What Apple Maps “PR Disaster” Says about Human-Automation Interaction

With the release of Apple’s in-house developed mapping solution for the new iPhone 5 (and all iOS 6 devices) there has been a major outcry among some users bordering on ridiculous, frothing, outrage1.  

Personally, the maps for my area are pretty good and the route guidance worked well even with no network signal.

However, some of the public reaction to the new mapping program is an excellent example of too much reliance on automation that is usually very reliable but falible (we’ve written about here, and here.).

It is very hard to discern what too much reliance looks like until the automation fails.  Too much reliance means that you do not double-check the route guidance information, or you ignore other external information (e.g., the bridge is out).

I’ve had my own too-much-reliance experience with mobile Google Maps (documented on the blog).  My reaction after failure was to be less trusting which led to decreased reliance (and increased “double checking”).  Apple’s “PR disaster” is a good wake up call about users unreasonably high trust in very reliable automation that can (and will) fail.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it will impact user’s perception that all technology, while seemingly reliable, should not be blindly trusted.

Some human factors lessons here (and interesting research questions for the future) are:

  • How do we tell the user that they need to double check? (aside from a warning)
  • How should the system convey it’s confidence?  (if it is unsure, how do you tell the user so they adjust their unreasonably high expectations)

[NPR]

1I say “outrage” because those users who most needed phone-based voice navigation probably had to own third party apps for it (I used the Garmin app).  The old Google Maps for iPhone never had that functionality.  So the scale of the outrage seems partially media-generated.

Product Confusability: Tide Pods

Kim Wolfinbarger sends along a new case of dangerous things being confused for food (the story is the same but the actors different, see previous examples).  Before you reflexively say, “only an idiot would confuse the two,” remember that 5-year olds don’t know the difference.  First rule of HF-club: you are not the user (or victim):

In California alone, 307 cases of accidentally ingestion of laundry packs by young children have been reported this year. And the cases in California, and nationwide, aren’t just limited to toddlers snarfing Tide Pods. When the product was released, Tide rivals such as All and Purex launched their own single-dose detergent capsules as well. Earlier this summer, Tide reconfigured the packaging of the product, adding a double-latched lid to the plastic tubs containing the Pods to make it more difficult for children to tamper with. Still, the number of reported incidents continues to climb along with news stories warning parents to take caution.

Just yesterday, Consumer Reports reported on a wave of Tide Pod-related poisonings in Glasgow, Scotland while the New York Daily News published a quick article stating that in New York City alone, 40 children have been hospitalized after eating the packs since April. TODAY also just published a piece on the alarming trend in which Ken Wahl, medical director for the Illinois Poison Center states: “I’ve never seen a consumer product that had that degree of injury in a child.”
Dishwashing detergent also comes in pod-like single serving doses but I am not aware of similar cases of ingestion.  Maybe it’s the coloring (they tend to be blue/green) or size (they are a bit larger I think)?

App Usability Evaluations for the Mental Health Field

We’ve posted before on usability evaluations of iPads and apps for academics (e.g.,here, and here), but today I’d like to point to a blog dedicated to evaluating apps for mental health professionals.

In the newest post, Dr. Jeff Lawley discusses the usability of a DSM Reference app from Kitty CAT Psych. For those who didn’t take intro psych in college, the DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which classifies symptoms into disorders. It’s interesting to read an expert take on this app – he considers attributes I would not have thought of, such as whether the app retains information (privacy issues).

As Dr. Lawley notes on his “about” page, there are few apps designed for mental health professionals and even fewer evaluations of these apps. Hopefully his blog can fill that niche and inspire designers to create more mobile tools for these professionals.