Interaction is a core activity that we perform daily, from interacting with simple devices such as a

cup to managing a complex computer with multiple inputs and combinations of it. Of course, there are
daily interactions that I find annoying simply because the design was bad. As such, I will start listing the 3
objects that I find interacting with it pestering.

Image 1: broken Bluetooth headphones

The first object I shall talk about is my broken headphones. Headphones are devices that
connect to a sound source through Bluetooth or wired so that it can transmit the sound to the two circle
parts of the headphone (ear parts). For these headphones specifically, I usually use Bluetooth to connect
it, albeit it usually automatically connects to my laptop or my phone once after the first time’s
connection, which I find very convenient. I use it by putting the device on my head and place the ear
parts over my ears. Before doing so, one must articulate the ear part 90 degrees. Although the sound
quality is amazing, its durability does not last. As such, the joint for the ear part to turn is too small, thus
it is too fragile. It is not annoying, but the structure is designed poorly, and I felt that one day it is going
to break. I feel very awful for these headphones because the electronics still work fine, but the joint is
broken in such a way that I cannot use it anymore. The question regarding the fact that reparation of it
does not affect the fact that its structure is horrendously designed. Interaction requires two elements to
be operated. Thus, the headphones broke was also my fault for using it inconsiderately. If the question
regarding the reason why I currently still keep a pair of broken headphones (yes, I did not break it
intentionally just for the sake of this essay) ever crosses one’s mind, it is because I want to remind myself
that carefulness is necessary when it comes to electronic devices. Don Norman has written that “Why
did people blame themselves when a device itself was at fault?” I partially disagree with that. An
interaction exists if and only if there is information exchanged between two components (human and
machine). Thus, it is the device’s and my fault. If I was the designer for the headphones’ model, I would
make the joint materials stronger, remodel the joints although I lack architectural experience to know

1
what structure is strong and what is not, or I would remove the joint for good, because it is a bad
structure. I hope that HCI can improve my skills on designing a better structure/articulations of object.

Image 2: Better view of the broken headphones

The second bad interaction I had that I want to introduce is my second-hand heater. To use it,
one must plug it into an electric socket, and it should automatically turn on. The power button does not
actually turn it on. It only turns the LCD screen on. It does not actually turn the heater on or off. The only
way to effectively turn it on or off is to plug or unplug it. I would add another on/off button on the side
of the heater so that it is easier to use. However, there might be a better alternative solution that I might
not know of. Therefore, I look forward to HCI upon mentoring me about improving interface.

Image 3: Plugged in heater

2
 There is also another example of on/off switches that is confusing to use. The image below is the
Vilhopaja (used to be called Sähkopaja) power switch.

Image 4: Vilhopaja station switched off

Looking at it, one might have thought that turning the black switch 90 degrees clockwise to
number 1 will turn on the power, until one figures out doing so does not work, as shown in Image 5.

3
 Image 5: Vilhopaja station still switched off

To actually turn it on, one must turn it an extra 45 degrees clockwise until it points at the “Start”
indicator. I personally do not recall if I ever had this problem. However, I have seen a person looking
everywhere around the station, simply because he thought the wire was loose somewhere. If I did not
interfere and point out what he must do to turn it on, he might take more than 20 minutes to figure out
what was wrong with it. It is annoying, because it is a switch that took you maybe more than 20 minutes
just to figure out what went wrong. Not only that, the consideration of it not being also plugged in
somewhere makes the user spends more time. Don Norman and Hornbæk would both agree that the
switch’s design is heavily flawed and confusing, as the indicators completely failed the message it tries to
deliver to the user. If I were the one to redesign this, I would replace the Start line with number 1, as it is
unnecessary to have 3 indicators for an on/off switch. However, HCI might be able to point out further
flaws these designs have that I never have thought about.

The final device that I had bad interaction with is my keyboard.

Image 6: Keyboard

I believe everyone knows how to use a keyboard. You press buttons and letters are being typed.
With this keyboard I am using, I only need to connect it to my computer using a USB cable, then it would
work like a normal keyboard would. However, if you take a closer look, some buttons on the keyboard
have more than 2 functions.

4
 Image 7: Close up on keys of the keyboard

As you can see, the keys have 4 different functions, based on the combination of other keys you
pressed. For instance, if you press “Shift” alongside with “6”, you will get “^”. But then what about F7 or
the square symbol thing? To utilize the “F7” button, pressing it with “Fn” key will allow the function to be
performed. But to this day, I still do not have any clue how I can get the square symbol on the “6” key to
work, because both the “Shift” key and the “Fn” key were used, and there does not seem to be any
other possible key that might unlock it. The interaction is too complicated, making it extremely difficult
to understand and utilize without a manual. Not only that, but the lack of indication on the keyboard
itself also contributes to the confusion caused to the user. I also could not figure out any possible
solutions that does not include adding more keys to the keyboard, because I can imply that the reason 4
various functions are squeezed into one key is so that the keyboard would be smaller and more
convenient. Adding more keys would devaluate the targeted goal that the maker wanted. The one thing I
am sure of is that the keyboard’s interface design completely fails the “Interaction as Control” concept of
control in Hornbæk’s research paper. This keyboard is also similar to the Telephone example that Don
Norman mentioned in his book. Perhaps in HCI, they can show me how an alternative could be made
without changing the original purpose of it.

To summarize, these devices are the designs that until now I find irritating when I want to use it.
I hope that the HCI course will show me what design is good and what is bad. This also allows me to
design games that is easy for players to interact with. As such, I am looking forward to studying the
course.

References:

1/Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things

2/Hornbæk Kasper and Oulasvirta Antti’s What is interaction?