Analysis

A few good examples of Norman’s key design terms show up in this case on Spoiler Incompatibility.

The affordances that I have found in the design is one that an engineer should have come to terms with.  The greater size of the spoiler equals an increase in the

       weight of the trunk.  More weight means that a stronger latch spring will be needed to use the remote release latch effectively.
 

When looking at the remote release, I see a picture of the trunk of the car.  This is a good example of visibility.
 

When you pull on the remote release lever, you hear the sound of the spring releasing its tension, and the trunk popping.  This is feedback.
 

*  A good example of natural mapping is that you have to pull the remote release lever upwards, the same way the trunk will move.
 

After pulling the remote release lever a few times, and it does not work, taught helplessness sets in.  You never seem to trust the pull on the remote release,
 

    and always get out of the car without even attempting the remote release and going straight to the trunk with your keys.  (A learned response has set in from the
 

    non-working remote release)
 

Designers are not users, and that is probably the reason that this design flaw has occurred.  If the engineer who designed the trunk latch had realized and
 

    anticipated the market for bigger and heavier (better looking) spoilers, he/she would then have put a stronger latch spring inside the trunk latch mechanism.

Spoilers

Mitsubishi offers three different versions of the trunk of a Mitsubishi Eclipse.
Sport Spoiler  (weighs approx. 25 lbs.)
Factory rear wing  (weighs approx. 15 lbs.)

No spoiler

Aftermarket Spoilers

  1. spoiler
  2. spoiler
  3. spoiler
  4. spoiler
  5. spoiler


Next Page (Solutions to Design Problems)

Back to Main Page