ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[ijmorlan]

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...

The “unarguable” bit is only the idea that sometimes it needs to be the users who take responsibility for understanding the design, rather than the designer who has to take responsibility for understanding the users. I agree that, in general, we have a tendency to blame users for misunderstanding the design when instead we should be trying to improve the design. On the other hand, I think there is a tendency nowadays in computer interfaces to prioritize new users over people who use systems regularly.

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. As others have pointed out, the machine needs to be designed so that the action that it appears is needed is the same as the action that is actually needed. On the other hand, even here we need to be careful. I suspect that an “insert card” design like an ATM would have an extremely low rate of people misunderstanding it (especially if it accepted the card in any orientation, unlike an ATM); but it would be unacceptably slow in a busy station. So any design changes have to stick with the contactless operation.

I suspect nobody really thinks that user confusion is always something that needs to be dealt with by changing the design. If they do really for real think that, however, then it gets awfully hard to have a rational discussion about when design changes are needed and when user training is needed. It’s like trying to have a rational discussion about road pricing with somebody who can’t understand that we currently do not have road pricing, or a discussion about congestion with somebody who thinks that streetcars and bicycles block traffic but somehow cars don’t.

[Bytor]

Adorbs.

[Bytor]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

This is the point though, we already have similar interfaces, if someone uses one wrong, and another one right, there is a difference in design between those two systems which is causing users to make a mistake on one.

I actually didn't see any mistakes on buses, and people already have been using tap cards on payment terminals.

Honestly, I've been using the system for a while, and I find it physically awkward to use right, it's so poorly designed, it cannot be used with one hand (before the card holder) and the onscreen instructions actually lead to improper use, and worse, the error message that comes from improper use does not in any way help the user solve the problem.

[danbrotherston]

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...

The “unarguable” bit is only the idea that sometimes it needs to be the users who take responsibility for understanding the design, rather than the designer who has to take responsibility for understanding the users. I agree that, in general, we have a tendency to blame users for misunderstanding the design when instead we should be trying to improve the design. On the other hand, I think there is a tendency nowadays in computer interfaces to prioritize new users over people who use systems regularly.

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. As others have pointed out, the machine needs to be designed so that the action that it appears is needed is the same as the action that is actually needed. On the other hand, even here we need to be careful. I suspect that an “insert card” design like an ATM would have an extremely low rate of people misunderstanding it (especially if it accepted the card in any orientation, unlike an ATM); but it would be unacceptably slow in a busy station. So any design changes have to stick with the contactless operation.

I suspect nobody really thinks that user confusion is always something that needs to be dealt with by changing the design. If they do really for real think that, however, then it gets awfully hard to have a rational discussion about when design changes are needed and when user training is needed. It’s like trying to have a rational discussion about road pricing with somebody who can’t understand that we currently do not have road pricing, or a discussion about congestion with somebody who thinks that streetcars and bicycles block traffic but somehow cars don’t.

This is only the question of context again. Yes, I should not be able to sit in an airplane cockpit and immediately be able to fly the plane with no training, but if I'm trained to fly that plane and more than once I'll accidentally retract the landing gear instead of deploying the flaps on landing, then the problem isn't my training, it's the design of the landing gear and flap controls (this is a real-life design failure).

In the case of the context of riding transit, there is no expected special training, I really do take exception to the idea that transit systems should require training.  There are many first time users, and frankly, the function being completed is not overly complex, there should not be a requirement for substantial training.

The instructions and use should be intuitive. I'm what I'd call an advanced user, as I'm both an expert in technology and user design, and also riding transit and I *still* find the machines difficult to use and make occational errors, and I happen to know how to recover from those errors, but the error messages themselves provide ZERO value in recovering from the errors.

In terms of speed, you also have to look at real life operations, not just theoretical speed. If every 10th user takes 5x the time to overcome errors, and every third user must retry but knows how to recover, then your tap operation is very slow indeed, and the ATM operation you describe may very well be faster.

