MusicSim: Integrating Audio Analysis and User Feedback in an Interactive Music Browsing UI

Related comments:

Summary:
Two researchers from the University of Munich, Ya-Xi Chen and Andreas Butz, conducted research in the area of music information retrieval (MIR) about integrating audio content analysis with metadata-based interfaces to create a program called MusicSim.  In their paper, they address users' increasing need to browse music in more diverse ways and the difficulty that non-experts have in navigating many current music browsing interfaces.  The researchers advocate active user control and feedback of the system to improve performance by integrating audio analysis in the UI and providing visual assistance to music browsing.  MusicSim presents songs clustered by content similarity and is controlled by the user through mouse operations; it supports a text-search feature, playlist generation, album-art and color-coded genre visualization.  The user can input feedback into the system by splitting or merging album clusters or adjusting a slider in the recluster control panel.  MusicSim implements very low-level audio analysis tools like jAudio to compute similarity between songs.

MusicSim was tested by 36 study participants, over half of which found the visualization UI very useful.  However, the system did have a few problems, such as a confusing graph view and the fact that genre understanding varies wildly from user to user and should be used as additional information rather than the basis for clustering.

Discussion:
I think MusicSim is a great idea that provides a good starting point for future work in music collection visualization and management.  In fact, a system similar to MusicSim was proposed by my senior capstone group for our semester-long project not too long ago.  We felt that users wanted as much direct interaction with their libraries as possible, and drafted a multitouch system that would utilize a large screen (thereby solving MusicSim's difficulty with the cramped graph view).  The clustering functionality of MusicSim is really useful for large libraries because it can help users locate what they want more quickly, and though using album art to represent music items is a no-brainer (and not exactly the most original idea in the world) it is nevertheless demonstrably effective and easy for users to identify with.

Passages Through Time: Chronicling Users' Information Interaction History by Recording When and What They Read

Related comments:


Summary:
In this paper, Karl Gyllstrom of the University of North Carolina Computer Science Department outlines his research in building interaction history for users to improve information retrieval and characterize document activity.  His system Passages collects data from text-based desktop activities like web-page content, emails, and other files, as well as precise timing information about these items' visibility.  These data combine to provide a very detailed record of what content was viewed and when.  This record can then be used to answer user questions about their content such as, "when did I read this paper," or "which documents have I spent the most time composing?"


The system is comprised of two subsystems: the tracing subsystem for recording event streams in the GUI and filesystem, and the retrieval subsystem for handling artifact requests ("when was the last time I read this document?") and temporal retrieval ("what files did i work on the most during this time period?").  The author goes on to detail the algorithms behind these subsystems and compare it to existing approaches, which do not currently consider how long users view material and give as much weight to glanced-over pages as ones that have been thoroughly pored over.  The author's user study examined 15 participants' use of Passages over a total of 14.27 hours of activity; the results indicated that the system was well-suited to adding nuance and precision to document history requests.


Discussion:
For the super-organized, this probably a dream come true.  Being able to know which documents you were reading during a certain period of time or finding out how much time you spent reading a paper could potentially be very useful.  I found a couple of the author's assumptions about the algorithm to be somewhat ill-founded; for starters, it is based on whether content is visible as the active window.  I have a 27" monitor and frequently have multiple documents open simultaneously, with one or neither set as the active window.  I may be reading either of them but not having that time or content logged into the system because of the way Passages is set up.  This obviously isn't going to be a problem for everyone, but I feel like the productivity-hawks who would use something like this would probably have large or multiple displays, thus rendering the system less effective.

