Category Archives: Week 2

Out of our control and out of our sight

A smarphone is, stripped down to its largest most basic components, a box of aluminum, plastic and glass. In it, however, are several hardware and software components that work to allow for countless functions. Among many others, basic smartphone today can hold apps for organizing, like clock, calendar, note-taking, maps, and weather apps; apps to communicate with others, like chat, email, and apps for social network sites; apps to access documents, music, and news in text and audio, and apps to create content, such as writing or photo, audio and video editing apps. The hardware components include a camera and a microphone, allowing the user to record information. Each of these apps is made of software that has different components, such as the code that runs the basic functionality of the app and the code that displays its mobile-friendly user interface — this code is also made up of components of specific strings of code that process specific tasks. As Arthur (2009) explains, technologies are made up of components that are technologies in themselves and are ordered hierarchically.

A smartphone also includes hardware and protocols that allow it to connect to the Internet, which means that its owner is able to communicate and engage with others through the use of these apps. In this way, they fall into the category of cultural software, as they “support actions we normally associate with “culture,”” like creating, accessing, and sharing information and knowledge online, communicating with other people, and engaging in cultural experiences and the online information ecology (Manovich, 2012, p. 21-3). When we interact with these apps, there are components that are visible and many that are not. The app is made of code, which are instructions for how data should be processed and displayed. What I can see is the user interface, the front end, the result of whatever process takes place through the app’s code. What I can’t see is the instructions and how the processes take place.

When I open Facebook on my iPhone, for example, the first thing I see on the top is a search box, which is the outcome of code that displays a blue rectangular box in which I can enter text. Once I enter a search term and hit “Search,” I get a list of results, which is the outcome of code that tells the application how to look for the term I entered within some database and in what order to show it to me. Those instructions, those criteria, those databases — that I cannot see. Below the search box, a row of three buttons offer me the choice to do a live webcast, take a photo, or “check-in.” The app has access (if I provide it) to my camera, my microphone, and my location. Below that, there is the “What’s on your mind?” box, the publishing tool through which I can post text, hyperlinks, photos, videos, live videos, check-ins (again), a “feeling/activity” or tag friends. I can see these options provided to me, in that order, and take one of these actions within the app, but I can’t see how the code behind it prioritizes my post in relation to others to publish in other people’s News Feeds.

This cultural piece of software then, allows me to perform cultural activities in which I take some decisions and have some information, but that are also part of decisions made by others — decisions as to what data I can access and how what I share can be accessed by others.

These apps also fall into what Norman (1991) calls cognitive artifacts, “artificial devices that maintain, display, or operate upon information in order to serve a representational function and that affect human cognitive performance” (p.17). I interact with these apps by entering information to be processed in some way, and this in turn affects how I continue to process it. As explained by Norman, these type of artifacts not simply amplify our capabilities, but they change the nature of the tasks we perform (p. 19). If I want to share a picture with a friend without this software, I have to get a physical copy of it, meet my friend, and show it to her, and in doing so I can see firsthand that she sees it and her reaction to it. If I use the software, I need to only press a few buttons and wait for her to see it when she will. If I post it on Facebook, I assume it will appear on her News Feed but can only confirm if she signals back through a Like or comment or if I ask her; I don’t know how Facebook’s algorithms decide to show information on her side of the screen. Again, there are decisions in my use of cognitive, cultural software that are out of my control.

On top of this, the software is designed in a very precise way. We have had web and mobile applications for long enough now that companies understand the importance of user-centered design. A company like Facebook spends much time and money researching its users and designing user experiences that engage people in the app and provide options to share information in specific ways. Much like the pushing and pulling doors Norman speaks about in The Design of Everyday Things (2002), the Facebook user interface is full of intuitive buttons that guide the user into streams of activities to publish photos in a certain way, share specific information (like geographical location) publicly, interact with people in specific moments (think birthday reminders or the option for “feeling/activity”), etc. We have interacted with the platform enough that Facebook has determined certain things we like to do and has incorporated them in their menu of actions and designed their steps for us to now follow. Surely they invest time thinking about how to make these designs pleasant, but they guide our behavior anyway.

