Crawford
I appreciated Crawford’s connecting of the previously disparate, from describing interaction as a spectrum rather than a duality to encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration instead of disciplinary arrogance. In that same vein, I want to expand and connect two of Crawford’s ideas: interaction as a spectrum and interaction as requiring at least two participants. When the latter concept is added into the former model, the spectrum expands from uni-axial to multi-axial, the number of axes representing the number of involved entities. Each axis would represent the amount of action taken by each participant, resulting in two-dimensional spectrum that shows relative action. This model might be more useful to designers in evaluating interactions in order to understand which part of the interaction requires attention.

Norman
The poor quality of the design of the everyday interactions of our campus is astounding. Doors with pull signifiers that push; arrows which do not point to their location or point to nowhere at all; and high line paths which feel forced at best and illogical at worst, combine to make everyday life here unnecessarily stressful. While Norman might qualify these interactions as poor and in need of redesign, this qualification may rest upon an improper assertion of values into a context to which they do not belong . What if that which Norman might inhibited affordances and poor signifiers might result from an emphasis on the value of security over freedom (or freedom through security)? When I read Norman’s work, while I am being educated about the basic concepts surrounding action, I am also reflecting on the author’s and the discipline’s own fundamental values, and how those shape the moral judgments underpinning the writing. If my concern is phrased as a question, it might be: how does one create good design when the judgement of good design means judging the users’ values as bad? If a signifier which is intended to confuse successfully confuses users, is it good design?