ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[robdrimmie]

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.

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)

[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.

[robdrimmie]

As far as I can tell my general statement is unarguable.

Well then.

[danbrotherston]

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.

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.

[ijmorlan]

As far as I can tell my general statement is unarguable.

Well then.

And what does my next sentence say?

[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.

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.

[Bytor]

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.

The "shape" is a dark plastic brick with the image of a hand holding a farecard on it to the right of the kiosk screen. You can see it in this image here. The instructional videos for the bus fareboxes refer to tapping, as does the section of the video for paying for ION that does the toll poles. That video does not cover farecards at the kiosks, only transfer cards and paying for a ride.


This isn't a "norman" kiosk. The tap spot isn't hidden, and there are other usage precedents from using the card on the bus and the toll poles, to tap-and-pay, so we're not talking about something that is a brand new innovation. Physically, it's about as easy and basic as it gets.

[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...

[danbrotherston]

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.

I never said that the only solution is to make it read from a distance, but the current usage pattern is broken.  We have identical cards used in store for tap payment that work reliable. Regardless of the combination of technical solutions, better instructions (having a card holder), more clear affordances (the tap pad is far away from where you are working when you're using the machine, making it less likely people will tap correctly), these are all part of the design, and the designers who made a design which breaks much of the time when we have tap cards that work reliably elsewhere means the designers failed to build a good design.

Yes, if we had an issue with only 1/1,000,000 riders, I wouldn't call the design faulty, because that means it almost always works...not "often" works.  If something often works, it often doesn't too.

[jwilliamson]

[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.

[/quote]

I've never encountered a contactless credit card reader that required contact. Holding the card about a centimetre from the reader has always worked for me.

[Bytor]

[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.

I've never encountered a contactless credit card reader that required contact. Holding the card about a centimetre from the reader has always worked for me.
[/quote]

"Contactless" refers to an electrical circuit not needing to be made by inserting end with the golden leads into the terminal. It not referring to the  touching of your card to the terminal to ensure the NFC signals have sufficient strength.

[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.