The algorithms that are behind these cognitive, cultural applications then are also black boxes within the black box that is the smartphone, a component of this technology that is a technology in itself and as such contains components that are visible and others that are invisible to its users. It is designed in a way that is user-centered in the sense that it is friendly, easy to use. But it is also designed in a way that guides behavior, and as cognitive artifacts, this means they affect how we interact with information and how we communicate with others in ways that are out of our control and out of our sight


Brian Arthur, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. MIT Press, 2015
Lev Manovich, Software Takes Command. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013
Donald A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2002.
Donald A. Norman, “Cognitive Artifacts.” In Designing Interaction, edited by John M. Carroll, 17-38. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Thinking about my Smart TV

I have some critical considerations on Brian Arthur’s approach. Because he is influenced by the natural sciences and the Darwinism, he completely ignores the social dimensions of the phenomenon under study. He becomes what I understand to be a technology determinist. This doesn’t mean that the principles he brings aren’t useful, but rather that one would need to complement the analysis of the development of technologies with a more social approach to understand other drivers that contribute to it. In this direction, Lev Manovich, with a grounded and inductive approach for building the media software history shows the substantial relevance of social forces to what we see today, including the social conditions of production and the software market constraints.

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed the idea of using Arthur’s principles of combination and recursiveness to see beyond my “black-boxed” Smart TV. Looking at it now, it is not a flat screen with a very thin depth anymore. Maybe it is a combination of my old TV set with my old PC set. I can imagine the monitor, the microphone, the speakers, the camera and the tower all combined in this new modern device. Within it, it is possible to have a video board, a soundboard, a slot of memory, a hard drive, a cpu, a network board, wi-fi components, and many slots to connect the small chunked parts, all of them made by circuits and transistors. There is also the software, the operational system, to mediate our relation with the device. At the end of the day, even if I have a connected TV, it was designed to have a locked-in internet (an!).

I wonder which small parts come directly from the old tube-TVs in the combinatorial processes that generated the Smart TV. I found an interesting blog post explaining how to transform our old TV in a smart one, showing that the video function of old TVs could be kept, being necessary to add basically processing capacity, memory and connection. Here is the list that we would need to buy:

  • Raspberry Pi B+ or Raspberry Pi 2( Mini Computer )
  • 8 GB SD CARD, Class 10
  • Working Computer For Initial Set Up
  • Wireless Network with Internet Connection,
  • Leoxsys USB Wifi Dongle
  • Working Android or iOS Device As Remote,
  • 3 Pole Audio to Suitable Cable Like RCA Cable Or HDMI Cable if TV Accepts HDMI


Anyway, I can’t accept the “evolution” of TV sets fully explained by technology itself. And there are more than “human minds” out there. There is society, all its interests and constraints.

Hardwares and Softwares Black Box – we are living-in-black-box-era people

The word – black box, actually originates from computer science, by which the related concept – black box testing – is defined as “a testing approach whereby the program is considered as a complete entity and internal structure is ignored. Test data are derived solely from the application’s specification”[1]. When I meditate on the definition made by computer scientist and think over what is the relationship between this seemingly obscure term and our daily objects, I notice that “internal structure is ignored” can easily give me answer: people can analyze, use and fix the system without knowing the exact structure within it. It is not difficult to find the examples: Watt knew how every piston worked so he could improve the steam machine, but those rank-and-file workers could be the main characters of Industrial Revolution without knowing even what the machine they worked with was called; The great pioneers of modern computer science – Alan Turning, John Von Neuman, Dennis Ritchie and so on – had to deal with the systems without considerate user interfaces or even the non-electronic prototypes inherited from Charles Babbage, while modern programmers creating complicated and elaborate artificial intelligence and user interfaces using mature compilers, game engines and standard senior computer languages even without learning the assembly language or microcontrollers.

When I browsed Amazon to decide what to buy, gaming console is always the first item I want to review. Actually, considering hardware layer, consisted of a monitor or TV to output images, a console(similar to a personal computer) to run the game disc and a gamepad to interact directly with players, the whole console system itself includes three main parts working together in order to give users the best experiences of playing.


The PS4 system has three main sections – monitor, console and gamepad

Now, just as Arthur mentioned in The Nature of Technology[2], we can break the three main parts into some minor subsystems

  • Monitors can be divided into CRT, LED, OLED and so on by light source, each using absolutely different technologies and containing relatively different parts. For example, the main subsystem of CRT monitor is cathode ray tube, the light source, which can be further divided into electron guns and phosphorescent screen. Considering the latest console platforms require monitors or TVs supporting HDMI technology, the interface panel is also an important subsystem of monitors.

