With decades as the eminent design guru of his time , cognitive scientist and director of UC San Diego ’ s Design Lab Don Norman calls for a change in thinking when it comes to our relationship with technology . We at Triton knew our readership of changemakers would be the perfect audience to hear it first .
Over 90 % of industrial and automobile accidents are blamed on human error , with distraction listed as a major cause . Can this be true ? Look , if 5 % of accidents were caused by human error , I would believe it . But when it is 90 %, there must be some other reason , namely , that people are asked to do tasks that people should not be doing — tasks that violate fundamental human abilities .
Consider distraction . This is a negative attribute of people , or so we are told . But think about it — what does this term really mean ?
Whenever I wander around a city , I ’ ll often stop to examine some unique thing I notice . Why ? Curiosity — a natural human trait . My curiosity frequently leads me to insights that have helped me in my career . So why is this wonderful , creative trait of curiosity given the negative term “ distraction ”? Because curiosity can distract us from a prior activity , which under the wrong circumstances can lead to accident or injury .
Cognitive scientists have long known that the human nervous system is very sensitive to changes in the environment . As a result , people are naturally curious . This sensitivity keeps us alert to environmental changes , both good and bad , that might affect us . It also allows us to notice novel patterns and opportunities . Curiosity is a great source of creativity .
Similarly , when people discover an interesting concept , the subconscious mind keeps working on it even as conscious thoughts go elsewhere . Psychologists call this process “ incubation .” Finding a solution to a difficult concept or problem can require hours , weeks or months of subconscious incubation . Later , while doing activities that do not require much conscious attention , the subconscious incubation process can become conscious , a phenomenon called mind-wandering . This can lead to new , creative thoughts and to solving long-standing problems . From a human-centered point of view , mind-wandering is critical to creative abilities . From the technologist ’ s perspective , it is bad — yet another distraction .
Throughout my years as an academic researcher and an industry executive , I slowly began to recognize that the tension between curiosity and distraction was actually tension between a
“ Whenever I wander around a city , I ’ ll often stop to examine some unique thing I notice . My curiosity frequently leads me to insights that have helped me in my career .”
human-centered view of the world and a technology-centered one . We , as a society , have long emphasized technology over people . ( The motto of the 1933 World ’ s Fair , for example , was “ Science Finds , Industry Applies , Man Conforms .”) This technology-centered approach forces people to behave according to the needs and requirements of technology . No wonder there are so many accidents blamed on human error . We need to flip the emphasis to something like “ People Propose , Technology Conforms .”
For many decades I have been part of the human-centered design movement to make it easier for people to use and understand technology . In other words , I helped develop a science of better patches . Today I realize that I was only treating the symptom . The real , underlying cause is that we have unwittingly accepted the paradigm that technology comes first , with people relegated to doing the actions that machines cannot do . This requires people to act like machines — watching over them , ever ready to take over when things go wrong , but with all our activities dictated by the needs of the technology .
This practice has been with us for so many centuries that it appears obvious , sensible and correct . The result , however , is that people are forced to do things they are bad at . And then , when people turn out to be bad at doing the things they are bad at , they are blamed . Consider the terms to describe the result : human error , distraction , lack of attention , sloppiness — all negative terms , all implying the inferiority of people . Nonsense , I say .
In order to change , the first step is to recognize the subtle biases that have led to this domination by the needs of technology rather than the needs of people . The second step is to reverse the priorities , starting with the strengths of people and constructing technologies that amplify those strengths . We already have numerous examples : The invention of symbol systems that can be drawn , saved and shared is perhaps the most powerful — symbol systems such as writing , mathematical , musical and dance notation . These tools have empowered us . So too with many of the communication tools we use today .
Scientists and technologists are continually discovering powerful new concepts . This is good . But difficulties arise in the mindset used in transforming the new ideas into products and services . Instead of starting with the technology and attempting to make it easy to understand and use , let us take human capabilities , and use the technology to expand our abilities .
We must change from being technology-centric to become people-centric . It is time to change our mindset . Hurrah for the human side .
Thoughts ? Email tritonmag @ ucsd . edu or visit tritonmag . com / DonNorman
TRITONMAG . COM 17