ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[ijmorlan]

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)

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.