ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

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.

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...