You’d think the author and publisher would try harder not to
break the cardinal rule of having the illustration appear on the same page, or
at least on the same double truck, as its first citation.
You’d think the author and publisher would update a rather
prominent acronym referring to an earlier title of the same book.
And though it’s touted as a classic in the design world,
it’s showing its age – particularly in the final chapters dealing with
computers. There’s a treasure-trove of design-related complaints to be made in
an updated version that I think the author should seriously consider.
That being said, I still enjoyed the time I spent with
Donald Norman’s “Design of Everyday Things.”
His seven tenets of design still stand firm:
- Use both knowledge in the world and in the head
- Simplify the structure of tasks
- Make things visible
- Get the mappings right
- Exploit the powers of constraints – natural and artificial
- Design for error
- When all else fails, standardize.
As I read, part of me kept wondering if I could use these
design tenets to help my English students as they write essays. In a way,
following these seven bits of advice when writing an essay seem to me as
applicable as they do in designing objects – because it’s all too easy for the
writer, just as it is for the builder – to come up with a terribly-designed
object.
So how could I apply this to writing? Maybe take them one by
one.
Use both knowledge in the world and in the head.
All of us possess little bits of knowledge or opinion on a
vast number of subjects. But when we go to write about things, we need to
combine our internal knowledge and opinion with that from the outside world,
not only to write a good paper but also to broaden and deepen our own
understanding of the subject.
Simplify the structure of tasks.
Too often we see students over-reliant on the tried and true
structures of what is expected in “good writing.’ While we want them to a point
understand what makes writing good, we should also acknowledge that good
structure doesn’t come in only a few rigid forms. I openly confess to my
students that I rarely outline, for example. I use little structural tricks
that work for me. We need to help them find the tricks that work for them.
Make things visible.
Don’t leave things unsaid, the teacher says, or words
undefined. If there’s a chance your audience won’t understand a word or a
concept, find a different way to explain things. Use simile and metaphor as
well as plain writing. Do what you can to make your subject visible to your
audience.
Get the mappings right.
Writing to argue or to explain needs to end up with the
thing argued or the thing explained. Writers should give clear direction for
where they’re going, and then get there. If an audience expects something, take
them there or have a damn good reason why you don’t – and explain your reasons
to your readers.
Exploit the powers of constraints – natural and artificial.
All writers have their weaknesses. All writers should strive
to make their weaknesses their strengths. At the same time, all writers should
know that if they struggle with spelling or punctuation, they – and their
instructors – should not allow that struggle to overwhelm the underlying
thoughts. Bad spellers can be good thinkers, and when we exploit our
constraints to see where thought goes even when the eyes bleed, we’d be better
off.
Design for error.
Anticipate and analyze the weaknesses in your writing – and
focus on those weaknesses as you revise. That’s a higher level of designing for
error, going beyond the pedestrian grammar/punctuation. I’d rather see those
kinds of errors, rather than errors in logic, which are much harder to fix.
When all else fails, standardize.
Here, I mean voice. We want to hear you, the writer,
present. We don’t want a formula. We don’t want a rote recital. Think about the
best bits of writing you remember – it all has distinct voices coming out. Find
your voice and standardize.
This is, of course, just a rough-stab, off-the-cuff look.
I’ll have to give this some more thought and revise, revise, revise.
And a better question: Do we really need another x-point
guide to writing? Probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment