for opening—perhaps through a handle that naturally invites pulling or pushing. Adding a signifier, such as a visible label or an intuitive grip shape, would help users understand the correct action. The mapping of the handles should align with user expectations; for example, a single, clearly labeled latch that releases the window in a single motion would improve usability. Additionally, reducing physical constraints—such as excessive force required to open the window—would make it more accessible, especially for individuals with disabilities. Enhancing feedback through a soft-click mechanism or visual indicators (like a color change when unlocked) would reassure users that they are interacting with the window correctly. By incorporating these design improvements, the window would be more discoverable, intuitive, and safer, addressing both learnability and efficiency concerns.	At first glance this may seem like a normal mirror, but in reality if you look closely it is actually a mirror that opens up to a cabinet of shelf space. As many others, it took me several weeks before I realized that there was in fact actually a cabinet behind the mirror. This is a great example of a design that is not very learnable. The user would initially struggle to understand how to open the cabinet and would likely never realize without some kind of outside instruction. It's very unlikely that a user would have encountered a similar mirrored designed like this in the past and thus likely would be unable to apply their previous experiences when interacting with this design. In addition to learnability, this design proposes a major safety risk. For instance, if the user accidentally open the mirror. As the mirror opens outward, it could lead to them easily being hit by the mirror. Additionally, as this is a mirror, it can propose challenges to those that are more visually impaired due to depth perception. So they may struggle to open it as well as may pinch their fingers closing it. Lastly, this mirror has some efficiency issues due to space constraints and the need to frequently clean the mirror. When opening the mirror, I always feel the need to step back to ensure that it doesn't swing in my face. Also, mirrors are already very prone to marks and dirt accumulation. A mirror where you always have to touch the glass requires much more attention. Improving this design would be very simple by applying the DOET concepts. The mirror could be designed to have a handle or some kind of latch that would make it clear that it is a cabinet. This would act as a signifier to the user the affordance that the mirror is also a cabinet. This would greatly improve the discoverability and learnability of the design and would make it much easier for the user to understand how to open the cabinet.	Like many college students, I enjoy hanging pictures and posters on my dorm wall. However, when initially buying the strips for hanging up the pictures, I was very confused about the Velcro strips that I was given, to the point that I had to read the instruction manual to learn how they worked. I thought that I could just peel off the paper and stick the strips to the wall. I realized that I had to actually combine the two strips together using the Velcro before I could hang up the picture. This is a great example of a design that is not very learnable. The user would initially struggle to understand how to use the strips and would likely never realize without some kind of outside instruction. Additionally, this is also an efficiency issue as it would overall take more time to read the instructions and to actually put the strips together. Furthermore, there is a safety issue—if the strips are not assembled correctly, the picture may fall unexpectedly, potentially damaging fragile items or injuring someone if a heavy frame is involved. To improve this design in terms of LES, we can apply DOET principles. First, the affordance of the strips should clearly indicate their function—a single-piece adhesive strip with no assembly required would make usage more intuitive. Adding a signifier, such as printed arrows or icons directly on the strips, could guide users on how to attach them correctly. The mapping between the adhesive and the Velcro components should be clearer; for example, color coding or distinct textures could help differentiate the two sides. Additionally, improving feedback, such as a visible indicator when the strips are correctly attached, could prevent mistakes that lead to pictures falling. By incorporating these design improvements, the strips would be easier to use, safer, and more efficient, eliminating the need for extensive instructions while reducing setup time.

Object 1

Object 2

Object 3

When first moving to MIT, particularly Simmons Hall, I was very confused by the windows. There are so many of them that you would think they would be easy to open, however, I wasn't able to open any of them without the help of a roomate. I was so confused that I thought they were all decoration. Immediately this poses a great learnability issue in the design. My roommate taught me the way to open the window is to first pull up the left handle and then rotate the handle at the bottom clockwise. My initial thought was that it was a very unintuitive way to open a window. In addition, both handles are essentially holding the window shut and are very difficult to open. This poses an even greater safety risk as in the case of an emergency, it would be very difficult to open the window. Additionally, individuals with disabilities may have a very difficult time opening the window. There is also an efficiency issue as the window is not very easy to open and requires a nontrivial amount of strength to open.

To improve the design of the window, we must address key DOET principles. First, the window should provide a clearer affordance for opening—perhaps through a handle that naturally invites pulling or pushing. Adding a signifier, such as a visible label or an intuitive grip shape, would help users understand the correct action. The mapping of the handles should align with user expectations; for example, a single, clearly labeled latch that releases the window in a single motion would improve usability. Additionally, reducing physical constraints—such as excessive force required to open the window—would make it more accessible, especially for individuals with disabilities. Enhancing feedback through a soft-click mechanism or visual indicators (like a color change when unlocked) would reassure users that they are interacting with the window correctly. By incorporating these design improvements, the window would be more discoverable, intuitive, and safer, addressing both learnability and efficiency concerns.

At first glance this may seem like a normal mirror, but in reality if you look closely it is actually a mirror that opens up to a cabinet of shelf space. As many others, it took me several weeks before I realized that there was in fact actually a cabinet behind the mirror. This is a great example of a design that is not very learnable. The user would initially struggle to understand how to open the cabinet and would likely never realize without some kind of outside instruction. It's very unlikely that a user would have encountered a similar mirrored designed like this in the past and thus likely would be unable to apply their previous experiences when interacting with this design. In addition to learnability, this design proposes a major safety risk. For instance, if the user accidentally open the mirror. As the mirror opens outward, it could lead to them easily being hit by the mirror. Additionally, as this is a mirror, it can propose challenges to those that are more visually impaired due to depth perception. So they may struggle to open it as well as may pinch their fingers closing it. Lastly, this mirror has some efficiency issues due to space constraints and the need to frequently clean the mirror. When opening the mirror, I always feel the need to step back to ensure that it doesn't swing in my face. Also, mirrors are already very prone to marks and dirt accumulation. A mirror where you always have to touch the glass requires much more attention.

Improving this design would be very simple by applying the DOET concepts. The mirror could be designed to have a handle or some kind of latch that would make it clear that it is a cabinet. This would act as a signifier to the user the affordance that the mirror is also a cabinet. This would greatly improve the discoverability and learnability of the design and would make it much easier for the user to understand how to open the cabinet.

Like many college students, I enjoy hanging pictures and posters on my dorm wall. However, when initially buying the strips for hanging up the pictures, I was very confused about the Velcro strips that I was given, to the point that I had to read the instruction manual to learn how they worked. I thought that I could just peel off the paper and stick the strips to the wall. I realized that I had to actually combine the two strips together using the Velcro before I could hang up the picture. This is a great example of a design that is not very learnable. The user would initially struggle to understand how to use the strips and would likely never realize without some kind of outside instruction. Additionally, this is also an efficiency issue as it would overall take more time to read the instructions and to actually put the strips together. Furthermore, there is a safety issue—if the strips are not assembled correctly, the picture may fall unexpectedly, potentially damaging fragile items or injuring someone if a heavy frame is involved.

To improve this design in terms of LES, we can apply DOET principles. First, the affordance of the strips should clearly indicate their function—a single-piece adhesive strip with no assembly required would make usage more intuitive. Adding a signifier, such as printed arrows or icons directly on the strips, could guide users on how to attach them correctly. The mapping between the adhesive and the Velcro components should be clearer; for example, color coding or distinct textures could help differentiate the two sides. Additionally, improving feedback, such as a visible indicator when the strips are correctly attached, could prevent mistakes that lead to pictures falling. By incorporating these design improvements, the strips would be easier to use, safer, and more efficient, eliminating the need for extensive instructions while reducing setup time.