More than Face-to-Face: Empathy Effects of Video Framing

Related comments:

Summary:

In this paper, David T. Nguyen of Accenture Technology Labs and John Canny of UC Berkeley's Institute of Design present their research about the effectiveness of different videoconferencing techniques in the context of empathic interaction.  The authors first cover some of the basic benefits of videoconferencing (time and money-saving for business interactions) as well as some of its shortcomings (lower degree of trust, decreased measure of non-verbal cues, disparities in gaze matching).  They mentioned several previous bodies of work (mainly pertaining to gaze preservation) and established their central hypothesis -- that the correct framing of the subjects in a video conference could reduce or eliminate any disparities between it and a face-to-face meeting. A basic hierarchy was established: 

• participants (or dyads) in face-to-face meetings exhibit the highest level of empathy
• dyads in upper-body-framed video meetings exhibit the next highest level of empathy
• dyads in head-only-framed video meetings exhibit the lowest level of empathy

Based on the findings of their study (which consisted of 62 test sessions with the various types of meeting/framing), the authors then presented some design guidelines for video systems that would ensure the highest level of dyad empathy in video conferences.  These basically consisted of measures that framed the participants' upper bodies and allowed the greatest amount of non-verbal body-language cues to be detected.

Discussion:

The old sci-fi B-movie staple of the "videophone" has become rather commonplace now with the inclusion of integrated webcams and chat software in most commercially-available laptops.  Users can place video calls to people across the planet (via Skype or other video conferencing client) and have empathic interactions in real-time.  Based on my own personal experience with video conferencing, I can attest that framing which favors the transmission of non-verbal cues are the most effective; much of the authors' research provided unsurprising results in this regard.  The most intriguing thing to me was the concept of gaze-matching.  This is often the one part of video conferencing that I (and high-powered business-types around the world) find the most trouble with -- dyads can never really make "eye contact" in a video conference, and some of the systems they discussed presented some cool solutions to this problem.

Learning from IKEA Hacking: "I'm Not One to Decoupage a Tabletop and Call It a Day."

Related comments: Jill's blog.

Summary:
Daniela Rosner and Johnathan Bean, two UC Berkeley students, present their findings about the activities of the DIY community, specifically in the area of IKEA furniture "hacking."  These hackers take pieces of IKEA furniture kits and cobble them together in new and interesting ways as a method of artistic expression, practical modification, or just to see what they can create.  The challenge in IKEA hacking is to create something new that has no instructions, though participants have increasingly reached out to other hackers via online communities like  instructables.com and ikeahacker.com.  The paper gives an overview of IKEA hacking and delves a little into the rationale for it -- DIY-types enjoy the change of pace provided by working with their hands to create something physical, in contrast with their daily jobs; the presence of IKEA products in homes and workplaces has become so prevalent that "hacking" provides participants a way to personalize their furniture and distinguish it from others; and displaying creativity and ingenuity in hacking can be very rewarding to the participant.

Discussion:
Being a participant in (or at least a follower of) one particular DIY community -- music -- I can understand and appreciate the appeal of creating something new from readily-available parts and seeking to put together something totally individual without any kind of manual or assistance.  One thing the paper hit on very well was the online community aspect of hacking.  Collaboration is a huge part of any DIY community -- participants can inspire and be inspired by the work of others, share ideas, show off their creations, and get help if necessary.  This kind of collaborative, supportive environment really fuels participation.  One of the most interesting points of this paper was the idea that IKEA has no style; that it has become so ubiquitous that any style it held has disappeared.  This "lack of style" really gives DIY-types a wide-open playing field to create something that would never hit a store or showroom floor.

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum (Chapters 1-7)

My initial reaction to Alan Cooper's The Inmates Are Running the Asylum was almost the same as to Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things -- these are the irrelevant rants of a cranky old professor who has nothing better to do than complain and would sooner send mail via carrier pigeon than learn to use "one of these newfangled machines."  I'm sure this was due in part to his less-than-hospitable treatment of programmers and his unapologetic tone, and part due to my tendency to not take seriously as a technology authority an individual who can't open a Word document.

As I read on, however, my critical attitude softened somewhat.  Some of his arguments (particularly concerning "dancing bearware" and "cognitive friction") seemed apropos to the modern discussion of software design.  A lot of what he argued was really a paraphrasing of Norman's points in TDoET, applied almost exclusively to interface design.  My annoyance (and sometimes anger) at his vitriol aimed toward programmers turned to pity over the course of the book as I slowly started to put myself in his place -- and time -- and realized that most of the mistakes he rails against simply aren't happening anymore.  
The software of the turn of the century was, as Cooper says, written and designed primarily by programmers who were as much concerned with finding discrete, creative ways to blame users for the problems with their programs (giving them an out for responsibility) as they were with making money from the stuff they continued to shovel onto hapless computer owners.  Obviously, this pattern revealed itself when the dot-com bubble burst and a large contingent of these shovelware developers disappeared as quickly as they had come.  No doubt much of Cooper's readily apparent bitterness stems from his time working with such companies.

