Exercise 1

Exhibit A - Building 3 Norman Door

This door is outside of our lecture hall, and I consider it a Norman door because it is not very useable upon first encounter. The door has poor visibility because it does not indicate where to push and pull effectively, nor does it show the supporting column or hinges on the door. The handles are confusingly oriented so the side that looks like push (horizontal bar) is actually meant to be pulled, and the side that is meant to be pushed (L handle) looks as if it should be pulled. The side with the L bar has a sign on the handle that indicates push, but it is far too subtle and the other side of the same door has no similar indicator. Luckily, it is easy to remember the mechanism of the door, so I know the right direction now.
To fix this issue, I would first change the handles on the door. The handles are the biggest signifier that confused me. I would change them so that push has a horizontal bar and pull has a vertical bar. In my opinion, that alone would be enough to solve most of the door's usability issues, but if I were to go a step further, I would add a more visible tag or a clear instruction label instead of the hard to see one they have.

Exhibit B - Building 16 Toilet Flushers

This toilet flusher is in building 16, and I consider it to have poor design because it does not consider the conceptual model that people are used to regarding toilet flushers with. Most people, whether they have a switch or a button, push in order to flush their waste. It is the most natural movement born from experiences with toilets in the home and elsewhere. The point of this design was to reserve water and help the evironment, which can be done by giving the user the option to use less water to flush liquid waste. It is common that a toilet will handle more liquid than solid waste throughout the day, so the solid waste trigger should be mapped to the less natural movement. Additionally, it is common in recent times for people to flush with their feet, which would be difficult to accomplish with this type of flusher.
To fix this issue, I would first change the shape of the handle such that it could be pushed or pulled easily using just feet. The thin cylindrical piece does not offer enough grip, so I would change it to be a flatter shape with a hook that would allow for easy pulling. Next, I would alter the design of the flusher so that the down trigger does not map to the solid waste option but rather the liquid waste option. These two changes would allow the design to be cleaner and more effective.

Exhibit C - Restroom Signs in W97

These restroom signs have poor design because it sends a confusing message. Each of the signs independently are good readable signs, but they create a mess when put together. It is confusing because it is not clear why the gendered sign is put up, or if those who identify as something else are welcome in that restroom. For example, the top sign clearly indicates that it is a women's bathroom, but the bottom sign indicates that all identities are welcome. Of course, women are included in these identities, but most users are accustomed with the idea that restroom gender signs are exclusive. This creates a conflict of how to use the product, which in this case is the restroom.
To fix this, I would clarify the intent behind placing these two signs or get rid of one entirely. The confusion comes from the fact that users are not used to this form of bathroom rules. I would make add to the women's sign the word "suggested" at the top or below "women", to show that the sign is there to give a soft guideline but not a strict requirement like other bathroom gender signs. In the other case, I would remove either sign and stick with the traditional meaning behind them. If I removed the inclusive sign, then I would accept that the restroom is now dedicated towards that gender. If I removed the gendered sign, I would accept that the restroom is now available to all like the one in Hayden library.