Assignment 2
Introduction: Ronald Lawrence Mace was an industrial designer and architect who
devoted his professional career to the pursuit of Universal Design and the
idea of accessibility. Mace was born in Jersey City and grew up in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina. His young life was packed full of impressive barriers
that he ultimately overcame and used as fuel for later work. At the young
age of 9, Mace contracted polio and was relegate to a wheelchair for the
rest of his life. Determined to remain a part of the community, Ron would
construct stools on wheels to help him through narrow bathroom doors, and
a bed frame that was more easily accessible. Despite his disability, and the
dean of the school telling him not to, Ron went on to attend the School of
Design at North Carolina State University as an architect. There were no
accessible dorms or bathrooms at the school, and many buildings had no
elevators, so Ron would often be carried up the stairs to his classes. Mace
would use these experiences at State to later have a major role in changing
North Carolina’s building codes, which eventually became a national
model. He then coined the term Universal Design, which encapsulated his
principles of accessibility and fairness. He believed that the term
“accessible design” should be synonymous with “good design”, and it
quickly became a reality. Accessibility remains one of the most important
aspects of design to this day.
Detail: After his time as a student at NC State University, Mace would accept a
teaching job a Fayetteville Technical Institute (now Fayetteville Community
College). It was here that Mace would further his individuality and ultimately
his passion for Universally Accessible Design. Ron was part of a group of
architects who frequently met together in Fayetteville. “There was great
camaraderie, which fostered and helped his thinking. It was never Ron
against the profession. We thought that the term accessible design would
disappear and would just become part of good, standard design.” (quote
from article). During his time at Fayetteville Technical Institute, changes to
the North Carolina State building codes were in motion. The issue of
accessibility was first brought up by John Dalrymple, vice-chair of the
Governor’s Study Committee on Architectural Barriers. He believed that too many qualified individuals were being excluded from job opportunities due
to the fact that building codes didn’t accommodate for disabilities. The
committee invited Ron Mace to be an advisor and help fight for this cause.
Mace’s abilities as an architect and his practical nature on the concepts of
accessibility paid off. The state came to the committee and asked for help
in writing the new state building codes. They held many hearings, the code
was finally written, but there was another hold up. It was hard for so many
creative minds to understand this now universal code, so in another act of
accessibility, Ron took it into his own hands to illustrate each part. Mace
offered this as a challenge to his students as well, and together they fully
illustrated the guidelines for updating building codes. The first training for
the new system of building codes was at North Carolina State University,
taught by Ron Mace himself. This made a lasting impression upon the
architects, as they knew how important and personal this update was. This,
among the other projects and books written by Mace, all contributed to his
innovative and lasting idea of Universal Design.
Sidebar Quote: N/A at the moment
Assignment 3: Microwave Oven Usability Test
1) Introduction
The microwave is a commonly used household item that is heralded for its ease of use and universal accessibility. It is an appliance that acts as a substitute for traditional food preparation, operating in a much quicker manner. Instead of using an oven to prepare chicken, which could take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour, a microwave can accomplish it in less than 3 minutes. The microwave is one of the most commonly used household kitchen appliances in America. Some 90% of American households now own a microwave, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. This statistic remains around 90% ownership mark in 2017 as well. A microwave can also be bought for around $100 in 2017, and often less than that. This has come a long way from the price tag that microwaves had when they hit the market. In 1967, around twenty years after Percy Spencer discovered that microwaves could be implemented to heat up food, the counter-top microwave cost $495. When adjusted for inflation, the original microwave would cost you around $3,500 today. What was once a novelty-like commodity for the wealthy is now present in 9/10 households in America. Despite their nationwide use, the physical variance between microwave models can be troublesome. The design disparities in such a simplistic household item can cause usability issues. Food almost always come out of microwaves incorrectly cooked. The food is either undercooked, overcooked, or simply inedible. People can become lost when navigating the button systems on microwaves. Buttons can be discolored, the buttons for a set amount of cooking time are often hidden or misplaced when they should be the forefront, and specific cooking option buttons often don’t lead to the results they promise. A product that is heralded for its ease of use and overall simplicity should not encounter these issues. For an appliance that is located within 90% of American households, it must be consistent in its processes. This means it must achieve true ease of use and have a universally recognizable design. The inconsistencies of the cooking abilities of microwave ovens are basically unavoidable, but they can be lessened with better organization and user testing. Food is difficult to reheat consistently within microwave ovens due to the nature of microwaves themselves. Microwaves target and heat the areas of the food that contain water molecules, and since all areas of the food do not contain the same amount of water molecules, heating is inconsistent. With that information on microwave ovens, the problems of their inconsistencies may seem unavoidable and irreparable. While the technology for a perfectly consistent microwave preparation of food might not exist yet, the issues with the overall design can be addressed. I would argue that the usability errors and general hesitation that users encounter with microwave oven interfaces are too common on a daily basis. Users either can’t find a button or setting for their food, or they press the wrong button because they are not intuitively placed or labeled. While the issues seem minor, they should not be occurring with an item that was solely invented as a shortcut. Especially one of the most widely used household items in American history next to the refrigerator. A simple universally implemented design standard with an intuitive button layout and instructions would fix nearly all of the issues that users run into with the microwave oven.
