Would you drink from this mug?

Sep 292009
 

Teachers — myself included — are always telling their students that they should connect their learning to themselves, to something the student feels passionate about. We know that this principle is largely based upon constructivist learning theories. It’s no secret that I am generally a constructivist (though I spice things up with aspects from other theories too), so I am taking a constructivist approach to my assignment this week. This week, I’ve been assigned to critique an interface, based on the readings I’ve been doing about design. Frank said we could critique pretty much anything that is an “everyday object” or even wider, to a kiosk or web page. I’m choosing something near and dear to my heart: a coffee travel mug.

If you know me well, you know I have a substantial collection of coffee mugs in my ownership. I don’t collect them for any reason other than because I love to drink coffee, and I love that travel mugs make the drinking of coffee so wonderfully convenient. The mug I’m critiquing today is this one (Fig.1):

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Overview:

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

This travel mug is a standard 12oz. (“tall”) sized mug made by Starbucks. It has a rubber bottom approximately two inches wide, and is approximately 8 inches tall. The base of the lid is about 3 inches in diameter, meaning it has a larger lid than base. (See Fig. 2) The mug’s exterior is made of hard, clear plastic, while the lid is made up of rigid burgundy plastic. Inside the lid, there is a rubber ring around the diameter of the lid where it screws onto the main part of the mug. (See Fig. 3) The lid screws on inside of the mug itself. The lid also has a flip-top with a “lip” made of rubber, a different material than the plastic which makes up the rest of the lid. The rubber on the “lip” is meant to completely close the hole in the top of the lid which would normally be used to drink from. In effect, closing the “lip” seals the container, though Starbucks is quick to point out in the material that comes with their products that they do NOT guarantee their mugs to be spill- or leak-proof.

Mapping:

The mapping of this object is fairly obvious in some places, but less explicit in others. For example. It is obvious where one should put his/her mouth — over the hole in the lid. Likewise, it is also obvious that to control the fluid entering / exiting the container, one needs to move the lid. It’s not well mapped as to where one is supposed to hold the mug, so I assume one is meant to hold it however necessary to get the liquid out of the container and into one’s mouth, which I believe would be the goal (well, it is in my case, anyway!). Thus, experimentation is again needed to tilt, hold, grip, and rotate the mug itself. This is not explicitly mapped, though I have a hard time imagining anyone would find difficulty with it, assuming they have some prior experience with a drinking container of some kind. In that sense, it is intuitive, but it is not mapped.

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Affordance:

If affordance is about giving the user an idea or clue of how to use something, then I will say it is less obvious how to “unlock” the lid when it is snapped shut over the lip. The lip protrudes over the edge of the lid, so it is implied that one has to use his /her fingers to pop it open, but there are no directional instructions (words, symbols).  Also much less obvious is how to open the lid. There are no arrows or other visual indicators to show how or which way to get the lid off of the main mug. It is only by experimentation or trial and error that one learns that it screws off, in the “standard” way (“righty-tighty, lefty-loosey”). Regarding affordance of what to do with the entire object: while it is intuitive as to what to do with this object, I might say that it has affordance in this respect (ie., it looks like something you are supposed to drink out of). However, as I stated earlier, this is not necessarily well-mapped and relies on the user’s previous experience / knowledge. One who did not have any experience with previous travel mugs, for example, might think that the main mug part of the object could be used as a vase, or a pencil holder. Thus, the design of the product itself does not have any affordances made to make it explicitly clear that this object is solely for drinking coffee.

Function and Feedback:

Considering what the product has been designed for, I think it achieves its purpose in a basic but adequate way. It holds coffee. The lid closes and thus it is relatively good at keeping the coffee inside when it is not being consumed. However, the function of stability is not as well accounted-for as it could be. Because the base is approximately 1 inch smaller in diameter than the top, the mug is not especially stable. This means it is easy to knock over, tip, or not set down properly, which could lead to the tragedy of spilled coffee. Even if the mug lip is closed over the lid, some does leak out if the mug is completely turned on its side. This is despite the design including a rubber ring around the lid and the rubber “stopper” in the lip. Additionally, the container is not insulated and so coffee does not stay warm for long. I might also add that the design is not compatible for rugged lifestyles, as when dropped, the item does crack.  (See Fig. 4) This is despite the very firm and heavy plastic used to create the product.

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Conclusion: Is this well-designed?

The interface for this mug is fairly well-designed, but it could be better. More specifically, I think this kind of object could be more ergonomically designed to fit neatly in a person’s hand (mapping). Also, I think more affordances could be made in terms of how to unscrew the lid and how to open the lip of the lid. Lastly, I think the design could be improved by widening the bottom of the base. This would prevent more accidents in terms of spillage, which could potentially be dangerous if the liquid inside is very hot.