  • Console itself can be regarded as a personal computer. Similar to a computer case, inside a console lay many components like CPU, graphic card, RAM and hard disk. Actually, each subsystem can be divided into more subsystems as well: For instance, my MSI laptop uses a GTX970M mobile graphic card from Nvidia(I use the example of my laptop just because gaming consoles’ graphic cards are also provided by AMD and Nvidia and the working mechanisms are of no difference), and I list all parameters about my card below:



Actually, two main subsystems of a graphic card are listed above: GPU and video memory. The relationship between these two parts can be compared to the one between CPU and RAM. My graphic card also contains a special socket called Mobile PCI Express  Module(MXM), allowing me to update the graphic card, so this special socket is also a subsystem of my graphic card.

  • Gamepad is also a great example to illustrate the subsystems. We can simply regard the gamepad as a combination between interactive system – buttons, touchpad and bars – and control system, a PCB with many different components.

I’d also like to talk a little about software or operating systems used by gaming consoles. The first thing I want to mention is that console system is something, unlike Windows or Linux, closed-sourced, meaning developers can only release their games with authorization from Microsoft, Sony or Nitendo. And the second thing I want to say is a term called application programming interface(API), allowing developers to link the application software with operating system itself. Be it the universal graphics APIs, like OpenGL and DirectX, or the graphics APIs designed for a specific platform, like GNM and GNMX for Playstation 4, they all serve as the bridge between operating system and development layer.

Now back to the principles mentioned by requested books this week. The gaming console system is undoubtedly a black box system. For a player, what appears in front of him or she is just a plastic toy box with a gamepad. If you insert a disc into the driver and link the console with a big TV, you can enjoy the whole day couching in the sofa and interacting with the meticulously designed characters in the game. Of course, having no computer science background will not stop you from having virtuoso gaming performance or becoming a professional gaming video producer like PewDiePie. And for developers, the close-sourced system can also be regarded as a black box. Thanks to the game engines and APIs, surely also restricted by the close-sourced system, game designers can create their own work without dealing with the monotonous machine code and endless bugs.

Moreover, Norman mentions three design principles in his book The Design of Everyday Life: feedback, constraints and affordance[3]. Actually, the gamepads of modern consoles often contain a small motor. The gamepad will vibrate when you manipulate your character to punch an enemy or box out for a rebound in a virtual NBA game. That is a good example of feedback, letting players know they enter the right position or execute instructions well both visually and tactually. Constraints is another principle that is worth discussing. The close-sourced system can be regarded as a kind of constraints. It helps consoles have much less possibilities of bugs and cheating programs than personal computers do, and lets developers optimize their works more easily. For light players who are not interested in “re-develop” the game, gaming console is a more convenient equipment with less redundant functions.

The logic of black box is indeed encouraging designers to do subtraction. “When people play games, they have an experience. It is the experience that the designer cares about. Without the experience, the game worthless.”[4] It is really a golden rule for all designers. Users only care about the actual experience when they use a product, so black box system can really be efficient and concise enough to meet their needs.


[1]J. Myers, Glenford. The Art of Software Testing. 2nd edition.  New Jersy: Wiley, 2004.

[2]Arthur, W. Brian. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Reprint edition. New York: Free Press, 2011.

[3]Norman, Donald. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Rev Expedition. New York: Basic Books, 2013.

[4]Schell, Jesse. The Art of Game Design. 2nd edition. Natick: A K Peters/CRC Press, 2014.

[5]Manovich, Lev. Software Takes Command. INT edition. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.


All of these reading materials and articles were very explanatory and illustrative to provide understanding about technology and technological design of newly invented tools and equipment. The most impressive factor for me to comprehend I found the tendency of technological development from the perspective of designing mechanisms. In other words, I realized designing process as the crucial aspect for the whole scientific-technical progress. It may be reflected in such definition like “within the last decade we are pacing from technology that produced fixed physical outputs to technologies whose main characteristics is that they can be combined and configured endlessly for fresh purposes”.

