Corn Sheller: Where to Now?

       Do you know what type of system this is? This is a corn sheller. Did you picture this as your mental model? Probably not. There are many design and usability problems with this piece of equipment. First off, there is no signifier telling the user whether to stick the ear of corn in the top of the system or in the side. Another problem with the corn sheller is that the corn kernels come out where a person is cranking the machine, creating obstruction between the bucket that catches the kernels and the cranking handle. Another issue with the corn sheller is that the ear is stuck in the top and the cob comes out the opposite side, making this system near to impossible for one person to operate. Saying this, this system has poor affordances.
       This system also has poor mapping, for the user does not know how to operate the piece of equipment without instruction from a previous user. One way this system could have better mapping and use signifiers would be to use arrows and images on the system pointing to what happens inside of the system. This system could afford better usability by placing the spout that the kernels come out of on the opposite side so that the bucket catching the kernels would not get in the way. While this system is not designed very well, the feedback the system provides is realatively good. The user knows that they are using the piece of equipment correctly when they see kernels coming out the spout, otherwise, something is wrong.

Stationary Bike Does Not Pass Inspection

       This stationary bicycle on the lower left side of the page is what many people would see as their mental model of a stationary bike. However, take a closer look at the top right image. While riding this bicycle, I wanted to adjust the handles so that they are closer to my body, which would allow me to ride the bicycle and hold on without bending over and hurting my back. However, this is as close to me as the handle bars would go. But doesn't it appear that the handles could be moved closer to me since there is still one more hole? Well, that's what I thought until I realized that the metal piece with the knob is not attached to the the handles and is just there to help hold the metal bar that goes through it. So, if I would want to push the handle bars farther out I could, but then they would be even less usable for me as a rider. Another problem with this bike is that in order to adjust certain parts, the rider has to stop cycling and get off.
       First, let me offer some some insight and basic solutions to the handle bar problem. While I understand that racing bicycle enthusiasts ride crunched over, I believe the designer should have allowed the bar to come closer to the rider for those who use the bike leisurely. The designer also should have not made the metal piece appear to be attached to the handles, which makes the rider think that the handle bars could be moved closer to the body when in fact, they can't be. By using Human-Centered Design, I could find a solution to this problem. I would make the handles and the metal piece with the knob connected; this would reduce errors and allow for the user to move the handles forward and back with ease. In The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman, Norman explains that when creating designs, designers should focus on the "physical anthropometry" of the object; that is, making the object usable for people of all sizes. I believe one way of doing this and solving the problem of having to stop cycling to adjust certain features would be to have electronic controls connected to the handle bars that could control the seat and handle bar positioning. While I just named a few improvements that this bicycle should have, designers could use Human-Centered Design and test the object on subjects to make a product that is the more usable.