2) Description
In conducting this study on the usability of microwaves, I wanted to determine the main problems users run into when using the appliance and ultimately what can be done to fix these issues. I tested three different users from three separate schools of study here at NC State University. Justin McKinstry (Design), Nick Zelaski (Engineering), and Aynsley Barnett (Anthropology) make up by testing group. They are all the same age within a couple months of one another, one is female and the other two are male. I conducted the test using the microwave in my own dorm room. The reasoning being that this specific model (MicroFridge Brand) of microwave is consistent throughout all of the dorm rooms on campus. It is a slightly outdated model of microwave, but the issues that I found with it can still be found on the newest versions of microwave ovens. The test that I issued to my participants was a simple task on paper; make a bag of popcorn. I tested each person one at a time, and asked them to come into the room and simply make the ideal bag of popcorn. I showed them to the microwave and I handed them a bag of Act 2 Brand Butter Lovers popcorn. I made sure to tell them that they had a time limit of 5 minutes, and that they should think out loud when making the popcorn so that I could record some of it for data, especially if they ran into issues. They had a time limit of 5 minutes, but I also recorded how long it took them to complete the task as well. I told them that they should ideally be able to complete this task with little to no hesitations or speedbumps, because a proper microwave that is built for convenience should accomplish these goals. I recorded when and how these hesitations occurred, because that was technically “breaking the rules”. I recorded the information that they relayed to me on paper and through voice recordings. I also made sure to take pictures of the testing in progress, especially during moments of confusion or when the participant was searching hard for the right pathway to the goal. During the test I recorded the participant’s changes in attitude (if any) and emotional state as well. When recording data on the participant, I made sure to take notes of their emotional state, how long it took them to complete the task, what buttons they pressed to cook the popcorn, and the actual differences between separate participant’s tests. I also recorded how many errors they ran into, what they were complaining about if they did run into issues, and what they had to say about the test afterwards. I spoke to each participant after the test over a hot bag of popcorn. I made notes on whether the popcorn was overcooked or undercooked, and listened to their opinions on the test and their issues with microwaves.
I also tried to keep the ideas of feedback, signifiers, and affordances in my thoughts throughout all of these tests. The signifiers on the microwave oven are of course the buttons on the interface themselves, and the digital clock interface that changes to tell you what setting it is currently on. These are the first signs of the process in helping the test subject achieve their goals. For example, when they want to cook popcorn, they’ll see the popcorn button and strongly consider pressing that almost instantly. Although they are obviously buttons that accomplish tasks, they can be quite misleading or improperly labeled, and that is where usability issues derive. Signifiers are important, and they are not always so clear on microwave ovens. These buttons also tie into the idea of affordances, and a microwave oven is full of affordances. The large button beneath the smaller buttons gives the test subject a clue on how to open the door, and the door swings open showing that it is in fact a door. Users often take that door and slam it once they are done, or when they are frustrated with the often faulty feedback of microwaves. In my test, when a user pressed the popcorn button, they had no idea how long that meant the popcorn cooked for, an unclear signifier of sorts. I think that for microwaves to be improved upon from a usability standpoint, they need to have universally recognizable signifiers and feedback mechanisms.