And I do really think that usage errors are always the fault of design (within the "in context" caveat I described at the beginning). It is the job of a designer to build a system which is easy to use.  That is not to say that there aren't other tradeoffs in design, absolutes are rarely useful, and extremely infrequent errors may not be worth the effort of overcoming, but it is a principle of design that systems should be easy to use, errors should be hard to make and failing that easy an intuitive to recover from. I do highly recommend the book by Don Norman: http://www.nixdell.com/classes/HCI-and-D...dition.pdf

[Bytor]

This is the point though, we already have similar interfaces, if someone uses one wrong, and another one right, there is a difference in design between those two systems which is causing users to make a mistake on one.

The place to tap the card on the kiosk is right be side the screen and highly visible. It has the *exact* same image on it as where you put the card on the farebox in the busses to tap. The three people I helped that day clearly understood what to tap on the touchscreen and that it was telling them to present their card, and the same goes for most of the people I have watched over the past 2 months. They also understood where they needed to present the card as they were not trying to tap elsewhere other than the sensor. The part of the process that is failing is only the part of holding the card to the sensor for the "tap" action. So which design element, pray tell, is making these users not lay their fare card right on that spot the same way for kiosks as they are able to do for the fareboxes?

I actually didn't see any mistakes on buses, and people already have been using tap cards on payment terminals.

Then you were not watching. Every other person at the start, it seemed, had to be told to lay the card flat for the tap.

Honestly, I've been using the system for a while, and I find it physically awkward to use right, it's so poorly designed, it cannot be used with one hand (before the card holder) and the onscreen instructions actually lead to improper use, and worse, the error message that comes from improper use does not in any way help the user solve the problem.

I can use it easily with one hand to pay for a trip. I hold my phone in my right hand, extend my forefinger, tap the two buttons necessary to validate my monthly pass, and then plunk my phone down on the sensor with the pocket holding my card face down. "Beep!" I'm done.

[danbrotherston]

This is the point though, we already have similar interfaces, if someone uses one wrong, and another one right, there is a difference in design between those two systems which is causing users to make a mistake on one.

The place to tap the card on the kiosk is right be side the screen and highly visible. It has the *exact* same image on it as where you put the card on the farebox in the busses to tap. The three people I helped that day clearly understood what to tap on the touchscreen and that it was telling them to present their card, and the same goes for most of the people I have watched over the past 2 months. They also understood where they needed to present the card as they were not trying to tap elsewhere other than the sensor. The part of the process that is failing is only the part of holding the card to the sensor for the "tap" action. So which design element, pray tell, is making these users not lay their fare card right on that spot the same way for kiosks as they are able to do for the fareboxes?

I actually didn't see any mistakes on buses, and people already have been using tap cards on payment terminals.

Then you were not watching. Every other person at the start, it seemed, had to be told to lay the card flat for the tap.

Honestly, I've been using the system for a while, and I find it physically awkward to use right, it's so poorly designed, it cannot be used with one hand (before the card holder) and the onscreen instructions actually lead to improper use, and worse, the error message that comes from improper use does not in any way help the user solve the problem.

I can use it easily with one hand to pay for a trip. I hold my phone in my right hand, extend my forefinger, tap the two buttons necessary to validate my monthly pass, and then plunk my phone down on the sensor with the pocket holding my card face down. "Beep!" I'm done.

On the bus, I was watching, what were they doing, every person I saw tapped their card on the bus in the same way that they would in a grocery store.

So first of all, this story is told terribly, you wait till the end to explain your card is in your phone pocket, second, you need not mention your phone at all, that isn't relevant in any way to the story, it's just where you store your card.  Third of all, I have no idea what you're explaining, but here's the experience I have, as a right handed person (as most are).

I normally operate the touch screen with my right hand, it then tells me to tap my card, I pull out my card from my wallet and go to tap, oh, I get an error, because it tried to read my card as it approached the tap sensor (this is a common error that should not occur, there is no technical reason the reader cannot retry a few times, the error message is also vague and useless, fortunately for me, I happen to know that this error actually means and how to fix it--allthough I must restart the process from the beginning). Now I recall that I must hold my card pressed on the reader the whole time for the whole transaction to happen reliably, (I just know that because I've seen it elsewhere not because anything about the transaction or device interface has led me to understand this), I then hold it with my right hand, I must now operate the device with my left hand, then I must pay with my credit card, which I must retrieve from my wallet with one hand, then I try to switch hands, woops, my credit card confuses the tap terminal. On the third time, I managed to get it.

