(03-19-2019, 07:56 AM)trainspotter139 Wrote:

(03-18-2019, 09:08 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The fact that multiple entries are made in a database is irrelevant to a user. From their perspective only one thing happened, they paid to get on the bus.

The back end implementation should not drive the front end.  The user needs should drive the front end experience.

Too their credit however, GRT knows about the issue, and this is at least not final:

I would argue that multiple actions being performed on a user's card is very much relevant to many users, even if it's not relevant to you.

Imagine for a moment that you loaded $20 onto your card through the online portal. 24-48 hours later, you tap your card on a GRT bus for your regular commute. You look at your card activity 24-48 hours later to see a row that says: 

Code:

"03/19/2019 7:10 AM | Card Tap | GRT Bus #21101 (Route 7 - to Conestoga Stn) | +$17.24 | $21.72"

Knowing a bit about how the system works you arrive at the conclusion that this card tap loaded the $20 you loaded online.

Not every user will arrive at the same conclusion on their own however. That's why it's important to design User Experiences that accommodate users of all skill levels. It may not be relevant to you that multiple transactions occurred on the card at the time of tap, but it is to another user. A summary row in the table that can expand to show the individual transactions is absolutely a good user experience. Not all users will need to expand the row to understand what is going on with the card, but those that do should be allowed to see the list of transactions that occurred: 

Code:

"03/19/2019 7:10 AM | Card Load              | GRT Bus #21101 (Route 7 - to Conestoga Stn) | +$20.00 | $24.48"
"03/19/2019 7:10 AM | Fare Paid - SV Adult   | GRT Bus #21101 (Route 7 - to Conestoga Stn) | -$ 2.76 | $21.72"
"03/19/2019 7:10 AM | Issue Transfer - Adult | GRT Bus #21101 (Route 7 - to Conestoga Stn) |  $ 0.00 | $21.72"

(03-19-2019, 09:21 AM)Canard Wrote: 100% with Dan.

Presto is ridiculously confusing as it is. This has like 3X the line items making it even worse.

I tap on a bus - that’s one line. One thing. It should not be multiple things. And what the heck is a “SV”?!

(03-19-2019, 10:19 AM)trainspotter139 Wrote:

(03-19-2019, 09:21 AM)Canard Wrote: 100% with Dan.

Presto is ridiculously confusing as it is. This has like 3X the line items making it even worse.

I tap on a bus - that’s one line. One thing. It should not be multiple things. And what the heck is a “SV”?!

When you pay with Stored Value (SV) it's not a single transaction. It's multi-part transaction composed of individual actions. Another action is added if there's a pending load transaction in the system. Because of the way the system works a load transaction occurs at the time of a card tap and the card is loaded at the farebox not at the time you purchased the fare product and not online.

I don't agree with Dan on this because over simplifying what happens with the card can confuse some users of the system. Good UX shouldn't remove access to information that some users would find helpful.

Presto, for example, has a transfer credit that is credited to the card when you transfer between GO buses and between some other transit agencies that use Presto. That credit is credited to the balance of the card on a card tap and is a separate action from the initial fare subtracted when you tap on the GO bus you may transfer to.

(03-19-2019, 10:25 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(03-19-2019, 10:19 AM)trainspotter139 Wrote: When you pay with Stored Value (SV) it's not a single transaction. It's multi-part transaction composed of individual actions. Another action is added if there's a pending load transaction in the system. Because of the way the system works a load transaction occurs at the time of a card tap and the card is loaded at the farebox not at the time you purchased the fare product and not online.

I don't agree with Dan on this because over simplifying what happens with the card can confuse some users of the system. Good UX shouldn't remove access to information that some users would find helpful.

Presto, for example, has a transfer credit that is credited to the card when you transfer between GO buses and between some other transit agencies that use Presto. That credit is credited to the balance of the card on a card tap and is a separate action from the initial fare subtracted when you tap on the GO bus you may transfer to.

It does not matter that the system is implemented that way.  What matters is how the users model of the system. Forcing your users to understand implementation details (including things like knowing what 'SV' stand for) is a guarantee that your users will not understand your system, and will make mistakes when using it. Good UX absolutely should remove access to information which doesn't enhance the user experience.

Presto is another example of an unnecessary and overly complex system.  To this day, myself, a relative expert in how Presto works, still cannot figure out what every line in the presto record means, and generally I need a calculator to figure out how much I paid for one trip. That is a complete failure.

You really should go read the book "The design of Everyday Things" by Don Norman. It is eye opening.

(03-19-2019, 09:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Part of the problem of course is that many organizations have given up on maintaining control of their IT systems. They think it’s just peachy to have external vendors controlling their data and how they access it. This should be considered absolutely unacceptable, in the same way that they would consider it unacceptable for unpaid interns to do all their cash handling.

(03-19-2019, 12:50 PM)trainspotter139 Wrote:

(03-19-2019, 10:25 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: It does not matter that the system is implemented that way.  What matters is how the users model of the system. Forcing your users to understand implementation details (including things like knowing what 'SV' stand for) is a guarantee that your users will not understand your system, and will make mistakes when using it. Good UX absolutely should remove access to information which doesn't enhance the user experience.

Presto is another example of an unnecessary and overly complex system.  To this day, myself, a relative expert in how Presto works, still cannot figure out what every line in the presto record means, and generally I need a calculator to figure out how much I paid for one trip. That is a complete failure.

You really should go read the book "The design of Everyday Things" by Don Norman. It is eye opening.

The problem is, there is money involved. You simply can't remove access to the minute details of what goes on because it is relevant to users. Users who are money savvy are going to want to know those details. 

You can have the best of both worlds here. You can have easy to read and easy to follow information about changes in card balance in the card history view AND access to minute details of a specific card tap without compromising UX.

(03-19-2019, 01:11 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(03-19-2019, 12:50 PM)trainspotter139 Wrote: The problem is, there is money involved. You simply can't remove access to the minute details of what goes on because it is relevant to users. Users who are money savvy are going to want to know those details. 

You can have the best of both worlds here. You can have easy to read and easy to follow information about changes in card balance in the card history view AND access to minute details of a specific card tap without compromising UX.

Yes, you can remove those details, the designer is in fact in control of the user interface. When you see your bank transactions, you don't see every minutia of the transaction, but you see an impression of it consistent with your understanding of what a transaction is, and because it matches your mental model, you don't even object.

I'm sure some people have been curious as to what actually happens under the hood, but so what, it still works fine for them.  Just because I'm a savvy user who want's to know those details (I don't actually), doesn't mean I should be allowed to know them.  It's wrong to degrade the user experience for everyone, in order to satisfy the curiosity of a few users.

Yes, you can enhance the interface to provide access to this underlying data in some way, but that's not what was done here, just because you can provide access to this data doesn't mean this is a good interface.  This is a terrible interface.

(03-19-2019, 01:27 PM)creative Wrote: “It's wrong to degrade the user experience for everyone, in order to satisfy the curiosity of a few users.”

I may not often agree with Dan but this is so true! Simplify, simplify, simplify.

(03-19-2019, 02:00 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: Also, I work on a bank application. There's a lot of details about their money that is impossible for users to see. Dan's example is a good one.