3) Outcomes
Participant 1: Aynsley Barnett
Aynsley’s test was very smooth from start to finish. I gave her the bag of popcorn, started the timer, and she immediately started to read the instructions on the bag. The bag’s directions informed her that the recommended cooking time was 3 minutes and 15 seconds. She said that she likes her popcorn “fresh and totally unburnt” so she decided to put the popcorn in the microwave for 3 minutes flat. Aynsley put the popcorn into the microwave, pressed the numbers on the time cook pad in the order 3-0-0, and then pressed the start button. She waited until it made the beep and then she removed the popcorn, completely unburnt but with more uncooked kernels sitting at the bottom of the bag. Aynsley didn’t run into any errors and she didn’t hesitate while completing the task. She completed the task in 3 minutes and 34 seconds. After it was over she did comment on the slight over-complexity of the microwave’s interface. “It was a good thing I had used one of these before, because the buttons are slightly confusing.”
I set up a visualization for each subject to show their path towards the goal using the actual button pad from the microwave oven. I labeled the steps they took in attempting to accomplish their goal, and circled which button input they used. The green circle means that they are on the right path, the yellow circle means that they are slightly deviating from the path, and the red circle means that they are not on the right path. Besides Nick, who became slightly frustrated throughout the test, the test subjects maintained a level head the entire time.
Participant 2: Justin McKinstry
I informed Justin of the rules of the test, handed him the bag of popcorn and told him to begin. First he placed the popcorn in the microwave, then he shut the door. Justin was hesitant in deciding upon which button setting to choose, and ended up wasting about 15 seconds on this phase of the test. He ultimately decided to go with what was universal on most microwaves and pressed the popcorn setting. He hadn’t unfolded the popcorn bag well enough before the test began, so he had to stop and start the popcorn setting process 3 times before continuing once again. The popcorn setting ended up lasting about 4 minutes. The errors that Justin encountered made his test exceed the 5-minute mark, and he finished it in 5 minutes and 3 seconds. The length of the popcorn setting also caused the popcorn to be slightly burnt when Justin pulled it out of the microwave oven. After the test was complete, Justin also commented on the confusing layout of the buttons, and how the microwave “didn’t really make it clear what did what”. He also noted that it seemed like there were some contradictory buttons that only confused the user more.
Participant 3: Nick Zelasky
I gave Nick the bag of popcorn and started to record his actions while reminding him of the time limit. It took Nick approximately 3 minutes and 28 seconds to complete the task of cooking the popcorn. Nick unwrapped it and placed it into the microwave, then he closed the door and pressed the popcorn setting. This is where he ran into some slight issues.
The microwave did not inform Nick on how long the popcorn button actually cooks the popcorn, so he backtracked on that decision. Afraid of burning the popcorn, Nick opened the microwave and cancelled the popcorn button action. He then shut the door again and decided that using the “time cook” number pad to set a certain amount of time would be more beneficial. He then pressed the number 3, and then the number 5, thinking that this would set the timer for 3.5 minutes. After his inputs the timer was set to 35 seconds instead of his desired time. Nick was slightly frustrated at this reaction, because it was not his intended time. He informed me that on his microwave at home, when you press the 3 button and then the 5 it sets it to 3.5 minutes. After this minor setback he reset the timer again by opening the door and input 3-3-0 to set the time to 3 minutes and 30 seconds. Nick then stood by and waited until the microwaved started to beep notifying him that the time was up. He opened the door and removed the hot bag of popcorn. The popcorn was not burnt at all, and it was perfectly edible. There also weren’t very many kernels on the bottom of the bag, assuring it was properly cooked. Nick commented that the “buttons confused me a little bit towards the beginning, and the microwave could definitely use some work.” Despite a small setback towards the beginning that dealt with the unclear details of the popcorn and the time cook settings, Nick completed the task.