I've seen others make different mistakes yes, just because the tap card image is the same does not mean it is intuitive...the image is small, and the rest of the device looks very different.

I'm very serious here, the system is garbage, the designer is bad at what they do...objectively.  Can we stop pretending otherwise?

[KevinL]

The worst part of all this is that the card reader is between the touchscreen and the payment area. If it were to the left of the screen, you could leave your tap card in your left hand and do everything else with your right; as it is, you're constantly switching hands.

Unless you're at Fairway or Conestoga, and can leave your card in the little basket provided. Which they need to roll out everywhere already.

[ijmorlan]

And I do really think that usage errors are always the fault of design (within the "in context" caveat I described at the beginning). It is the job of a designer to build a system which is easy to use.  That is not to say that there aren't other tradeoffs in design, absolutes are rarely useful, and extremely infrequent errors may not be worth the effort of overcoming, but it is a principle of design that systems should be easy to use, errors should be hard to make and failing that easy an intuitive to recover from. I do highly recommend the book by Don Norman: http://www.nixdell.com/classes/HCI-and-D...dition.pdf

I think we basically actually agree, it’s just a matter of emphasis and wording.

For the record I agree that the design of a fare tap machine needs to be adjusted until substantially all the people who encounter it have little to no trouble using it the first time, and no trouble on subsequent times. If this requirement isn’t met, there is a problem, possibly a subtle one, with the affordance offered by the device.

I just don’t think it’s appropriate to “always” blame the design. But it’s not clear to me that even you think that, since in the same sentence that you say “usage errors are always the fault of design” you immediately add a parenthetical about context, and then later in the paragraph you refer to tradeoffs.

I’m sensitive to this issue because I’ve seen concerns about people having trouble using something spiral out of control. Way back I was a lab instructor for a computer science course with an absolutely enormous series of lab exercises. As far as I could tell, the reason the exercises were so enormous was because every time a student had any sort of confusion at all, a sentence or paragraph was added to try to head that off. The result was an unreasonably large document whose size was the biggest barrier to convenient use. They would have been much better leaving out most of the detailed explanations and just accepting that the lab instructors would sometimes need to answer questions from students (which was the case anyway, because people couldn’t find the information they needed in the oversized document). In other areas, I’ve seen systems lose features that are important for advanced use because of fears that people new to the system would be confused by the extra features. But it’s not reasonable to be confused by the presence of a single button labelled “Advanced…”.

Returning to the issue of the transit terminal, let’s hope they adjust the design so that it works better for riders. Although I guess all we can really expect at this point is signage, which isn’t the ideal way of resolving issues of this nature.

[danbrotherston]

And I do really think that usage errors are always the fault of design (within the "in context" caveat I described at the beginning). It is the job of a designer to build a system which is easy to use.  That is not to say that there aren't other tradeoffs in design, absolutes are rarely useful, and extremely infrequent errors may not be worth the effort of overcoming, but it is a principle of design that systems should be easy to use, errors should be hard to make and failing that easy an intuitive to recover from. I do highly recommend the book by Don Norman: http://www.nixdell.com/classes/HCI-and-D...dition.pdf

I think we basically actually agree, it’s just a matter of emphasis and wording.

For the record I agree that the design of a fare tap machine needs to be adjusted until substantially all the people who encounter it have little to no trouble using it the first time, and no trouble on subsequent times. If this requirement isn’t met, there is a problem, possibly a subtle one, with the affordance offered by the device.

I just don’t think it’s appropriate to “always” blame the design. But it’s not clear to me that even you think that, since in the same sentence that you say “usage errors are always the fault of design” you immediately add a parenthetical about context, and then later in the paragraph you refer to tradeoffs.

I’m sensitive to this issue because I’ve seen concerns about people having trouble using something spiral out of control. Way back I was a lab instructor for a computer science course with an absolutely enormous series of lab exercises. As far as I could tell, the reason the exercises were so enormous was because every time a student had any sort of confusion at all, a sentence or paragraph was added to try to head that off. The result was an unreasonably large document whose size was the biggest barrier to convenient use. They would have been much better leaving out most of the detailed explanations and just accepting that the lab instructors would sometimes need to answer questions from students (which was the case anyway, because people couldn’t find the information they needed in the oversized document). In other areas, I’ve seen systems lose features that are important for advanced use because of fears that people new to the system would be confused by the extra features. But it’s not reasonable to be confused by the presence of a single button labelled “Advanced…”.

