The evidence suggests that extended contact with technology—long hours spent practicing musical instruments or typing with the thumbs on cell phones or other hand-held devices—constitutes the kind of practice that can affect the brain (p167)… Experience does change the brain, especially prolonged, early experience of children (p167).
Brain changes brought about by learning and practice are not inherited, just as increased muscle mass is not passed from one generation to the next. Still, as technology enters the life of children at an earlier and earlier age, it will impact how they respond, think, and behave (p167).
Coincidently, these Norman’s statements regarding the impact of technology on brain and thoughts are relevant with a debate I experienced in my instructional design class last week. I agree with Norman. I actually registered as For side which supported that today’s net generations think and process the information differently than the previous generations. Our support was originally from Marc Prensky in his article Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants of 2001 in which he stated “It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous information environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it (technology), today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.” Our side proved it basically from these four arguments: access to digital information has biologically rewired brains; the net generations form a different personal and work values; digital technologies are used as a natural and useful way for net generations’ learning and the net generations have particular learning preferences that differ from the previous generations. While, the against side addressed that the evidence is not enough to convince us that our brain changed so that there is no difference from the old generation; we digital immigrant nowadays also interact with the technology and think and process the information in the same way as what the digital natives do. During the debate, another intriguing but controversial topic emerged from it that goes to the disadvantages of technology. As we concerned, the advanced technology are causing today’s students never sit, read and think of the classic literature, like Shakespeare, as the previous generation did. Statistics did show us, by age 21, the average net Generations will have spent:10,000 hours on cell phones; 10,000 hours playing video games; over 20,000 hours watching TV; over 250,000 sending/receiving emails and IMs; watched over 500,000 TV commercials, But, less than 5,000 hours reading. Here, probably, my focus is not on the advantages or disadvantages of the technology but the differences between digital natives and digital immigrants that the technology is bringing to us. Whatever, I still believe that the children’s brains will be modified early in their lives to accommodate new skills that technology requires. To them, technology is not technology but a natural way to interact with everyday things. It’s not surprising why my friend’s 6-year old son can play Wii very well without any tutorials in the first time, for me, however, it took me about more than 10 minutes to figure out the function of each button and how to correspondingly handle the controller well.
Smart technologies have the capacity to enhance pleasure, simplify lives, and add to our safety (p156).
Design, today, is taught and practiced as an art form or craft, not as a science with known principles that have been verified through experimentation and that can be used to derive new design approaches (p172). ..We need a new approach, one that combines the precision and rigor of business and engineering, the understanding of social interactions, and the aesthetics of the arts (p173).
It is so true that today’s design is not merely a science issue or an art issue. As Norman suggests, the new trend for design everyday things is to apply a comprehensive approach to try to make our lives ideal.
I think this trend is currently realized and advocated by our societies. It reminds me of 2010 Seoul international design competition. It envisioned the realization of an egalitarian society and human values through design proposals that are easy, convenient, and pleasant to use. It also emphasized the importance of digital technology-based communication that was rapidly increasing in the environment of a contemporary city, in which design could bring convenience, safety, equality and pleasure to citizens. The motto—‘design for all’ objective is made to increase the efforts and the pursuit of design production that can be shared by all, removing emotional and physical barriers by becoming an universal communicative social solution.
Among those winners, I was so impressed by Yoga traffic lights (see the fun design from the below video). The designer tried to make the time spent waiting at traffic lights more productive with the Yoga Traffic Light. It was designed exactly like a regular traffic light except that it shows yoga poses during red lights. The Yoga Traffic Light turns what would be wasted time into a fun mini yoga session, which helps you kill time and avoid getting bored at that moment. Plus, such slight design change on the traffic lights could go a long way in preventing accidents and promoting a more leisurely and safe lifestyle.
We are fortunate generations, as we are experiencing a society with hi-tech development and witnessing tons of possibilities turn into tons of realities. We human beings are so imaginative and are optimistic on how the future things will be. Yes, “This is a future that is emotionally appealing and engaging as well as educational and entertaining (p174).”