3b. Conclusion and Findings
My findings confirmed my suspicions that microwaves, despite their immense popularity, can be confusing to operate on a day to day basis. Something so incredibly popular with the majority of American households should not encounter simple usability issues. Questions such as “How long does the popcorn button cook for?” or “Which button can reheat my chicken?” or “Does pressing the 3 and then the 5 mean 3.5 minutes or 35 seconds?” should not have to be asked at all. The microwave oven, which is second only to refrigerators and real ovens in kitchen appliances, can cause quite a few avoidable user errors. During tests or practice tests earlier on, action based slips would often occur. The buttons for stopping and starting the cooking process were so closely labeled, and poorly colored that instead of pressing stop a test subject would press start or vice versa. Also, to a user that has never seen this type of microwave before, knowledge based mistake would often occur. These would occur because the user simply does not know which buttons perform which operations, and some labels are too vague. There is a button on the microwave that simply says “time”, while the number pad next to the button easily inputs certain amounts of time. The 45 second quick start button performs a similar action as the actual start button, and there is a button that reads “power level”. A user might not know the difference if they have never seen these options before. This happened to a lesser extent with Nick, in which he wasn’t sure how long the popcorn setting actually ran for, so it confounded with his process. As an observer during these tests, I was looking for issues dealing with mapping and feedback, as referenced in Norman’s book The Design of Everyday Things. That’s where the issues arise with microwave ovens in my opinion. They are so widespread and popular, and the market is competitive to stay relevant, that basic design concepts can be forgotten in the process. Norman addresses this issue in Chapter 7 of his book, basically saying that quality can take the backseat in product design. Norman included this quote addressing that issue from Harvard professor, Youngme Moon. “Good design requires stepping back from competitive pressures and ensuring that the entire product is consistent, coherent, and understandable” (263). Consistent, coherent, and understandable design if often forgotten on microwaves. Discolored and mislabeled buttons, unclear instructions, over-complicating simple tasks, and poor systems of feedback plague microwave ovens. I think that fixing these universal microwave issues would be quick and easy once fully recognized. Implementing a universal button layout, with obvious signifiers and user friendly feedback mechanisms would push the microwave oven towards the right direction. Perhaps they could implement an external thermometer that tells the user how hot their food is, or some kind of interface that teaches the user how to prepare the food they just inserted into the microwave. Maybe even a satisfying pop whenever you press the right setting for cooking your food. There is simply too much variance and complication in the design of microwaves, and that is ridiculous for a convenient household item that 90% of Americans own today. How ridiculous would it be if you couldn’t figure out how to open your refrigerator at times?
4) Reflection
I think that limiting the test to a certain type of food worked very well. That idea was suggested to me during the test outline critique phase of this project, and it helped my data have more meat on its bones. Setting the time limit of the test to a specific realistic time also helped me get quick and reliable results. However, I think that 5 minutes might have possibly been too much time to complete the task, because it took a lot of unforeseen circumstances for one of my subjects to exceed the limit. Talking to the participant after the test while eating the popcorn was also a great way to get reliable information out of them, because college students love free food. Using the same microwave for each test was also a good idea, because each subject had to jump the same hurdles, and it made it easier to sort out testing errors so that I wasn’t wasting any time on figuring out the differences in models of microwave or year of their production. However, I do not think that my test was perfect by any means. I think it would have helped my data and ultimately my conclusion if I had sampled a larger group of people. Sampling a group of 10, 20, or even 100 people would have been amazing if I had the time and money to complete that. Three people gave me the data that I wanted, but a larger test group would have made it look more legitimate and more conclusive. Given more time and possibly a larger group of people, I also would have taken subjects from multiple age groups. Testing my parents or perhaps my grandparents would definitely change the outcome of my usability test. Different age groups have different experience with microwave ovens, so it would have been very interesting to see where those tests would have taken me. Testing someone who has no experience with microwave ovens would have been very interesting to throw into the data pool as well. Including a test subject who has literally never touched this contraption would be the definitive trial of microwave usability. If I were to implement this test on a larger scale, in real life, I would definitely use a public space or some kind of well-known office to conduct my test. I don’t think my dorm room is the best testing grounds by any means, especially since my microwave is shoved into the back corner of the room, and it is connected to a mini fridge. However, I don’t think that I would have to modify many aspects of my overall tests at all. I think that the best usability tests are simple, straightforward, and creative. I think that this test checks off all of those boxes in one way or another. This was a fun and eye opening lunge into the world of usability testing, and I am excited to potentially perform and be a part of many more in my design career.
Citations
multiple. “The Dangers of Microwaves and Their Effects on Food.” Natural Society, NaturalSociety, naturalsociety.com/microwaves/.
multiple. “Microwave Oven History • Microwave Facts, Microwave Oven Info • Microwave Master Chef.” Microwave Master Chef, WillPower (Microwave Master Chef), microwavemasterchef.com/microwave-oven-history/.
Norman, Don. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books Inc. New York NY, 2013.
US Census. “Making Waves.” US Census Information, US Census Bureau , http://www.census.gov/history/www/homepage_archive/2015/october_2015.html.
Assignment 4 – Redesigning The Atrium Food Court at NC State with a focus on sustainability.
This was a small movie project I created to fix some of the waste management practices at The Atrium food court on NC State’s central campus. The YouTube link is below.
berryrigdon.wordpress.com 