The developers that remained, however, learned their lesson and have started to design in a much more user-centric manner.  Cooper's arguments didn't seem relevant to me because they aren't relevant -- companies are already doing the things he's talking about.  Additionally, I felt that some of his concerns didn't apply to a society where a large part of the population has grown up using computers (though he would undoubtedly classify our generation as "scarred" to the point of numbness by our experiences with poorly-designed interfaces).  I don't know how large a part his writings and work influenced the industry, but I do know that a lot has changed since this book was published.  Apple, Microsoft, and other developers spend millions of dollars on interface design for every product they make, and though I'm sure Alan Cooper may still think they're far from perfect, the software products of today are much more user-centric than those of the past.

The Application of Forgiveness in a Social System Design

Related comments: Jill's blog.


Summary:
In this paper, Asimina Vasalou, Jens Riegelsberger and Adam Joinson (a joint research team from the University of Bath and Google UK) lay out a framework for designing "reparative social systems" by defining the process of forgiveness in social interaction.  They bring light especially on the case of the online user who may offend unintentionally or accidentally; reparative systems may more easily allow trust to be re-established and the user returned to good standing in the online community.  They define forgiveness as "the victim's prosocial change towards the offender as s/he replaces these initial negative motivations with positive motivations."  These positive motivations can be influenced by a number of factors: offense severity, intent, apology, reparative actions taken, non-verbal expressions, dyadic history (previously rewarding interactions between two users), and history in the community.  Victims will assess all of the above factors when deciding whether to forgive the offender.  They expound further on the definition of forgiveness in the following ways:

• Forgiveness cannot be mandatory (it does not follow automatically after an offender's penance)
• Forgiveness is not unconditional (rather, it follows the offender's acknowledgement of responsibility and amends)
• Forgiveness does not necessarily repair trust or remove accountability

Forgiveness has its benefits -- offenders can relieve guilt or shame through apology or reparative action, victims may reduce or release their anger toward the offender, and it can empower an online community to learn by example and move toward self-moderation.  


From the definitions presented, the researchers arrived at the following provisions for reparative design in social systems:

• Respect the dyadic nature of forgiveness (overcome the asynchronous nature of online forum communication by notifying offenders and providing a grace period for response)
• Support the motivating factors of forgiveness (provide systems that allow the victim and community to measure an offender's previous and current actions, intent, apology, etc. and gives the offender tools to provide an adequate apology)
• Increase public awareness (make the offense public to educate the community)
• Build flexibility within and around forgiveness (allow victims to retract decisions of trust and accountability if desired)
• Design interventions to lower attributions (assess an offender's previous history to prevent victims from jumping to conclusions about an offender's motivation)

Discussion:
The research presented in this paper certainly gives a thorough definition of forgiveness as well as methods of enacting it; the problem with putting such systems in place in an online community is that the selection of communities willing to self-moderate and enact these kind of reparative systems are probably few and far between.  The researchers mention "trolls" all too briefly at the beginning of the paper and don't seem to realize that a troll can simply create another account on a forum if s/he got banned for offensive or abusive conduct.  The systems they mention apply most directly to buyer/seller sites like Amazon, eBay or Craigslist where buyer/seller trust is paramount, and they do a good job of mentioning their system's applications in this respect.  However, they seem to view these systems as being more widely applicable than they really are.