Returning to the issue of the transit terminal, let’s hope they adjust the design so that it works better for riders. Although I guess all we can really expect at this point is signage, which isn’t the ideal way of resolving issues of this nature.

The point about context is that it matters who your users are. Again, if I get in an airplane, and cannot fly it, it's not a design failure because, I, a lay person with no flight training, is not the intended user of an airplane. Where as a transit system is designed to be used by everyone.

As for tradeoffs, the fact that user error is the fault of design does not mean that the designer was wrong to make those design decisions, there are always competing factors, but it is still the design causing that confusion.

For your example, what you are describing is still bad design. A document which is too large and doesn't provide clear focus and organization is also not designed well for the intended users, and as you explain, causes it's own problems.

Design is not simple, there are tradeoffs (length vs. clarity), but that does not mean there aren't better designs, (for example, shorter lessons with an appendix might be solve both problems) and there are questions about the whole system, e.g., the lab book is only part of the whole learning experience, perhaps the software you are teaching about could have it's user interface improved, but now you have trade offs between learning and using.  And of course, it doesn't end there, if there are errors that are going to come up, those errors should be helpful and instructive.

But someone who says "users just need to learn to tap right" is pretty clearly wrong, if users are having problems with tapping, the design of the terminal is faulty, just as if users are having trouble using a door, the design of the door is faulty, they're both very basic very simple tasks. Far far too often in pretty much all of life we blame the user instead of the designer. That's why Norman's book is so good, he talks about so many examples where the user is blamed instead instead of the design, it really is enlightening.

Like you say, we probably mostly agree, it's only a question of frequency. I'd say 97 times out of 100, design is at fault for common errors and user confusion, 2 times out of a 100 it's a system which is being used by someone who legitimately not the intended user (not just a user the designer failed to remember), and the last time 1 out of 100, it's a system which has made reasonable tradeoffs and has accepted user error and confusion as a feature of using the system.  But that's just my off the cuff opinion.

[Bytor]

So first of all, this story is told terribly, you wait till the end to explain your card is in your phone pocket, second, you need not mention your phone at all, that isn't relevant in any way to the story, it's just where you store your card.  Third of all, I have no idea what you're explaining, but here's the experience I have, as a right handed person (as most are).

Nothing changes materially if I take my card out of the pocket on my phone and hold that instead of my phone. I can still do it one-handed, contrary to your claim that this cannot be done.

I normally operate the touch screen with my right hand, it then tells me to tap my card, I pull out my card from my wallet and go to tap, oh, I get an error, because it tried to read my card as it approached the tap sensor (this is a common error that should not occur, there is no technical reason the reader cannot retry a few times, the error message is also vague and useless, fortunately for me, I happen to know that this error actually means and how to fix it--allthough I must restart the process from the beginning). Now I recall that I must hold my card pressed on the reader the whole time for the whole transaction to happen reliably, (I just know that because I've seen it elsewhere not because anything about the transaction or device interface has led me to understand this), I then hold it with my right hand, I must now operate the device with my left hand, then I must pay with my credit card, which I must retrieve from my wallet with one hand, then I try to switch hands, woops, my credit card confuses the tap terminal. On the third time, I managed to get it.

Some processes with the kiosk are difficult if you've approved without having your wallet and have to go fumbling for it. I don't know about you, but with my phone in my left hand, I can tap the buttons, pull out my fare card, tap that, replace it, pull out my credit card to pay for some stored value, then tap my fare card again, without having to redo anything. But sure, it could be redesign a bit to make it a little easier.

But not all processes are difficult.

I've seen others make different mistakes yes, just because the tap card image is the same does not mean it is intuitive...the image is small, and the rest of the device looks very different.

The image is the same as on the bus. Why does that not tell the user to do it the same way as on the bus? UI design in computers is predicated on the idea of elements looking the same being used/activated in the same manner regardless of individual context. You seem to be arguing that if you move the elements of a dialog box around that a user is going magically forget how to click a button or drag a slider.

