4 - Edward Lautzenhiser

I agree with a fair bit of what's already been said on this topic.  Essentially, people don't actually know what they want, or even if someone does, and she's right that adding a certain function would make the design much better for her, that doesn't mean it would make it better for everyone, or even the majority of users.  As Hoekman pointed out in the book, people are far more likely to critique a design harshly, commenting on what it lacks, than to appreciate what it's done well.  People are never going to be completely happy with a design, and you shouldn't try to make a perfect design.

 

That being said, I don't think designers should simply ignore user feedback.  They should consider what the users claim they want, and play around with some of the features that seem to be more popularly demanded.  Then, if the designer feels the feature can be added without major negative repercussions (and has user tested this theory), the design can be updated.  If it doesn't seem to be possible to add functionality without reducing ease of use, then stick to ease over new ideas users have.

 

Hoekman's idea of situation-centric research is essentially considering how and in what context a design is used.  In this case, it is worth noting that a lot of college students who are using exercise equipment such as the stationary bike don't have the time to learn about all the functions it has, and don't want to waste a few minutes programming it for a more personalized workout every time they come to the gym.  Rather, the vast majority want a simple Quick Start workout.