“Pimp My Roomba”: Designing for Personalization

Related comments: Zach's blog

Summary:

In this paper, JaYoung Sung, Rebecca E. Grinter and Henrik I. Christensen of Georgia Institute of Technology dispense the results of their research on the effects of personalization on user interaction with Roombas.  They postulated that people will naturally personalize their Roombas (or any other object, really) if encouraged by the design of the object or given a set of tools to do so; they also wanted to see if people's experiences with the device were positively impacted by their personalization.  The researchers did a study of 30 households in the Atlanta area, each of which were given a Roomba.  15 of the households were given "personalization toolkits" to use on their Roombas which included stickers, lettering sets, coupons for Roomba skins, and a booklet showing how other users had customized their Roombas in the past.  The other 15 households were given no toolkit or any other indication that customization was possible or desirable.

It turns out that 10 of the 15 households with toolkits used them or went online to order additional skins with the included coupons, but of those, only 6 actually customized the Roomba.  There were three primary motivations behind this customization: expressing the Roomba's identity, show its value in the household, and to make it either stand out or blend in with its home environment.  For example, some families gave their Roomba a name and decorated it differently according to its gender to give it some personality.  Other families decorated the Roomba as a "reward" or out of "gratitude" for the services it provided to show its worth to the family.  Finally, some of the households decorated Roomba to make it stand out from the carpet or decorations, and others tried to make Roomba fit into the aesthetic of their home.  The end result of the customization was a feeling of connectedness to Roomba, with householders seeing it as "their" robot instead of "a" robot.  Conversely, none of the 15 households who did not receive toolkits decorated Roomba.

Discussion:
Personalization is ingrained in our society.  Think about it -- what's the first thing most users do with a new computer?  More likely than not they will change the desktop display image to something they want, to make the computer more theirs.  Customizable skins are available for every device imaginable, from laptops to cell phones and game consoles.  The paper shows that users will customize a device to make it more personal, as long as easy methods to do so exist.  Some of the families talked about ordering more skins but found the process too complicated.  The families without kits, obviously, didn't know that customization was an option, and therefore didn't personalize Roomba.  In fact, after reading this paper, I decided I want a Roomba.  This Roomba.  If you don't think he's cute you don't have a heart.

What's Next?: Emergent Storytelling from Video Collections

Related comments: no other posts on this paper, comment on Kerry's blog.


Summary: 
Three researchers from MIT's Media Laboratory (Edward Yu-Te Shen, Henry Lieberman and Glorianna Davenport) developed Storied Navigation, a video editing system that lets users quickly search and browse a video library to compose a story.  The system works by annotating video clips with sequence information and story attributes; users can then search with words or sentences to find clips with relevant characters, themes, emotions and story elements.  In this way, users simply type in an emotion or story sequence they wish to convey and the program returns clips matching their criteria -- the user doesn't even have to be familiar with the video library to be able to tell a story.  Storied Navigation uses natural language  processing (NLP) to parse user input for story elements, characters, etc.  It features an "edit-by-typing" function that sequences video clips based on a story the user types in English, and an "edit-by-recommendation" feature that can either find similar alternatives to selected clips or provide clips that will continue the current story sequence ("what's next").


The researchers conducted two separate studies, the first of which focused on whether the system helped users to develop their story threads.  The subjects reported the system's ease of use, helpful features, powerful search, the improved efficiency with which they could sift through large amounts of video to find what they needed, ability to compose stories on-the-fly, and the way the interface helped them understand the logic behind a story.  The second study focused on browsing an unknown video library.  All seven subjects reported that the system helps them find what they want, mentioning that the edit-by-typing function was the most useful to them -- some of the subjects even wanted to create stories from the clips that were returned from their queries.


Discussion:
BRILLIANT.  As a video editor, I can tell you that there is nothing more painful than trying to sift through hours of documentary footage to find an appropriate clip -- this tool is literally the coolest thing a documentary filmmaker could ever want (aside from one of these, maybe).  There are times during editing when I even know what all of the footage is (in the event that it isn't dozens of hours of material), and just don't know how to move forward with it.  The Storied Navigation system answers my unspoken question ("what's next?") and even provides multiple ways of filtering the results it provides by matching emotions or placement in the story structure.  The ability to compose stories on-the-fly or quickly change a train-of-thought to another direction greatly streamlines the film editing process.  I could save so much time and tedious browsing by using this system; the "ways to think" that it provides are simply brilliant and ought to spur a storytelling sense in any filmmaker.