Last thoughts:

Hmmm, I wonder if hypothetically Starbucks could ever be sued for poor design if the mug tipped over after one had just poured very hot coffee inside and the lip was open because I couldn’t figure out how to close it properly, or the lid not screwed on completely tight?

I’m kidding, of course, but it is food for thought, isn’t it? Is it my fault that the coffee mug is not designed for stability? or that I can’t figure out how to get the lid off?

What implications does design have for things like regular instructional planning and strategies? What about the design of a teacher’s classroom — how the desks are arranged, how the furniture is set up, where the whiteboard or projector screen is? What affordances are you providing for your students? How well-mapped is your project handout?

I have never thought about design in these ways before, but it certainly has got me thinking about larger implications. I’m even now thinking about how I can “re-design” my living space!

Photos are all mine.

Like this? You might also enjoy these:

 29 September, 2009  Posted by at 6:54 am Instructional Pedagogy, Representation and Interaction Design Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,  3 Responses »

My Life in Iconic Images

Sep 232009
 

… or, Representational Autobiconography as assigned by Frank Migliorelli

Creating “my story” was actually not as difficult as I had anticipated. Actually, for me the question was, Which story to tell? I drafted several outlines (0n paper — I always do my pre-writing/pre-project work on paper) and decided that most stories were too difficult to tell using iconic images. I think the reason is because I was thinking in terms of emotion rather than events, and emotions, while easy to convey using imagery such as photographs, are difficult to convey using icon-type images. So, I elected to tell a story with events and places. I even limited the people in my story — again, just too difficult to do simply without showing relationships and emotions.

(Note: thanks to those of you in my Twitter network who provided advice / tips. I hope my reasons above justify my choice of “techniques.” I so appreciate your input and hope you understand why I chose these techniques.)

The images I chose had largely to do with places and what it was I was doing in those places. It was a challenge to use iconic images to

represent places because the risk of using stereotypes was so high. I wonder if others had this problem, or if it is unique to me because of the varied places I have lived. It definitely made me think about how culture and stereotypes influence our visual understanding, and it is a two-way street in this sense. As in, our understanding of other cultures is sometimes derived from the visuals we see. But the visuals we see also create the understanding we come away with. For example, if you see this first image:

… chances are you will assume that the photo is from Vietnam. And you would be correct. Why would you assume this? The conical hats, of course. In many ways, the conical hat represents Vietnam.

But what if you saw the next image?

Would you also think “Vietnam” as soon as you saw it? It is also from Vietnam, yet we don’t usually associate construction and skyscrapers with the stereotypical Vietnam. But those images are just as “normal” as anyone who has lived in an urban centre in Vietnam will tell you!

Choosing images to tell my story was definitely strategic. I wanted to follow the KISS principle — Keep It Simple, Stupid. Less is more and all of that. I originally had ideas about how to communicate to my audience about the type of schools I’ve been teaching in these last 8 years, but quickly realized that too many representational images on one slide was going to be difficult and confusing for the audience to understand.

I think the most complex thought I tried to transmit was the last slide, whereby I was trying to show that studying and learning (albeit with an ironic bent of boredom) will lead to enlightenment. I wanted to actually make it look as though studying + collaborating = enlightenment, but I could not find any simple images to represent collaboration. There were plenty of cheesy simple ones, or complicated artistic ones but none of them complemented the images I had already chosen, which I chose deliberately for their simplicity in composition.

And so, here is My Life in Iconic Images, version 1.0. Please be gentle. 🙂

My Life in Iconic Images

View more presentations from NYU.

Creative Commons License
My Life in Iconic Images by Adrienne Michetti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at www.slideshare.net.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://msmichetti.edublogs.org/about/.

Image Credits:

Like this? You might also enjoy these:

 23 September, 2009  Posted by at 12:29 am Representation and Interaction Design Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  No Responses »

Representation and Interaction Design: Initial Thoughts

Sep 172009
 

This post is the first of several as part of a Design Journal for a class I am taking in Representation and Interaction Design (E19.2015) as part of the ECT Program at NYU Steinhardt.

Please note that I include some bibliographic notes only as a courtesy and reference; this is by no means a properly annotated or formatted bibliography, though it is possible it will evolve as such.

