A fact from The Design of Everyday Things appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Cool. This can probably be expanded to more than a single sentence about doors because his exposition on idiotic door designs is fairly widely cited. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I bet so. The way I wrote it sounds like trivia but I know it's been so widely received that it's a point worth making. --Pnm (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DOET is a relatively popular text in HCI. In the preface to the 2002 edition, Don Norman states that many people asked "whether the lessons of DOET also apply to computers and digital and wireless devices" and comments that "at first I was surprised at these questions - of course they do; wasn't the answer obvious?" xiv
"I was absolutely talking about computers. I deliberately didn't use computers and other digital devices as examples because I wanted to show that the very same principles that applied to the design of doorknobs and light switches also applied to computers, digital cameras, cell phones, nuclear power control rooms, and aircraft - and, of course, vice versa". xv
Yes, I think we should mention this connection. Otherwise, there's nothing in the article that would lead people who are not very familiar with HCI to know that this is one of the most important texts in HCI.DrJill-from-NH (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Expanded and revised' version of 2013 has new ISBN(s):
ISBN10 0465050654 ISBN13 9780465050659
and/or
ISBN10 0262525674 ISBN13 9780262525671
but I'm not sure how to put multiple ISBNs in the box?
Can someone help me?
Thanks
peterl (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads: "Examples of affordances are flat plates on doors meant to be pushed". I think this is actually an example of signifier. It doesn't make the door openable, it just signifies that it can be opened if you push it on the plate. Ivant (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A sign saying "Push" would be a signifier of how to manipulate the door. As an affordance, a push plate is itself a possibility for manipulating the door, and is readily perceived as such. About this the book says, "When a device as simple as a door has to come with an instruction manual—even a one-word manual—then it is a failure, poorly designed." (Ch. 4, p. 87 in the 2002 Basic Books edition) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]