A Vehicle for Research: Using Street Sweepers to Explore the Landscape of Environmental Community Action

Related comments: no other posts on this paper, comment on Patrick's blog.


Summary:
In this paper, Paul M. Aoki, et al discuss several key points concerning the gathering of air quality data by citizens, as well as the social and political ramifications of such action.  The authors conducted this research in hopes of refining the development of mobile participatory sensors that ordinary people can use to collect viable data.  This data could be used to augment existing data stations and provide community activist groups with politically relevant evidence for legislative change.  Environmental decision-making is something of a closed-door affair; government agencies (such as the EPA) have established data-gathering facilities that they deem reliable enough to inform legislation, and outside intervention or assistance is typically dismissed.  Three groups typically inform or influence the environmental-legislation process: government bodies, emitters (factories, oil refineries, etc.), and public interest advocates like community groups or The Sierra Club.  


This particular study was of the San Francisco Bay Area, which is an ideal location to study air quality due to various historical factors about the area and characteristics of California environmental legislation that make it a sort of "laboratory" for air quality standards.  The primary monitoring station in the Bay Area is operated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD, or "Air District").  However, dissenting opinions about how air quality should be measured make agreement about its effectiveness difficult.  Many citizen groups in the area feel that the data models produced by the Air District are an inaccurate reflection of the average citizen's pollution intake because the monitoring stations are too spread out and too far above the ground.  


The data gathered by citizens (or in this case, by sensor packages mounted on street sweeper vehicles) seems immediately advantageous since it is "on-the-ground" data.  However, this approach is also rife with problems.  People may be interested in gathering data, but only for the purpose of influencing others -- they have no interest in learning anything from it.  The quality of the data gathered by less expensive, mobile equipment is also much lower, calling into question whether such data would be valid or useful at all.  Because of disagreements about data and the way it is utilized, government agencies, researchers, and community groups are usually so distrustful of each other than very little progress toward change can be achieved at all.  The researchers concluded that in order to promote successful community action toward environmental change, advocacy groups should connect with collaborative social mapping tools to preserve continuity in long advocacy campaigns, and some means of validation for data collected by non-expert users should be established so that their data is taken seriously.


Discussion:
As with any other hotly-debated policy topic, environmental legislation carries a host of variables that often make it nearly impossible for disputing groups to arrive at an effective solution; in this case the disputing groups are the people (activist groups) and the government (the Air District, and by larger association, the EPA).  The people don't think they government is using "real" enough, "on-the-ground" data, and the government doesn't think the people could possibly gather any accurate, useful data on their own.  What bothered me about this paper is the fact that the researchers never made mention about their findings regarding the data -- what did the street sweepers collect?  Was the data any good?  Could it have been used to assist government agencies in their analysis of air quality?  We never find out because the authors are too busy telling us what we already know about policy debates.

Exploring the Analytical Processes of Intelligence Analysts

Related comments: no other posts on this paper, so I commented on William's blog.


Summary:
This paper presents the results of an observational case study of intelligence analysts (IAs) at work, conducted by a group of three researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (George Chin, Jr., Olga A. Kuchar, and Katherine E. Wolf).  Research cases like this one have gained more interest over the past decade; these efforts attempt to find ways of developing new information technologies and visualization tools to improve or assist intelligence analysis.  The bulk of the paper describes two case scenarios presented to a group of IAs.  The first scenario charted the intelligence-gathering and analysis methodology of the IAs, and the second scenario examined how IAs collaborated in real-time to carry out a group analysis.  In each scenario, IAs were given material similar to what one would find in an actual case, such as group background info, intercepted communications, electronic files, witness statements, etc.  New information was also given periodically through the course of the analysis to see how it would be integrated with the existing information.  The researchers found that the strategies used in analysis varied from IA to IA, but that there were a few that were most prominent -- the IAs all followed a similar sequence of steps to conduct their analysis.  The first step, obviously, is information gathering.  All of the IAs printed out all the case files despite being given electronic copies, and all the IAs proceeded to arrange or order the information in some way so that they could extract relevant facts.  Once data was ordered and facts were extracted, IAs attempted to identify patterns and trends in the evidence.  Most of the IAs displayed relationships in the data visually, either via a hand-drawn diagram or an electronic aid like a graph or spreadsheet.  The weight given to certain pieces of evidence shifted for each IA depending on the credibility of the source or method of obtainment.  The IA's judgement in this area was based largely on his or her previous experience.  In the second scenario, IAs collaborated to corroborate data and share resources rather than compare and pass on conclusions; they worked to form a single more accurate analysis.  


