Scientists are always skeptics.

To me, error analysis is the sweet spot for improvement.

Everyday people are not very good designers.

Beauty and brains, pleasure and usability - they should go hand in hand.

User-centered design means working with your users all throughout the project.

Market segmentation s a natural result of the vast differences among people.

Sure, one can always get the students to relax and be happy - entertained, but although being laid back and relax can also lead to creativity, mostly it means that nothing much gets done.

Our information lives will be better served when we are free to get to our information from wherever we are, with any device available.

I believe that the Apple Shuffle is an excellent compromise among the conflicting requirements of simplicity, elegance, size, battery life, and function.

And to get real work experience, you need a job, and most jobs will require you to have had either real work experience or a graduate degree.

AS for all those mistakes I make - they are on purpose - to teach you how to deal with them.

Knowing how people will use something is essential.

I've been looking at the iPod- the Apple iPod. One of the interesting things about the iPod, one of the things that people love most about it is not the technology; it's the box it comes in.

Readers always seem to think that the author has some control over the design of their books.

You won't catch me giving clear lectures.

If you think the products don't match what you want from a product, don't buy it.

A big ethical question is what happens after people stop using the device. Does it degrade the environment? Could it have been designed so it would actually be good for the environment?

The problem with emotion was that it was clearly something important, but-at least according to the old philosophy-it was something to overcome.

Scientists are always skeptics.

I think there is a tendency in science to measure what is measurable and to decide that what you cannot measure must be uninteresting.

It is relatively easy to design for the perfect cases, when everything goes right, or when all the information required is available in proper format.

Isn't one of your first exercises in learning how to communicate to write a description of how to tie your shoelaces? The point being that it's basically impossible to use text to show that.

In my opinion, no single design is apt to be optimal for everyone.

Am I an Apple bigot? No. I can critique their products and their customer service philosophy. But overall, they do better than any other player.

We expert teachers know that motivation and emotional impact are what matter.

So what does a good teacher do? Create tension - but just the right amount.

Also note that invariably when we design something that can be used by those with disabilities, we often make it better for everyone.

I believe that robots should only have faces if they truly need them.

I prefer design by experts - by people who know what they are doing.

As for all those mistakes I make - they are on purpose - to teach you how to deal with them.

Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right.

The problem with allowing God a role in the history of life is not that science would cease, but rather that scientists would have to acknowledge the existence of something important which is outside the boundaries of natural science.

Scientists tend to be skeptical, but the weakness of the community of science is that it tends to move into preformed establishment modes that say this is the only way of doing science, the only valid view.

I appeal to my fellow scientists to remember their responsibility to humanity.

We really think it is a good thing for scientists to spend a little bit of their time either in the community or in schools or helping to train high school teachers.

The frontier orbital approach was further developed in various directions by my own group and many other scientists, both theoretical and experimental.

Others think it the responsibility of scientists to coerce the rest of society, because they have the power that derives from special knowledge.

Scientists at MIT and engineering schools all across America say that they could improve the fuel economy standards for the existing set of vehicles by 10 miles per gallon using existing technology, without compromising safety or comfort at all.

Just after World War II, this country led the world in science by every way you could measure it, yet the number of scientists was a tiny proportion of what it is now.

The future, according to some scientists, will be exactly like the past, only far more expensive.

The most wonderful discovery made by scientists is science itself.

Scientists often have a naive faith that if only they could discover enough facts about a problem, these facts would somehow arrange themselves in a compelling and true solution.

Just because scientists have the knowledge to do it, the technology to do it, and some may even have a financial motive or other incentive to do it, does not make it right.

Now, that is in a way also what scientists are trying to do they're trying to get people to see that the world can be represented in an alternative way and that it's right.

I am sorry to say that there is too much point to the wisecrack that life is extinct on other planets because their scientists were more advanced than ours.

Admittedly, scientific authority is not distributed evenly throughout the body of scientists; some distinguished members of the profession predominate over others of a more junior standing.

A large fraction of the most interesting scientists have read a lot of SF at one time or another, either early enough that it may have played a part in their becoming scientists or at some later date just because they liked the ideas.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus which is the business of politics. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

If Baltimore's view, that scientists who do not take the words of authorities are far removed from the ordinary behavior of scientists, prevails in the scientific community, then something fundamental, very serious, and very disturbing is happening to the scientific community.