Considering an almost complete reliance on this object, I am surprised it has not conformed to Norman’s principles very well. Every remote control I have encountered seems to have a different button mapping. Channel and volume buttons always seem to be in a different place or position and their configuration seems to place them parallel or perpendicular with no real conceptual consistency.
An older remote I had placed the numbers and button functions directly on the buttons. This worked fine until after some use all these characters rubbed off. I was left with a remote that only I could use because I remembered where the buttons were. Anyone who tried to use the remote would have no idea how to use it without conceptual consistence or visual representation.
The only reason I can conceive why this device is still around is it’s success with mappings and feedback. We use a remote control so we can stay on our couch and save about 5 seconds from getting off the couch. It’s instant feedback is the greatest lure of the remote. I know of people who will spend more time looking for the remote than to stand up and use the TV controls. This immediate gratification seems to supersede continued design complaints.

This is a large part by design, but for someone who doesn’t already know how to use it, it makes no sense. Its feedback is cryptic at best, yet gives no intuitive instruction as to how to do anything.

However, if one does know how to use it, the user is free of the clutter of a no-longer-needed intuitive/instructional interface. This gives the user more space on the screen with no distraction. Plus, the ‘unintuitive’ controls, once mastered, are extremely efficient.

Situation 1: “How to reset the phone to its default settings?”
We’ve got 2 identical phones shipped in the same day, and I wrongly set up my Google account on my wife’s phone, and vice versa. Our phones began to synchronize and copy all contacts with their email addresses and phone numbers from our Gmail accounts to the mobile devices. When I tried to reset the phones, there’s no “reset” button or icon that could be easily found.

Situation 2: “How to move apps or widgets from one desktop to another?”
My wife accidentally moved her clock widget to another desktop. Since there are totally 7 desktops on the phone, and she still wanted the clock to be centered on the main desktop, I had to figure out how to do that. And the user manual did not help.

Situation 3: “How to do ‘copy & paste’ on an Android phone?”
On computers it’s easy to use a mouse to select a chunk of info, copy it, and paste it somewhere else. On my Android phone, I still haven’t figured out how to do that or if that is doable.

From Visibility perspective, it seems that touch screens are designed to be user-friendly, so every movement is natural. And there should be no Mapping problems because users simply use their hands and fingers as tools to tap, drag, expand, shrink, or tilt. However, I had to look for online resources for some Feedback and suggestions to solve problem 1 & 2. I guess the Affordances of mobile devices is great, but it is definitely not 100% intuitive and visible yet.

Next time you need to get somewhere, but you don’t know how to get there, try using this: http://trip.cityofmadison.com/
Then utilize Google’s implementation: http://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/google/index.cfm

The real improvement is in visibility. The different steps to transfer buses need to be clearly illustrated, because getting on the proper bus is so vital to a good experience. Google’s implementation allows for quick changes and feedback, while affords users access to everything Google has to offer with a few mouse clicks. If I wanted to research different businesses with the Madison Metro website, I would have to open a new tab in my browser and probably use a search engine (Google?).

As far as feedback is concerned, it is quite obvious when the lamp is functioning correctly. When it is active, I am able to see the lamp, my table and just about everything else in the room clearly, and then it is inactive I am unable to see anything.

The conceptual model of the lamp is very straightforward. Points of interest include an exchangeable light bulb, detachable lampshade and on/off switch. The switch maps to the activation/deactivation the lamp.

Games, in my opinion, have the most to gain from the ideas presented by Norman. In fact, most successful games follow these ideas conventions already. Today, if the HUD does not convey the information needed players often become frustrated. If the player doesn’t understand that they lost life (by being hit by a bullet, or walking into an enemy), they won’t understand why they keep dying. In this case the information must be presented visually in a way the players understand. The feedback must also be instantaneous so that the player can determine what damaged them. This is perhaps why elements of good UI’s are stolen from one game and used in another.

In addition to good UI and feedback, games also rely heavily on the player’s understanding of Genre. I would argue that a Genre is a great example of a conceptual model. The first time a player plays a game they usually determine if it’s a Sidescroller, FPS, RPG, RTS etc. Once they understand what they’re playing they continue to draw on their prebuilt conceptual model in order to play it successfully. However, Games that stand the test of time are usually the games that take a preconceived conceptual model, and add a new form of interaction. Portal, for example, too the conceptual model of an FPS but added the ability to warp from place to place instantaneously using portals. Braid takes the conceptual model of a sidescroller and adds the ability to turn back time.