.. DOET is certainly not lacking in examples and in providing those Norman went the path he is promoting - he focused on users: himself, his colleagues, his friends and his students all contributed numerous examples of their struggles and comic encounters with everyday objects. While being one of the strongest illustrative points of the book, these also contribute a great deal to its greatest shortcoming - feeling of repetitiveness. The nature of these examples also is conductive of ruining the structure of the book, it felt that they were largely to blame for the fact oftentimes it was impossible to tell what exactly one was reading about and what this section of the book was devoted to. To get a sense of the structure the whole book adheres to one has to refer to contents table and it's definitely major drawback. The sources Norman utilized in composing this book are numerous and most of them are
A subjectpredicate sentence "Pn" is true if and only if what "n" denotes is a member of the class of things that "P" applies to. A sentence of the form "Not A" is true if and only if the sentence "A" is not true. A sentence of the form "A and B" is true if and only if its component sentences "A" and "B" are both true. This is the whole language--all of its vocabulary, all of its meaning rules of any kind. It is of limited interest, and encourages tedious repetitiveness. But its truth definition, even in its brute simplicity, has the twin features that we need: It allows for indefinitely long and indefinitely many grammatical sentences of Oafish, and (nonetheless) it manages to specify the truth condi- tion of every one of them. For example, if an Oafish speaker utters "Fa," we learn from our subjectpredicate clause that that sentence is true if and only if the denotation of a, that is, Albert, is included in the class of things
annaabi.ee 