From all this observation, the researchers were able to identify a few areas in which technology might aid IAs in their work.  Computers could auto-generate standard analysis views based on given facts and relationships, improving the speed and efficiency of an IA's analysis; optical character recognition tools for converting oft-used sketches into text or graphs to enable easy electronic storage and sharing; taking advantage of multiple displays to accomodate simultaneous viewing of many documents; and integrating link analysis and case management tools in a way that would provide more sophisticated pattern-matching so IAs could locate and draw conclusions from past cases more quickly.


Discussion:
Intelligence analysis is a critically important field that gets a pretty wonky dramatization on television (see 24 for evidence), but it nonetheless often requires the snap decisions and life-or-death implications depicted in such mediums.  One of the things I found most encouraging about this study was the willingness of IAs to collaborate with one another, and the results they achieved by sharing facts and helping each other eliminate information.  The single largest problem facing our intelligence community today isn't al-Qaeda or missing Soviet nukes -- it's the lack of collaboration between various agencies and a competitive attitude that weakens our ability to assess and identify threats.  It's in this area, not in multiple displays or workflow management, that technology researchers need to develop new tools.  Something like a secure digital "whiteboard" where information could be shared, edited and annotated across multiple global agencies would be extremely useful in enabling that kind of collaboration.

PrintMarmoset: Redesigning the Print Button for Sustainability

Related comments: Jacob's blog


Summary:
In this paper, HP Labs researchers Jun Xiao and Jian Fan predominantly discuss the concept of sustainable interaction design (SID) and the challenges presented by systems and users when attempting to introduce "green" behaviors.  They tested and refined their observations by developing PrintMarmoset, a refinement of other "smart" printing technologies like "printer-friendly" versions of web pages and HP Smart Web Printing.  The aim of PrintMarmoset was to address the problems presented by printing web content -- undesirable formatting, cut-off text, advertisements, and blank pages -- and reduce the amount of waste paper associated with those problems.  All of this, of course, had to be implemented in a way that did not require developers to modify existing web sites nor users to change existing print flow, required near-zero user input effort, offered user flexibility and pre-defined templates, maintained a history of print activities for future reference, and preferable raise awareness of itself among users.  Xiao and Fan achieved this by writing PrintMarmoset as a Firefox browser extension; when the user clicks the PrintMarmoset button, the main content of the page is selected by the plugin and is highlighted to the user.  PrintMarmoset then allows the user to add to or remove from the content selection with one very simple mouse "stroke" gesture.  Once the user is satisfied with the selection, he or she clicks the PrintMarmoset button again and a document containing the selected content is generated.

PrintMarmoset approximates desired content via analysis of a scaled-down screen image.  Visual separators are identified and used to divide the page into blocks.  Once these blocks are determined, content importance is evaluated by parsing text information from the HTML portion of the page.  PrintMarmoset also utilizes a tool called PrintMark that stores the user's selection for that page and uses it as the default printing template for that website in any future printing attempts.  These PrintMarks can then also be shared with other PrintMarmoset users to encourage a more "viral" and communicative method of promoting sustainability through saving printout paper.  PrintMarmoset was tested and compared against other tools like HP Smart Web Printing.  These tests favored PrintMarmoset's easy stroke selection and most users stated that the tool offered a natural WYSIWYG printing experience.

