(08-30-2019, 11:20 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 09:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Incorrect usage *IS* faulty implmentation.

That’s taking it way too far. Replace “is” with “may be” or even “is often” and you have something.

People using technology have to take some responsibility for their use of it. An extreme example is something like a chainsaw; no matter how many idiots kill themselves by dropping trees on themselves, that isn’t a problem with the chainsaw design. Now of course this is a fare card interface, not a chainsaw, and it needs to be super-simple and able to be used without significant training. But if it read cards at a distance, it might read a card you didn’t mean to present, which would be another problem. So the “it’s faulty implementation” fix (i.e., make it read at a larger distance) for the problem of “people don’t actually touch their cards to the reader” isn’t necessarily acceptable.

(08-30-2019, 12:55 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 11:20 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: That’s taking it way too far. Replace “is” with “may be” or even “is often” and you have something.

People using technology have to take some responsibility for their use of it. An extreme example is something like a chainsaw; no matter how many idiots kill themselves by dropping trees on themselves, that isn’t a problem with the chainsaw design. Now of course this is a fare card interface, not a chainsaw, and it needs to be super-simple and able to be used without significant training. But if it read cards at a distance, it might read a card you didn’t mean to present, which would be another problem. So the “it’s faulty implementation” fix (i.e., make it read at a larger distance) for the problem of “people don’t actually touch their cards to the reader” isn’t necessarily acceptable.

I don't agree. "Pave the cow paths" is exactly the same sentiment behind "incorrect usage is faulty implementation". It's also the same sentiment behind notions like Vision Zero: The system can and should be built in a way that prioritizes humans.

The faulty implementation isn't that waving/reading at a distance doesn't work. The faulty implementation is that the interface does not enforce the tap requirement. It can be worked around with instructions as people suggest, but if they had a holder (could be a dip slot just like is used for mag cards, or a partial insert like with pin cards), significantly more people would understand from the interface itself what the correct action is.

Sometimes the best implementation from a human interface perspective is prohibitively expensive. The best human interface isn't the only consideration in any real world system. In this specific case a problem with interaction was overlooked and that is legitimately an issue, especially given how frequently throughout the system interaction with humans is at best prioritized low, if at all.

(the fare card site, missing a pedestrian crossing along a long stretch in a lower-income neighbourhood, platform designs the don't have good exit routing, there's many examples and they're all very much related)

(08-30-2019, 01:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: As far as I can tell my general statement is unarguable.

(08-30-2019, 11:20 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 09:18 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Incorrect usage *IS* faulty implmentation.

That’s taking it way too far. Replace “is” with “may be” or even “is often” and you have something.

People using technology have to take some responsibility for their use of it. An extreme example is something like a chainsaw; no matter how many idiots kill themselves by dropping trees on themselves, that isn’t a problem with the chainsaw design. Now of course this is a fare card interface, not a chainsaw, and it needs to be super-simple and able to be used without significant training. But if it read cards at a distance, it might read a card you didn’t mean to present, which would be another problem. So the “it’s faulty implementation” fix (i.e., make it read at a larger distance) for the problem of “people don’t actually touch their cards to the reader” isn’t necessarily acceptable.

(08-30-2019, 01:23 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 01:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: As far as I can tell my general statement is unarguable.

Well then.

(08-30-2019, 02:09 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 11:20 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: That’s taking it way too far. Replace “is” with “may be” or even “is often” and you have something.

People using technology have to take some responsibility for their use of it. An extreme example is something like a chainsaw; no matter how many idiots kill themselves by dropping trees on themselves, that isn’t a problem with the chainsaw design. Now of course this is a fare card interface, not a chainsaw, and it needs to be super-simple and able to be used without significant training. But if it read cards at a distance, it might read a card you didn’t mean to present, which would be another problem. So the “it’s faulty implementation” fix (i.e., make it read at a larger distance) for the problem of “people don’t actually touch their cards to the reader” isn’t necessarily acceptable.

No, it really isn't, at least not in context. The target user should be able to use software with the expected level of experience.  For a transit terminal, that experience is zero and the target user is everyone.

If users are routinely making mistakes when using it, the designer/developer is at fault 100%...

Don Norman makes this argument, and is now has his namesake used to describe doors which people routinely walk into, basically, if people walk into your door, you designed a bad door, a transit fare card should be similarly easy to use.

(08-30-2019, 04:00 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: The current level of trouble indicates something wrong with something, probably the signage and/or shape (rather than the actual read distance). It’s hard to say what level of trouble is OK. Clearly at some point it’s not worth anybody’s time to think about improvements. If 1/1000000 of the people who encounter the reader can’t figure it out, that will be a lower fraction than run into other problems like it being broken entirely.

(08-30-2019, 01:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 12:55 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: I don't agree. "Pave the cow paths" is exactly the same sentiment behind "incorrect usage is faulty implementation". It's also the same sentiment behind notions like Vision Zero: The system can and should be built in a way that prioritizes humans.

