Good+vs.+Bad+Designs

=**Problem?**= Cup holders in vehicles are ideal; however their positioning is crucial to their effectiveness. In this vehicle (model and make unknown, standard look of most older model vehicles), the cup holder is stationed at the cars centre console. This causes obstruction while accessing the vehicles audio system while also promoting a potential hazard for spilling when the operator is shifting as it is so closely situated by the vehicles shifter lever.

=**Solution:**= It imperative upon creation that the environment in which the invention is intended for is considered. In this example the cup holder was stationed to close to the vehicles shifter knob and audio system thus causing an obstruction.

Many new car manufacturers have taken this design issue into consideration and have implemented a design to eradicate this problem. In the following example bellow of a Honda Prelude we can see how car manufacturers have worked to improve the design concept of the cup holder from the above example. The new cup holder is now stationed below the shifter knob away from any obstruction. Further, the cup is now positioned in a place were it will not pose a problem for access to the audio system controls.



//Example of a cup holder in a Honda Prelude.//

Example of two vehciles; one with a gas tank on the left of the vehicle and the other on the right.
 * Vehcile Gas Tanks**

=**Problem?**= Gas caps are NOT standardized, thus individuals are responsible to recall which side of the car the tank is on. (On the right hand side of the vehicle or the left). For some users this may lead to confusion and bitter frustrations.

=**Solution:**= //In The Design of Everyday Things, Donald Norman notes a key advantage of standardization: “No matter how arbitrary the standardized mechanism, it only has to be learned once.”// Standardization of the gas tank on vehicles among other features such as steering wheel location etc., would make it easier for the user to recall its location. Thus, as Norman suggests the user would only have to remember where it was located once. This proposed solution would also allivate frusterations for individuals who may at times mistakenly pull up their vehicles on the wrong side at he gas pump.

**Dove Shampoo Bottles**
=Problem?= Manufacturers of various toiletries products tend to package their products in similar bottles. Dove in particular in this example, bottles their shampoo and conditioner in nearly identical bottles. The bottle which hold their contents are not easily distinguishable to users. The bottles vary by one simple design feature; the cap on the top of the bottle, while the other sits at the bottom of the bottle. Consider the following //scenario;// Mike is late for his Lecture but decides to take a quick shower before he heads out. Mike picks up a bottle and starts working it through his hair. He quickly realizes there is a problem. It's thicker then usual and does not latter. Mike mistakenly confused the two similar bottles and uses conditioner versus the desired shampoo. Mike neglected to carefully examine the bottle before use, his quick shower has now turned into time wasted trying to rinse and reapply the desired product. =Solution:= Donald Norman suggests, that under the principle of visibility "designers should make visible the important aspects of a system. Ideally, the actions that a user can perform on a device should be obvious by just looking at the device itself". Thus, manufactures should modify their packaging to differ from one another by more then just one single feature. For example, by varying the contents by different colour bottles, or sizes, would result in better usability.

**Stovetop Range**
=Problem?= In this example of a traditional stove top (Make and model unknown) it is very difficult to determine which controls turn on what burner. Thus, the poor mapping makes it difficult for users to achieve desired results easily (turning on the desired burner).

=Solution:= Arranging the controls in the same layout as the stove burners would help users to understand which control, controls each individual burner. Norman suggests that "there should be a clear relation or mapping between intentions and possible actions and between actions and their effect on a system or device". This will result in better user interaction with the device, and avoid possible error. This example of a range top stove shows how the control knobs are consistent with the burners layout. Users are able to distinguish effortlessly which control works what burner resulting in better usability.


 * References**

Darnell, Michael J J. //"Bad Designs."// 28 Sept. 2006. Online. <[|http://www.baddesigns.com/examples.html>.]Consulted on Dec. 7 2006

Stoytchev, Alexander. //"Donald Norman's Philosophy on Design for Everyday Interaction."// Online. <[|http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/classes/cs6751_97_fall/projects/follow_me/exam/alexandre.html>.]Consulted on Dec. 7 2006

Images from www.google.ca/images