The Design of Everyday Things (Norman, 2013),
Managing Split- Attention and Redundancy (Kalyuga, Sweller, & Sweller, 1999)
Main Ideas
Analysis
Quotes/Summary
Reflection
Physical, cultural, semantic and logical constraints are the main types of constraints used to help learners interpret possible actions.
Constraints serve to help learners recognize the appropriate action to take, without directly telling them; they are especially useful in unfamiliar situations.
Using dual-mode presentation can eliminate split attention, which decreases cognitive load.
Duplicated information in instructional designs can do more harm than good for learners.
This information is especially beneficial for up and coming and current instructional designers. Avoiding the pitfalls of split-attention and redundancy will produce better instruction. Also, ensuring that visible affordances are inegrated throughout the design are also beneficial.
If redundancy is so bad, why is it widely held that repetition is the best teacher?
Would use of visable affordances and constraints strengthen or weaken higher-order and critical thinking?
What are the best strategies to use when integrating the same bits of information to avoid split attention?
When better and more efficient methods are discovered, there can still be a stagnation in progress. Norman (2013) writes:
*"This is called the legacy problem, and it will come up several times in this book. Too many devices use the existing standard—that is the legacy" (p.126)
No matter how much better the alternative method is, the legacy effect will cause the adaptation to run into a stalemate because major changes on too many levels would need to be made.
Constraints need to be obvious so that users do not get confused. In regards to USB plugs, Norman (2013) says:
"Some devices, such as USB plugs, are constrained, but the constraint is so subtle that it takes much fussing and fumbling to find the correct orientation
' (p.127).
This can be applied to many devices that fail to have obvious constraints. This omission is likely attributed to the desire to have certain aesthetics, but at what cost? Would we rather have a visually pleasing item more than it's ease of use?
Kalyuga, Sweller, and Sweller, (1999) state:
"Cognitive load theory suggests that one way to facilitate learning may be to physically integrate the two sources of information to reduce the need for mental integration
(e.g. by directly embedding portions of text into the diagram). An alternative to physical integration may be to increase eective working memory capacity by using a dual-mode presentation technique and replacing the visual-textual explanations with equivalent auditory explanations" (p.356)"
Designers need to make sure that they do not include the same information in all methods. Choose one, or integrate so that the information is only provided once.
Creating designs that are efficient are best for cognitive load so that learners can receive and utilize the information better.
Visual affordances are critical in design of both physical items and instructional designs.
Performing in ways that are unnatural to us leads to human error. Punishing those who commit the error is futile without further research as to why it happened in the first place. A root cause analysis will help us find the underlying causes of the error.
Even after reasons have been found, continue questioning their cause since there can be multiple causes.
Are there ways to address unintentional violations (to nonsensical rules) so that the user is less likely to make them? Why are the rule "makers" so resistant to change to rules that incorporate common sense?