Critique of doors

I know, it sounds dull. I will keep it short and sweet. This is also a sort of overdone topic ever since The Psychology/Design of Everyday Things.

The basic idea here is that the use of doors should never enter consciousness. We should not do any “thinking” at all about them.
However, this is a difficult premise because people commit errors when using poorly-designed doors. Usually it is in pushing when they should pull or trying to open a locked door. It is the case that most of us don’t want to perform a complex cognitive task to open a door. Does that sound unreasonable?

Below is a picture of some of the worst doors in Northwest Ohio. They are of the entrance of the The Toledo Museum of Art.

Do you push or pull?

These doors have identical pullbars on both sides.

There is no cue of hinges because they aren’t visible. If you look closely at the top, you will see ambiguous knobby projections. These are odd internal pivots that act as hinges for the doors.
And yes, the doors open only out, but because they are identical on both sides, visitors do not have any clue before they try to open them.

Some designer must have thought that it was beautiful to hide the hinge-pivots inside the door. Perhaps that designer just hated museum visitors.

Although I am no expert on the aesthetics of the doors, it seems to be that doors have a single main use–they are meant to be opened. If they don’t do this well, they are not good doors. There is plenty of style inside the museum that does not cause visitor distress. Door style should come second to door function.

Beyond the designs that cause user errors, another issue exists… public restroom doors!

Q. What is a common problem of public restroom door design?

A. They open IN!

This is a terrible thing for restroom doors to do. Washing my hands is the last thing people do in the restroom (at least ideally people actually wash their hands). Many restroom designers have realized that people do not want to touch the same handles, faucets, and towel dispensers that everyone with dirty hands touches. That is why many new public restrooms include hand-sensing automatic faucets other such gadgetry that eliminate unneeded hand-to-object contact.

It is sad that after putting in that much consideration toward my pure and clean hands, the overall design of the restroom fails to leave them clean because upon leaving the restroom I have to open the door inward, therefore ensuring that my hands must touch the same dirty pull bar as every poor slob before me.
Opening the door with a paper towel makes sense, and sometimes people can even “three-point shot” the paper towel into the trash from the doorway. Unfortunately, this does not help in restrooms that have only hot air blower-style hand dryers or restrooms that run out of paper towels.

Anyone who would design a restroom without cleanliness in mind has odd priorities. This is especially true for places where clean hands are essential, like restaurants and medical buildings.

One positive note: I have heard that the value of opening doors outward is now being enforced by new building code. It is not for clean hands, but so people (especially the disabled) can move out of the restroom faster in case of an emergency.

Now if people would admit that doors can not only be physical obstacles, but mental obstacles as well.

*Update 9/11/04* The Clean-Escape is an example of good design that overcomes the inward-opening bathroom door problem. It is a simple bracket that is mounted to the bottom of the door. It that allows a person to use his/her foot to open the door.

News

June 16.04
I went to see Don Norman speak about his latest book, Emotional Design, last night. It was a pretty good talk–I was surprised at how different his examples were from a similar speech he gave last year. I enjoy the emphasis on emotional design in general, but I saw two minor potential problems that may arise from emotional design.

May 19.04
After much fiddling and revising, I am finally done with the PDA use study. I did a case study of my PDA use over a six-month time period. The article summarizes the data and I analyze the reasons why PDAs are used and what can be done to improve them. In other news, summer means a lot of reading and a lot of dissertation writing.

Apr. 29.04
The semester is coming to an end and I have collected what I anticipate to be all (or most) of my dissertation data. I will finally be able to finalize some of the articles that I have been working on and post them here. Until then, I changed my article on the Maytag Skybox, partially due to the fact that the previous version of the article was hastily-written and partially because I have been influenced by reading the book Emotional Design. Also, I am almost ready to post an article on PDA use that includes a case study.

Apr.13.04
I am committing to updating this website more often, even though this site has competition from a million other things in my life, including a time-intensive dissertation. The latest Alertbox (Useit.com) has an informal review of an interesting social study “Why mobile phones are annoying.” Although the study does not answer all of the questions that it raises, it is useful nonetheless. Nielsen ranted about the difference between face-to-face and mobile phone conversations in terms of noticability, intrusiveness, and annoyance. However he ignored the story of the data he posted (some of which appeared to be reported incorrectly, but that is another story), and strongly interpreted it:
“What is certain is that the research documents the fact that mobile phones are annoying […]”
However, people rated mobile phone conversations as less annoying and less intrusive than neutral in terms of both having had an “annoying” volume of conversation and as being “intrusive.” The mean rating was barely above this neutral mark in terms of being “noticeable.” In other words, people hardly thought the mobile phone conversations were annoying at all–just less non-annoying than face-to-face conversations. Regardless of the interpretation issue, the original study brings up good queries: Are mobile conversations annoying for casual eavedroppers (because half of the conversation is inaudible)? How can social protocol and mobile phone design be changed to provide a better “bystander” experience?