The faulty implementation isn't that waving/reading at a distance doesn't work. The faulty implementation is that the interface does not enforce the tap requirement. It can be worked around with instructions as people suggest, but if they had a holder (could be a dip slot just like is used for mag cards, or a partial insert like with pin cards), significantly more people would understand from the interface itself what the correct action is.

Sometimes the best implementation from a human interface perspective is prohibitively expensive. The best human interface isn't the only consideration in any real world system. In this specific case a problem with interaction was overlooked and that is legitimately an issue, especially given how frequently throughout the system interaction with humans is at best prioritized low, if at all.

(the fare card site, missing a pedestrian crossing along a long stretch in a lower-income neighbourhood, platform designs the don't have good exit routing, there's many examples and they're all very much related)

Don’t agree with what? It actually is the chainsaw manufacturer’s fault if some idiot drops a tree on themselves?

As far as I can tell my general statement is unarguable. The discussion is around how the various general statements apply to specific situations. In the case of the tap system, I agree it is primarily the system designers’ job to make it obvious how to do it right. But even there, users bear part of the responsibility too. If 99% of people have no problem tapping the first time, then the other 1% just need to learn. It seems pretty clear we’re not at 99%, so there is still something to be done.

As I suggested, if the “is” is replaced with something less absolute, such as “is often”, then the original statement is fine. But it’s not always fine — the universe just doesn’t work that way.

(08-30-2019, 04:00 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 02:09 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: No, it really isn't, at least not in context. The target user should be able to use software with the expected level of experience.  For a transit terminal, that experience is zero and the target user is everyone.

If users are routinely making mistakes when using it, the designer/developer is at fault 100%...

Don Norman makes this argument, and is now has his namesake used to describe doors which people routinely walk into, basically, if people walk into your door, you designed a bad door, a transit fare card should be similarly easy to use.

Right, but those doors are different from the other doors with which people don’t have a problem.

With the card reader, it’s not clear it can be fixed by changing the way it reads, since it’s also bad for it to read from too big a distance. As far as I can tell, what is needed is a way to get people to realize their card needs to be right up close, almost touching.

The current level of trouble indicates something wrong with something, probably the signage and/or shape (rather than the actual read distance). It’s hard to say what level of trouble is OK. Clearly at some point it’s not worth anybody’s time to think about improvements. If 1/1000000 of the people who encounter the reader can’t figure it out, that will be a lower fraction than run into other problems like it being broken entirely.

(08-30-2019, 06:41 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: [quote pid='72589' dateline='1567169675']
When I asked if they ever used tap in a store with their debit or credit cards and how you have to lay your card right down on the machine to pay by tap,one woman said yes. She then got it to work right away.

(08-30-2019, 05:09 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(08-30-2019, 01:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Don’t agree with what? It actually is the chainsaw manufacturer’s fault if some idiot drops a tree on themselves?

As far as I can tell my general statement is unarguable. The discussion is around how the various general statements apply to specific situations. In the case of the tap system, I agree it is primarily the system designers’ job to make it obvious how to do it right. But even there, users bear part of the responsibility too. If 99% of people have no problem tapping the first time, then the other 1% just need to learn. It seems pretty clear we’re not at 99%, so there is still something to be done.

As I suggested, if the “is” is replaced with something less absolute, such as “is often”, then the original statement is fine. But it’s not always fine — the universe just doesn’t work that way.

First of all, nobody is talking about fault, this isn't about fault.  And if you believe your statement is "unarguable" then there's no point in discussing.

This isn't a chainsaw, a chainsaw is a dangerous piece of equipment that people expect to need training of some kind to use. This is a transit farebox, something everyone should be able to use with no prior training.

If I have a door which 1% of people walk into, that's a failure, 1% is a lot on a high frequency system. And you're right, we're way way below 99% success. Like I said the statement holds, but it needs context...

(08-31-2019, 09:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Of course, in the specific case of a transit tap machine, if a significant number of riders are having a problem the fix is probably changing the design.

(08-31-2019, 11:55 AM)Bytor Wrote:

(08-31-2019, 09:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Of course, in the specific case of a transit tap machine, if a significant number of riders are having a problem the fix is probably changing the design.

Is it though? In the case of such a simple action like using a NFC tap card in a location right next to the screen that is not hidden but boldly marked, and the users are not holding the card close enough to the sensor, is the solution interface/product redesign, or is it user education on how to properly tap a NFC card?

As I have pointed out, similar problems were seen on the bus fareboxes until people got used to actually laying their card right on the sensor, and now it's rare to see people do it wrong. It's not unreasonable  to expect that people be able to generalise from using their card on the farebox to using it at a kiosk or toll poles, especially since all three have the same visual indicator of where to tap your card.