Discussion:

The difficulty with presenting sustainable technologies to users is the fact that most sustainable technologies are only effective on a long-term basis and there are few if any short-term benefits; users want results now with as little effort as possible.  In this regard, PrintMarmoset is a very effective tool -- it requires little of its users besides the click of a button and a single mouse stroke, and it provides a paper-saving print method with clear short-term and long-term benefits.  I personally don't print a whole lot of web content (hardly any, in fact) but for those who do, in offices or businesses or wherever, I can see this being a very useful, easy-to-integrate tool for getting the desired content on the page.  The are only two readily apparent problems I see with PrintMarmoset:  it is limited to the Firefox web browser (which is widespread but hardly ubiquitous) and therefore discounts a large audience of other browser users; and it is a browser extension, which by definition requires a user to find and install it.  As discussed above, users will only exert the least possible amount of effort and they may not be convinced that an "alternate print button" is worth their time to install, or may not know how to install it at all.

The Design of Everyday Things

The Design of Everyday Things by Donald Norman is really about just that -- the way everyday objects are thought about, put together, and presented to users.  The prospect of analyzing objects as ubiquitous as a door or the knobs of a water faucet is rather daunting (the book estimates the number of "everyday objects" at roughly 20,000), but Norman handles the task elegantly and in an engaging, digestible manner.  In the book, he lays out several principles that he believes to be elements of "good design":

• affordance (inherent function of an object i.e. a handle affords pulling, a chair affords sitting)
• conceptual model (how the object ought to be used)
• natural mapping (controls need to make sense in their placement and function)
• standardization (objects of similar function should be laid out the same way i.e. all faucets should turn the same way)
• constraints (considerations that make it difficult or impossible for the user to use the object incorrectly)
• feedback (a detectable response that lets the user know they have performed a task successfully or incorrectly)
• design for error (when the user does one thing wrong, it shouldn't cause the whole system to fail)

Through the course of seven chapters, Norman re-iterates these simple principles in various ways.  He approaches each from two main perspectives befitting his qualifications -- from a practical, engineering-and-usability viewpoint, and from a psychological analysis methodology.  These dual approaches give his arguments greater weight and help the reader understand not only how things ought to work, but why we think about their functions the way that we do.  Design is about infinitely more than merely looking pretty, though aesthetics are a key part of the equation -- if a product is unattractive, consumers won't buy it or want to use it to begin with.  He discusses the ideas of intuitive interface, user learning, subconscious behavior  and locked-in conceptual models with and authoritative yet conversational tone that borders on crotchety at times, but The Design of Everyday Things is well worth reading for its principles of good design alone.

I read the first chapter skeptical of Norman's relevance to modern design or user interaction; I found his theory that a user should just know how to use something and be unable to make a mistake a somewhat senile and unrealistic notion.  I work at a computer helpdesk (a grand intersection of obtuse design and incompetent users if there ever was one) and I can state for a fact that even if a perfectly intuitive object were created, there would be at least one user out there who would be unable to figure it out on the first try with no mistakes.  That's why companies (and Norman even somewhat contradictorily allows for this in his "design for error" principle) design products for the "lowest common denominator," i.e. the one person who just can't figure out how to use the product.  Norman ranting about a door being difficult to open or a radio difficult to operate sounded like so many retired faculty members complaining about their e-mail systems; it was hard to approach the book with anything other than a "nod and smile" approach.

However, as I read on, I realized that Norman was right about a great deal of things in the book; I had merely to shake off my mindset that objects are the way they are and that users simply have to adjust, and instead be open to the idea that products are often manufactured without a very good consideration of how the human brain processes information.  Norman didn't stop his arguments at an arbitrary "the old system was better," he delved into the engineering and psychology principles that made the old system better.  I really began to understand the function of the designer -- to make something elegant and functional that requires minimal instruction -- as being so much more than making pretty objects or arranging pleasing color patterns (though it is sometimes these aspects of designs that are awarded the higher proportion of accolades).  After shedding my admittedly cynical perceptions of the mechanically-inept user, I came to realize that Norman was right: when a user has trouble with a device, the fault often lies in the design and not the user.