Another important reveal for me became an understanding that combination of existing technologies may be the source for the technologies of new generation. And the designing process itself stimulates invention and development of the indivisible parts of any technological unit. However, such development chain of the progress creates new challenging spots to research, like infinite regress factors, in general, designing mechanisms and rules explains me a lot regarding gradual technological evalution.

Also, I realized assembling parts in one system to work and construct them in appropriate way need to consider some “architectural” approach to build new technologies. It open new horizons, like grouping assembling part for increasing efficiency and be protected from unexpected occasions and have a chance to react properly for required changes. On another hand, grouping method gives more chance to ease designing process, which itself leads to enhancing technological development process.

PC System, with a Modular View and a Design View

The PC system is an ideal target for modularized analysis because the boundaries between subsystems are clear-cut and the flow of information is highly structured. A typical modern PC system consists following components: CPU, Motherboard, RAM, Hard Disk Drive, CD/DVD Drive (optional), Graphic Card (optional), Sound Card (optional), Display, Case, Power, Mouse, Keyboard, and Speaker and other peripheral equipment. Following the concept of “universal calculator” of its predecessor, a PC can perform a variety of different function depending on the software, and this variation affects how we mark off the modular. But normally, a PC’s function is data processing, so we can divide them into five subsystems:


  • Power System: Main Power, onboard battery of Motherboard, power supply of Display
  • Processing System: CPU, Graphic Card, Sound Card
  • Storage System: RAM, HHD
  • I/O System: CD/DVD, Display, Mouse, Keyboard, Speaker
  • Control System: Motherboard, Case, control units on individual components

According to Brian Arthur’s The Nature of Technology, “In particular, because a technology consists of main assembly and supporting assemblies, each assembly or subsystem must be organized this way too.”, it’s not surprising to see the 5 subsystems within a given component above.

We can put CPU on a microscope and continue the division of subsystem:4

  • Power: certain pins of the package is defined as Power Pins as to get power from the socket
  • Processing System: ALU, FPU
  • Storage System: L1 Cache, L2 Cache
  • I/O System: system bus
  • Control System: control unit

We can continue to break it down, as well as going up. If we connect a PC with a photo printer, as the function of the new PC-printer system has shifted to printing, the processing system is now the nozzles on the printer, and the former 5 subsystems of PC merge into a more complicated I/O subsystem of the new supersystem.

When we perform different tasks on PC or with PC, playing games, editing videos, recording sounds, the division of subsystems alter accordingly. But the hierarchical structure pervades.

This classification is not exclusive to PC, in fact, I try to apply this method to many different systems, and happily find the similar structure. The difficulty is in defining the processing system, but as indicated in the System Science Course of Complexity Academy, a system is defined by its function, and a function is a process that transforms energy or resources from one state to another. If we can define the function of a system, it seems all possible to locate all the five subsystems above.

In any other modern electronic device, the similarity is obvious. Say a DSLR camera, has batteries as power; CMOS as processing subsystem (if we define DSLR’s function as to transform analog photon signal to digital visual signal); SD Card as storage; lens system, mirror as input while LCD, USB-port as output; buttons, dials, shutters as the control.


We can even apply this method to organic livings. For an animal, though it is somehow arbitrary, we can simply define its function as to proliferate and pass on the genetic information. Given this, the power system is foraging and metabolism; The processing system is cell division, mating and reproducing; DNA and RNA play the storage part; brain system, neural systems etc. to keep the animal’s normal running. (I’m somehow confused about the I/O system of an animal, as it seems to me that for animals input is quite the same as power, and output is the offspring)


Let’s go back to PC, it is also a fantastic place to check the designing principles we encounter in this week’s readings. Take affordance for example, there was a time the CPU socket design is all symmetrical so users can easily insert the CPU in a wrong direction and burn it (improper use). Then came the foolproof socket, with its socket asymmetrical enabling only one way to insert the CPU, the right way (show in the pictures below). A CD-ROM simply covers all the 3 kinds of constraint, grooved paths for the CD tray to travel correctly, intending socket to keep CD in the precise axis, and barriers on both ends of the tray preventing it from dropping out of or into the case. But for a device so commonly and frequently used, PC still has a long way to go in its design. For example, though bearing Universal in the title, the USB is in fact a rigorous port. How many times do we bend down arduously and blindly only to find we hold it in the wrong way? The old apple port inherited this flaw but apple lightning successfully gets rid of it, suggesting it’s all physically possible. We still use this design because it’s ubiquitous and takes too much to adapt to a better standard. So is the case for many other PC devices, due to a lack of downward compatibility, we suffer from flawed vestigial designs.


