This Facebook group isn’t the first (and presumably won’t be the last) collection of people who have started to notice designs that, while visually appealing, are impractical to their main users, that is, us, humans. Cleaning is just one part of use and maintenance, but you may have already noticed that doors, tables, showers, and all sorts of other appliances have more and more obtuse and unintuitive features. 

Among sociologists and designers, there is a movement that, in response perhaps to many of the things seen here, champions user-centered design. Its adherents believed that things should be designed with the user put first, and foremost when considering features and functionality. As obvious as that seems, a simple glance down this list will reveal just how often this tenant is broken in the name of novelty. 

The term came about in the late 70s, with a paper by Rob Kling arguing for a user-centered design in software. Software, as in the 70s, as today, is a pretty niche topic, so the term only became truly popular with Donald A. Norman's book “User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction” in 1986. Even if you have not read it, it’s very possible that you have at least encountered the term “a Norman Door.” 

The term “Norman door” is actually somewhat ironic, as it refers to a door that explicitly does not follow Don Norman’s ideals. You have probably encountered a door that needs to be either pushed or pulled, but does not have any contextual indicators to allow you to understand which. So you pull, the door doesn’t budge, then, red-faced, you finally push it. This works in reverse as well. 

Don Norman used this sort of item as a clear example of designers not putting human use first. Perhaps the door was an afterthought, or there was a very limited budget, or the builders really, really liked this one, specific door. Ultimately, while it might look nice, in a busy area, a bad door probably causes hundreds of hours of delays every year, as people need to figure out how to get in or out. 

In many of the images here, it’s pretty obvious that someone, a designer, home or business owner had a vision for something unique. Many of these designs are interesting at first glance. But they generally have made two mistakes. First, they have not actually sat down and worked out who is going to be interacting with the item on a daily basis. Second, they have not considered maintenance as part of the design's normal use case. That's all fine and dandy if you are just an innovative architect, but if you are a homeowner, it’s going to quickly become a problem. 

User-centered designers not only recommend but downright insist that before anything is made, the team sits down and works out a hypothetical persona. This represents the average user interacting with something as intended. In extreme cases, this might involve a literal focus group, but for the amateur home decorator, it can be a good little mental exercise. 

If you really want to get into the weeds, you can also consider an anti-persona, the user that this item or design is explicitly not intended for. Perhaps useful for tools and software, but not as applicable when considering a bathroom door. All in all, it is important to push back against designs that ultimately make our lives harder and more complicated, particularly in the 21st century when we really have better options. If you want to see more designs like this, check out our other articles here, here, here, and here.