Two things we didn't touch upon in class discussion that I was curious about. Norman argues that design in an object should be intuitive, but is simpler better? Reliability-wise, that is the case. But simpler doesn't necessarily imply well-designed. A simple and complex object could be interpreted in the same amount of ways if they are equally poorly designed. Logically, if there are less blocks in the reliability block diagram, the less chance there is that the object in question will fail. (e.g.: a bike has less "blocks" and is less likely to fail than a car; a car is less likely to fail than an airplane and so forth.) I guess what I'm trying to get at is, how does reliability effect the intention behind design and use? Is it possible for something to be well-designed yet unreliable to encourage consumerism? Another question I had regarding Norman's philosophy was this: is there any precedent in nature for poorly "designed" objects or does everything provide functionality in its system? Is having an appendix, tonsils or two kidneys bad design? What about animals that practice sexual cannibalism? Bad design or serving a purpose?