Human Computer Interaction: Norman’s Design Principles and Case Study

This assignment solution delves into Human Computer Interaction (HCI) by examining Norman's design principles and their violations in everyday products like mobiles and traffic systems. It analyzes a case study of a false alarm in Hawaii, attributing it to poor HCI design and suggesting improvements. The solution also discusses the relationship between culture and HCI, arguing that technology dictates design more than cultural factors. Furthermore, it explores the advantages and disadvantages of leap motion technology for mid-air gestural applications, highlighting its potential in various sectors. Desklib offers a wealth of similar solved assignments and past papers for students seeking academic support.

Running head: HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION
Human Computer Interaction
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author Note:

1HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION
Exercise 1
The exercise tells us to deal with two products that we use in daily life but violated
any one of the Norman’s design principles (Norman 2017).
Firstly, the product that is being dealt with is mobile. In mobiles, visual affordances
principle of Norman is violated. As per Norman the visibility of the devices are concerned
with the relevant parts for the design to be visible which help the tasks easy to find and see.
Designers also adjusts the function of visibility that matches the importance of design. The
key function of this kind of design principle is to prioritize the functionalities and the
contents. It is necessary to realize the design to maintain a clear hierarchy as well as lack of
visibility. In case of mobiles, the visual affordances appears as the applications are seen with
blur visualization.
Secondly, the traffic systems are taken into consideration. In these systems the
constraints principle of Norman gets violated. The traffic system has only three possible
number of actions. This gets violated due to human errors. Due to some reasons likely
emergency factors or the mistakes are knowingly done by humans, the traffic signal gets
violated. In this perspective the systems should be much more enhanced to get rid of the
violated rules more systematically. There should be an auto generated receipt of fine could be
implemented if any vehicle violates the traffic rules which will be provided by the next traffic
signal and the fine is to be paid by the vehicle driver in a real time basis to pass through.

2HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION
Exercise 2
As mentioned in the article, the false alarm attributed to bad Human Computer
Interaction as the mistake or the alarm went on due to a human error (Hawaii, 2019). The
error happened because the command option that is to be selected for a drill was much similar
like the actual command which is used in case of any emergency. Again the pop up window
that comes after selecting the option was also selected as confirm in which the user got
confused whether the confirm button will set the alarm ON or it will set to OFF. Therefore,
the UI was very critical for the user to judge which option is to be confirmed. Moreover this
mistake let the whole city of Hawaii under threat of a missile attack leading to the citizens in
a great fear for their own life.
The above case study of Hawaii could have happened anywhere or could happen in
future to any city for the bad HCI/UI (Preece, Rogers and Sharp 2015). So for avoidance of
this kind of situation the HCI should be upgraded or be updated. The update should follow to
make two different portals with different login IDs for the user, one for the drill and another
for the actual one. This will help the user to easily identify the mode of alarm they need
which will help restrict any further consequences like Hawaii. In case of emergency the user
can also access the alarm by dedicated fingerprint whereas in case of drill the login ID has to
be used, the fingerprint will not work in case of drill session. By implementing these in
HCI/UI the situation like Hawaii could be avoided.

3HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION
Exercise 3
According to the stated case study the author explains that there are various types of
culture in the whole world (Case Study, 2019). So for every culture it is not easy to
implement different kinds of HCI, rather the author puts a question of what is the need of
HCI in terms of culture. He explains that technology is the sole platform who can dictate an
activity which in turn the activity dictates the design. So design of products is mainly due to
HCI technology not for any cultural source enhancement. The interaction of persons in a
culture is too different with the interaction of technology with respect to HCI technology.
The views of the author is completely correct. As culture is different from
technological aspect. The implementation of HCI has no connection with the cultural
overview (Anderson et al. 2019). A culture can put an impact on the designing of normal
products as stated by the author. But technological diversities are least impacted with the
influence of culture. The arguments provided by the author mainly intends toward cultural
impact on physical products. The software or GUI’s does not gets impacted with the cultural
changes in the society from time to time. The impact of technology happens only to some
persons around the world who does not take culture into consideration with respect to
technological software changes.
Exercise 4
In this section we are to deal with a video that shows a leap motion that could be
implemented in arts, entertainment and many more interesting sectors to enhance the mid-air
gestural applications (Leap Motion, 2019).
Advantages:
 Portable
 The leap motion is an accurate form of interaction as well as cheaper

4HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION
 This type of motion supports high resolution
 This type of interaction is affordable for every type of user
 This interaction method is one of the most easiest method for interacting with
computers
 This type of motion uses plug and play via USB, which further eases the mode
of communication.
 In future this type of gesture interaction can be used in areas of Robotic,
Artificial Intelligence as well as in business fields also (Cabreira and Hwang
2015)
Disadvantages:
 Specific hardware as well as special programs are required to obtain and for
data processing.
 The performance in real life may not be translated into the computer model as
it is to be expected.
 There is a limitation for the number of apps that are available in airspace
 The applications are costly for this type of gestures
 It is not able to perform on all light conditions in a better manner.
Therefore, the leap motion is said to be an important aspect for future (McCartney,
Yuan and Bischof 2015). This technology will enhance the gesture interaction of the users
with computers to a next level. If the stated disadvantages are critically assessed, then the
leap motion technology will gain an enhanced level in the technological sector of gesture
interaction.

5HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION
References
Anderson, G., Keith, M., Albrecht, C., Spruill, A. and Pettit, C., 2019, January. Optimizing
Software Team Performance with Cultural Differences. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.
Cabreira, A.T. and Hwang, F., 2015, July. An analysis of mid-air gestures used across three
platforms. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference (pp. 257-258). ACM.
Case Study, H. (2019). [online] Available at: http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/
does_culture_matter_.html [Accessed 19 Mar. 2019].
Hawaii, C. (2019). Hawaii's missile alert gaffe: why good human-machine design is critical.
[online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/hawaiis-missile-alert-
gaffe-why-good-human-machine-design-is-critical-90144 [Accessed 19 Mar. 2019].
Leap Motion, C. (2019). [online] Available at: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?
v=_d6KuiuteIA [Accessed 20 Mar. 2019].
McCartney, R., Yuan, J. and Bischof, H.P., 2015. Gesture recognition with the leap motion
controller.
Norman, D., 2017. Design thinking. a useful myth?(2017).
Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H., 2015. Interaction design: beyond human-computer
interaction. John Wiley & Sons.