PC is also the embodiment of the principle Black-boxing. I think this trend will continue since black-boxing is deeply embedded in human brain. Our ancestor arose amongst the siblings partly because they have the ability to abstract and conceptualize things, along with the processing of black-boxing. You don’t have to know the HRC of the flint stone, you don’t have to calculate the trajectory of the spear, and you don’t have to study the anatomy of the jaguar prowling in front of you. You just throw, as hard as precise as possible. By hiding the internal complexity within a system, our limited cognitive ability can learn more things, pack them into a new black box, and knowledge pass on. Black-boxing is also the foundation of labor division without which society is impossible. So we are constantly amazed by the simplicity hidden in vicissitude of the natural world. The Plank Einstein relation, E=hc / λ, how elegant. But if you write it as E= 6.626070040(81)×10−34 * 299,792,458 / λ,gone is the aesthetic touch. Black-boxing for high tech devices like PC gives us at least the following advantages:

  • Enabling layman to actually use PC as a tool and develop his own talents
  • Enabling layman to add, remove, replace, upgrade certain parts of the PC to accommodate more to specific needs
  • Disseminate the manufacturing, which means higher yield rate and lower budget
  • Decentralize the core technology, enabling more competence in the field
  • Protect intellectual property
  • Enabling PC to be modularized, which means it can be studied, repaired, and improved separately Standardize the I/O and protocols between different systems

In fact, if we trace the computer hardware market, we can see this black-boxing trend progressing. At the dawn of the new millennium, DIY still prevailed. In that circumstance, the individual hardware is considered as black-box and PC is a system connecting the boxes to perform a function. But now, pre-assembled PCs take over more and more, in which the whole PC (or the case in certain sales) serves as a whole black-box. But this does not necessarily mean people know less about PC, it is the inevitable result of the expanding knowledge of computer knowledge beyond hardware level.

Questions about this week’s course and readings:

  • In Arthur’s book, when talking about combinations, Arthur seems to suggest new technologies come from the practice of combination. Combining two or more existing technologies in a novel way. But it seems to confuse the means with cause. New technology is typical driven by human needs not met by existing technologies, though it may involve the practice of combining, but it does not mean combination is the start.
  • Is purpose a critical criterion in deciding whether something is design? The most sophisticated entity by far we know is the human body or human brain. But it comes from not some purpose-driven pre-design, but generation after generation of evolving and adapt. So is modern AI, it seems all we do is to provide the right Primordial Soup and give it time. Miracles emerge. So what’s the relationship between design and emerge? Is it possible that emerge will eventually take place of design?


Arthur, W. Brian. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. Reprint edition. New York: Free Press, 2011.

Norman, Don. The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Rev Expedition. New York, New York: Basic Books, 2013.

Manovich, Lev. Software Takes Command. INT edition. New York ; London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.

Norman, Donald A. Living with Complexity. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 2010.

Denning, Peter J., Craig H. Martell, and Vint Cerf. Great Principles of Computing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2015.

Complexity Academy (

The Functions of My Combinatorial Computer – Jieshu Wang

The laptop on which I am typing is a black box with many features. It is a MacBook Pro with a 13-inch Retina display, 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB 1867 MHz DDR3, backlit keyboard, and a force touch trackpad[i], all of which are copied from Apple website, because I just don’t know what they mean. I bought this computer because it was good-looking, light weighted, thin, fast, and easy to sync with my cell phone and tablet. Besides, the power adapter is compatible with the electrical sockets of both China and US, so I don’t need to use a travel power adapter to plug it in.


The power adapter of my last computer (Thinkpad) looks like panel A. It cannot plug into the electrical sockets of US (panel B) without a travel power adapter (panel C).

This computer can implement many functions. It has a graphic display so that it can show words, images, and videos. It has a loudspeaker so that it can play audio signals such as music. It has an internal hard disk and several USB ports so that it can store, write, read and retrieve data. For me, a general consumer, there are several kinds of functions I use frequently. I found them in some degree correspondent with the categories of cultural software Lev Manovich described in his Software Takes Command[ii].

