<p>The answer is "yes."  The entire field of Human Factors and Ergonomics is devoted to enhancing the experience of the human user. Cognitive engineering is the branch of human factors that focuses specifically on how people perceive and respond to system interfaces.  Engineers and scientists in this field try to design components, systems, interfaces, and even training to be the best fit for the users.  By exploiting built-in capabilities and navigating around known pitfalls with human cognitive abilities, we can design systems that are more natural and thereby safer and more effective to operate.</p>

<p>Now, as to whether the design of the interface has anything to do with people failing to see possible improvement(s) - I think this is unrelated. If you read Donald Norman's <em>The Design of Everyday Things</em>, he makes a big deal about how people blame themselves for the ergonomic shortfalls of a poorly designed thing. </p>

<p>Take a push-pull door with pull handles on both sides of the door. The natural action is to walk up and pull on the handle, because handles afford pulling (regardless of what side of the door they are on).  So, you pull on the "push side," then blame yourself for not reading the sign that said "Push," when in fact it was a bad design that led you to pull in the first place. And you carry on without a second thought, nevermind the fact that it was the designer, not you, who is an imbecile.</p>

<p>So, the short answer to the second part of the question is people don't generally think about improving the system, they think about how to avoid making mistakes in using the system.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-08T16:27:56.703Z
Exactly what Donald Norman says! If a thing needs a sign to tell people what to do with it, the design is a failure.
theMayer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-07T02:38:33.977Z
2014-02-07T02:43:51.840Z
2014-02-07T02:43:51.840Z
theMayer
<p>There was an interesting discussion <a href="https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/50259/why-do-washing-machines-have-windows">on UX.StackExchange related to washing machines and their front windows</a>. I was very surprised that it took me like 2 minutes or so to figure out why the washing machine has a window, but most of the answers or comments (including those with many votes) don't express the real reason, which would be similar to this:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For front-loaders without viewing windows on the door, it is possible
  to accidentally pinch fabric between the door and the drum, resulting
  in tearing and damage to the pinched clothing during tumbling and
  spinning. - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_machine#Front-loading" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Question</strong>: Does a more ergonomic and user friendly interface make the human brain work less, or less intensive, so it can not see the initial purpose of an improvement made in a system or on one of its elements?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-05T15:22:41.110Z
Thank you for your feedback, I created a separated question [here](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5635/can-reduced-cognitive-load-lead-to-some-kind-of-mental-or-physical-atrophy)
Cornel
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-06T07:32:23.753Z
Just figured out the second part. Here's a paraphrasing: "Can an interface become so user-friendly that a user will ultimately fail to understand the need for the improvements to the interface's user-friendliness?" This isn't a better phrasing IMHO; just a different angle on the same idea (I think).
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-06T09:26:05.483Z
Yes, the paraphrasing is similar to the initial question.
Cornel
<intelligence><attention><human-factors>
Does a more ergonomic and user friendly interface/device make the human brain work less?
Cornel
# Does a more ergonomic and user friendly interface/device make the human brain work less?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-02-05)

There was an interesting discussion [on UX.StackExchange related to washing machines and their front windows](https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/50259/why-do-washing-machines-have-windows). I was very surprised that it took me like 2 minutes or so to figure out why the washing machine has a window, but most of the answers or comments (including those with many votes) don't express the real reason, which would be similar to this:

> For front-loaders without viewing windows on the door, it is possible
> to accidentally pinch fabric between the door and the drum, resulting
> in tearing and damage to the pinched clothing during tumbling and
> spinning. - [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_machine#Front-loading).

**Question**: Does a more ergonomic and user friendly interface make the human brain work less, or less intensive, so it can not see the initial purpose of an improvement made in a system or on one of its elements?

**Tags:** intelligence, attention, human-factors

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you for your feedback, I created a separated question [here](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/5635/can-reduced-cognitive-load-lead-to-some-kind-of-mental-or-physical-atrophy)  
> **username_1**: Just figured out the second part. Here's a paraphrasing: "Can an interface become so user-friendly that a user will ultimately fail to understand the need for the improvements to the interface's user-friendliness?" This isn't a better phrasing IMHO; just a different angle on the same idea (I think).  
> **username_0**: Yes, the paraphrasing is similar to the initial question.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-02-07. Score: 4

The answer is "yes." The entire field of Human Factors and Ergonomics is devoted to enhancing the experience of the human user. Cognitive engineering is the branch of human factors that focuses specifically on how people perceive and respond to system interfaces. Engineers and scientists in this field try to design components, systems, interfaces, and even training to be the best fit for the users. By exploiting built-in capabilities and navigating around known pitfalls with human cognitive abilities, we can design systems that are more natural and thereby safer and more effective to operate.

Now, as to whether the design of the interface has anything to do with people failing to see possible improvement(s) - I think this is unrelated. If you read Donald Norman's *The Design of Everyday Things*, he makes a big deal about how people blame themselves for the ergonomic shortfalls of a poorly designed thing.

Take a push-pull door with pull handles on both sides of the door. The natural action is to walk up and pull on the handle, because handles afford pulling (regardless of what side of the door they are on). So, you pull on the "push side," then blame yourself for not reading the sign that said "Push," when in fact it was a bad design that led you to pull in the first place. And you carry on without a second thought, nevermind the fact that it was the designer, not you, who is an imbecile.

So, the short answer to the second part of the question is people don't generally think about improving the system, they think about how to avoid making mistakes in using the system.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Exactly what Donald Norman says! If a thing needs a sign to tell people what to do with it, the design is a failure.  

---