I'm very serious here, the system is garbage, the designer is bad at what they do...objectively.  Can we stop pretending otherwise?

I started this off describing a *specific* common situation that are probably the bulk of the transactions with the kiosk by most riders - validating with your already loaded card. Yet you go haring off on some wild goose chase over something I wasn't even talking about.

So no, I'm not going to agree with you.

[danbrotherston]

So first of all, this story is told terribly, you wait till the end to explain your card is in your phone pocket, second, you need not mention your phone at all, that isn't relevant in any way to the story, it's just where you store your card.  Third of all, I have no idea what you're explaining, but here's the experience I have, as a right handed person (as most are).

Nothing changes materially if I take my card out of the pocket on my phone and hold that instead of my phone. I can still do it one-handed, contrary to your claim that this cannot be done.

I normally operate the touch screen with my right hand, it then tells me to tap my card, I pull out my card from my wallet and go to tap, oh, I get an error, because it tried to read my card as it approached the tap sensor (this is a common error that should not occur, there is no technical reason the reader cannot retry a few times, the error message is also vague and useless, fortunately for me, I happen to know that this error actually means and how to fix it--allthough I must restart the process from the beginning). Now I recall that I must hold my card pressed on the reader the whole time for the whole transaction to happen reliably, (I just know that because I've seen it elsewhere not because anything about the transaction or device interface has led me to understand this), I then hold it with my right hand, I must now operate the device with my left hand, then I must pay with my credit card, which I must retrieve from my wallet with one hand, then I try to switch hands, woops, my credit card confuses the tap terminal. On the third time, I managed to get it.

Some processes with the kiosk are difficult if you've approved without having your wallet and have to go fumbling for it. I don't know about you, but with my phone in my left hand, I can tap the buttons, pull out my fare card, tap that, replace it, pull out my credit card to pay for some stored value, then tap my fare card again, without having to redo anything. But sure, it could be redesign a bit to make it a little easier.

But not all processes are difficult.

I've seen others make different mistakes yes, just because the tap card image is the same does not mean it is intuitive...the image is small, and the rest of the device looks very different.

The image is the same as on the bus. Why does that not tell the user to do it the same way as on the bus? UI design in computers is predicated on the idea of elements looking the same being used/activated in the same manner regardless of individual context. You seem to be arguing that if you move the elements of a dialog box around that a user is going magically forget how to click a button or drag a slider.

I'm very serious here, the system is garbage, the designer is bad at what they do...objectively.  Can we stop pretending otherwise?

I started this off describing a *specific* common situation that are probably the bulk of the transactions with the kiosk by most riders - validating with your already loaded card. Yet you go haring off on some wild goose chase over something I wasn't even talking about.

So no, I'm not going to agree with you.

Last to first:

I never said you were agreeing with me, but if you're going to argue that there aren't design issues with the TVMs, well, no, we aren't ever going to agree on that.  No objective person would claim they are well designed given the user failures we've seen with them.

No, validating a ticket is not the common action at the TVM, that's the common action at the pedestal.  Most people wouldn't ever use the TVM for this except that the pedestals are frequently broken. Buying a ticket or reloading a card *IS* the common action at the TICKET VENDING machine, so I'd hardly call that going off on some wild goose chase.

The image may be the same, but it's in a different place, in a different context, on a different platform, in a different orientation, and requires a different action. Those are all part of the user experience.

Your description of tapping your fare card twice is in fact the wrong way to use the TVM according to GRT and the vendor, you are supposed to place your card against the reader and leave it there for the duration of the transaction. Your method is likely to lead to errors, and is in fact the very way I used the system which resulted in errors. Thanks for proving my point that the system is unintuitive and even experienced confident users will be making mistakes.

You're right, nothing materially changes if you take the phone out of the story, that's why I'm telling you that talking about your phone in the story is a bad way of explaining what you're trying to get across.

[embe]

** realizing I need to get out more **

[jason897]

Maybe stuff about the fare payment system needs to be split into a separate thread now

[jeffster]

** realizing I need to get out more **

hahaha....that was funny