  • Obtaining information. I use this PC to read e-books and online articles, watch movies, and listen to music. Before tours, I use the computer to gather transportation and weather information of destinations, and book hotel rooms and air tickets.
  • Creating cultural artifacts. I use it to write articles, retouch photos, edit music and videos and build my blog.
  • Communicating with other people. It is also used to receive and send emails, check my friends’ Facebook timeline, and FaceTime with my family.
  • Engaging in interactive cultural experiences, for example, playing computer games. Even single games are also interactive experiences since the players are immersing into incessant interactive interfaces and various feedbacks, physical or nonphysical.

Some of these functions operate well on my computer even without the internet, because I have the right software installed on it. However, most of them cannot work well without the internet, because most information and programs I need are in the cloud or distributed elsewhere. That is why people playfully add Wi-Fi to the base level of Maslow’s hierarchy.

In this “black box”, there are many clues indicating the cumulative combination of functions and designs.

  • At first glance, the laptop is a combination of two major parts hinged together: a rotatable monitor and a keyboard, indicating it combines at least the functions of display, data input, and portability.
  • The monitor part consists of a metal case, a camera, and an LCD panel, while the keyboard part is composed of a keyboard input area, a touch trackpad, several ports for USB, headphone, HDMI, and so on.
  • The temperature of the monitor part will increase after hours of usage, indicating that it has components inside radiating heat. To my knowledge, there are microprocessors, a motherboard, hard disks, RAM, etc. However, they are invisible to general consumers, forming a “black box”.

Just as Brian Arthur’s description in his The Nature of Technology[iii], each of these components I mentioned above consists of smaller parts that are also combinations of even smaller parts. Each part has its own industry, evolution history, and heredity. For example, no matter what new material Apple uses, the arrangement of the alphabetic symbols on the keyboard is nearly identical to the QWERTY typewriter keyboard invented by Christopher Sholes in 1873[iv]. Furthermore, most of these parts are manufactured and assembled by other companies, even Apple’s biggest competitors. For example, Apple’s Retina displays are manufactured by Samsung, LG, and Sony[v]. So, the computer is also a component of a larger complex commercial system, which in turn comprises a part of the society.

At last, I want to give some reflection on why people keep devices “black boxed”. From a design perspective, I think the purpose of the black box is to simplify the interactive interface with consumers. It is analogous to the constraint principle Donald A. Norman mentioned in his The Design of Everyday Things[vi]. “Constraints limit the possible actions that can be performed on a system[vii],” so that the users can easily build up a “conceptual model”[viii] of how to use the device. Of course, there are many DIYers who would like to make things from scratch, but most consumers do not want to spend much time on figuring out how a consumer electronics works. After all, even the tools DIYers are using are kept “black boxed” as well by the tool manufacturers.

Some questions:

  • Organisms are kept in “black box” by nature, too. Is this “natural design” comply with the design principles developed by Norman?
  • In Norman’s view, a design in need of complicated manual is not a good design. However, in Universal Principles of design[vii], the authors emphasized the importance of expert shortcuts. No one can learn shortcuts without complicated instructions. (For example, the image shown below is the keyboard of my MacBook. I use a keyboard protector on the keyboard, not to protect the keyboard, but to remind me of those complicated shortcuts, which is really hard to memorize.) Is a system with complicated expert shortcuts a good design? What kinds of systems need to design expert shortcuts? How to design an easy-learning shortcuts system?



[i] “A Spectacular Display Is Just the Beginning.” n.d.

[ii] Manovich, Lev. 2013. Software Takes Command. International Texts in Critical Media Aesthetics, volume#5. New York ; London: Bloomsbury.

[iii] Arthur, W. Brian. 2009. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York: Free Press.

[iv] Richler, Howard. 2005. “Familiar Keyboard Layout Has a Long History: [Final Edition].” The Gazette, January 15, sec. Weekend: Arts & Books.

[v] Isaac, Mike. 2016. “Why Samsung Makes Retina Displays — but Not for Its Own Tablets.” WIRED UK. Accessed September 12.

[vi] Norman, Donald. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.

[vii] Lidwell, William, Kritina Holden, and Jill Butler. 2003. Universal Principles of Design. Gloucester, Mass: Rockport.

[viii] Norman, Donald A. 2010. Living with Complexity. Cambridge, US: The MIT Press.