Our first week’s readings were:

  • Hall, Stuart. “Representation, Meaning, and Language.” (excerpt)
  • Robert E. Horn. “Information Design: Emergence of a New Profession.” (from Jacobson, R.E. (ed.), Information Design)
  • Plass and Salisbury. “A Living-Systems Design Model for Web-Based Knowledge Management Systems.” (from ETR&D, Volume 50, No. 1, 2002)

composition n.1 by PEC_86
Attribution License

First: Hall’s article. I have read selections from this text previously, though it has been several years. This kind of stuff fascinates me. It is one of the primary reasons I love teaching and learning languages. I love also that it is so abstract and philosophical — about how language and visuals construct meaning, but that it is conceptually created by the system of representation. There is a very strong argument here for teaching visual and spatial literacy skills alongside traditional textual literacy; any teacher who feels reading/writing is more important than other language strands must read Hall. Additionally, this is so crucial to understanding when setting out to design anything for learning purposes: the context of the culture, the meaning, the representation, and the language. They all work together (or against one another, at times). In a multicultural society, this makes design difficult, because meaning can never be fixed. No wonder countries like Finland have the “top-rated” educational systems; they are designing learning materials for a largely homogeneous society.

“Language can never be a wholly private game.”p.25

I LOVE this quote! The essence of language — and of communication — is that we share these representations and codes.

“This means that our private thoughts have to negotiate with all the other meanings for words or images which have been stored in language which our use of the language system will inevitably trigger into action.” p.25

Sit and think about that for a moment. To simply exist in the world, we must “negotiate” an understanding with others via words, images, and representation. That is a heavy-duty task, which we do without thinking on a daily basis.

I wonder how much better communicators we would all be if we were conscious of this challenge in each moment?*

The constructivist view of representation is also the reason, in my opinion, why things like poetry, music, and art are so beautiful — the meaning constructed at the “other” end (ie., the reader/listener/viewers’s end) is so unique. It is also the basis for the Reader Response instructional technique / philosophy in literature instruction — that there is no right answer. And, it links neatly to another reading from this week, from a different course: that of Paulo Freire‘s objection to the “banking” concept of education. Learners are not receptacles to be filled: we want them to make their own meaning.

Horn’s article was also interesting, but mostly because this is an aspect I know little about. Thus, it was a great introduction to Information Design, a relatively new “profession” and niche. I had no idea that the UK was (is?) a leader in terms of resources and development in Information Design, so this was interesting to read about. Again, I found a strong argument for teaching of visual and textual literacy in Horn’s article when he discusses Structured Writing:

“Structured writing . . . is foundational to some areas of information design. It provides a systematic way of analyzing any subject matter to be conveyed in a written document.” p. 23

Thus, the importance of learning how to organize and arrange information: it is a crucial skill in any kind of analysis. The section on p. 24 about iconic signage was also interesting (another argument for visual literacy in schools), particularly the study of international symbols. I especially think this quote is relevant:

“To create a true linguistics of visual language we need new concepts that focus on how words and images work together.” p. 28

But most interesting was the final conclusion, in which Horn basically says that this profession is still evolving. Huh. It is still evolving 10 years after the publication of this article!

The Plass / Salisbury article was the least interesting to me because it was so technical, and in the end I felt like the conclusions were a no-brainer to me, and therefore somewhat of a disappointment. Not that I think their research & development of the living-systems model is not important — it most certainly is. But their conclusion — that a design cycle to create an instructional knowledge management system works best when there is constant evaluation and regulation by participants — is pretty much a given when you come from an educational background like I do. Of course a system of learning works better when the students have a part of it. Of course a system of learning works better when you are constantly asking the question, “How’s it going?” and “What can we do better?” and then actually implementing the suggestions. To me, it is all summed up in the final sentence:

“The living-systems approach we described in this article aims to support the development of environments that not only allow individuals to regulate their learning process, but that indeed grow and change in order to accommodate learners’ needs.” p.54

I recognize that designing and implementing an instructional tool (particularly a web-based one) to do this may not be easy. Heck, judging from the lengthy process that Plass & Salisbury describe (approximately 20 pages), I have to surmise that it is major task. I get that. But in the field of education, the conclusion stated above is really old news and something that educators try to do daily — particularly if they agree in any way with philosophers like Freire.

On a related note, I was quite pleased to notice distinct similarities between the design cycle that Plass / Salisbury come up with:

Living Systems Design Model

… and the MYP design cycle:

MYP Design Cycle

* As I read articles in this course, I am continuing to find many theories and ideas that are philosophical in nature. I am constantly reminded of Buddhist and other philosophical thoughts (for example, Sikhism, and various other yogic philosophies). I often wonder if I should create a separate blog just about those links. It truly is fascinating, especially when you get even further into studies of cognitive behavioural therapy and cognitive sciences in general.

Like this? You might also enjoy these:

 17 September, 2009  Posted by at 6:55 am Representation and Interaction Design Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  1 Response »
 Newer Entries