I was reading articles the other day and came across a site that, as many do, reformatted for my phone. Almost all reformatted-for-mobile sites are terrible, but this one is my favorite.
You cannot scroll through the 21 page article by moving your finger up and down, as would happen on a website. The only way to change pages is via the horizontal slider at the bottom. Good luck trying to move it so slightly it only goes forward one page! And yes, moving the slider left and right does move the page up and down.
Archive | affordances RSS feed for this section
I was reading articles the other day and came across a site that, as many do, reformatted for my phone. Almost all reformatted-for-mobile sites are terrible, but this one is my favorite.
For those who don’t follow news of climbing accidents as closely as I do, there has been a spate of accidents associated with the automatic belay devices (autobelays) installed at climbing gyms.
These devices are handy to have around as they negate the need for a climbing partner, allowing one to exercise and train alone. The climber clips his or her harness into the device at the bottom of the wall, and it automatically retracts (like a seat belt) when you climb upward. At the top, you let go of the wall and the device lowers you slowly back to the ground. You are probably imagining that the accidents had to do with failures of the equipment – while that is not unheard of, the most recent issues have all been with climbers forgetting to clip into the system at all.
The most recent tragedy occurred this past September, where an experienced climber died after a fall in a Texas gym, and it’s been listed as so common it happens at “every gym,” though not always resulting in a fall. Here is the facebook page with members of another gym discussing a similar accident.
If you talk with climbers or read accident forums you will invariably be faced with a large contingent bent on blaming the victim. I’ll grant that it is hard to imagine forgetting to clip into a safety device and climb 30 feet up a wall, but that’s because I hardly ever do it. One characteristics these accidents share is that the victims were experienced and used the auto-belays frequently.
When a procedure becomes automatic, it becomes more accurate and less effortful, but it also becomes less accessible to the conscious mind. When a step is skipped, but all other steps are unaffected, it’s especially hard to notice the skipped step in an automatic process. If caring more or working harder or “being more careful” could actually prevent this type of problem, we wouldn’t have any toddlers left in hot cars, perfectly good airplanes flown into the ground, or climbers falling because they didn’t clip into the autobelay.
That brings me to the device I saw installed at a climbing gym last night.
Let me tell you why I think this is brilliant.
- It’s highly visible.
- It functions as a guard. This adheres to the hierarchy of safety: First, try to design out the hazard. Second, guard against the hazard. Last, warn. These are in order of effectiveness. Prior to this device, I had only seen signs on the wall saying “Clip in!” (And a year ago, even those didn’t exist.) This device physically blocks the start of the climbing routes, demanding interaction before one starts climbing.
- Using it properly does not add any additional time or mess to climbing a route. If it weren’t there, the climber would still have to unclip the autobelay from an anchor close to the ground, etc. With it there, the climber does the same thing and once done, the guard becomes a flat mat that doesn’t get in anyone’s way.
Is it perfect? No. You can also climb with a belayer on the same or nearby routes, and then it’s also blocking your way at the start of the climb. Some adaptation should be made by the route-setters at the gyms to minimize this. But overall, what a great and simple solution.
The interview was with Dr. Jennifer Heldmann, an astrobiologist who studies “Mars analogues” on earth – the Atacama Desert in South America and the very cold, very dry “dry valleys” in Antarctica. Her main purpose is to investigate whether (and what kinds of) microbial life can survive in these conditions, but she also tests the methods we might use to collect samples from other planets. Here is a transcript describing a usability test in “A Martian Curiosity”:
Bentley: Well Jennifer, I was looking at a picture of you in a spacesuit. And you were standing in an alien land, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Mars, and it wasn’t even the moon. Where were you?
Heldmann: That could have been a number of places, I’ve worn spacesuits in a variety of places. All on Earth, I might add. Because we do a lot of work here on Earth to study and learn how to go and operate on other planets. So, for example, I would love love love to send people to Mars, so we can explore that planet, it’s really hard to do that, though. And we have to learn “how do you live on Mars?” “How do you work on Mars?” “How do you talk to people back on Earth from Mars?” And so, to answer those really important questions, we go out and we test it. We go to places on Earth that are like Mars. Mars is really really cold and Mars is really really dry, and so we go to cold and dry places.
Bentley: Can you share with us a story about what it’s like to walk around in some of these environments with a spacesuit on? Anything that surprised you?
Heldmann: Yes, there was one time out in Utah, we were at the Mars Desert Research Station, wearing a spacesuit, and we had a camera crew with us, because there was a group doing a documentary about Mars analogues and working out in Mars. So we said “sure, come with us, we’re going to do an EVA, an Extra Vehicular Activity, which means we’re going to wear our spacesuits and walk around, and get some rocks, and get some samples, great, come out with us. So we had little sample bags, and we had them in our backpacks, and we had our spacesuits on, and we get to the rock outcrop, and we pick up the rocks. And these are great, these are just what we were looking for, we’re all excited, and then we go to put the samples in the bag and we couldn’t get the bags open. Because we’re wearing these big, thick gloves.. you don’t think about this ahead of time! You just think “oh I’ll open the bag, and I’ll put the rock in. How hard is that?” It’s really hard when you have a spacesuit on.”
Bentley: What were they, like a ziplock bag or nylon mesh? Velcro? What was it?
Heldmann: Yes, it was a ziplock type of thing. You just had to pull it apart. Really simple, we do it every day in the kitchen, right? But with those big, thick gloves on we could not get our sample bags open. It was very embarrassing to have a film crew watching you for hours try to open a ziplock bag. It would have been really simple to just take the glove off and open the bag, but on Mars you can’t do that.
Bentley: And it would have been a bummer to go to Mars and find great rocks and then not put them into a bag and bring them back.
Then, to my delight, later in the podcast the hosts took it upon themselves to make an analogue of the equipment used in the Mars mission analogue and do a think-aloud. (18:01)
Bentley: Seth, could you put on those oven mitts that I set down in front of you, please?
Shostak: Why, are we getting some pizza out of the oven? What’s the deal?
Bentley: Ok. So you see what else I put down there, in front of you?
Shostak: Yeah, this giant ziplock bag.
Bentley: Yes, this may be the largest ziplock back I’ve ever seen. It’s almost a body bag size.
Shostak: I was almost going to say “Did you order this from ‘Mafia supply company’”? What do you want me to do with this bag?
Bentley: It’s closed, right now. Jennifer was trying to open a ziplock bag, she said, while she was in the desert, and she wasn’t able to do it for the cameras. What I want you to do is open it and describe what you’re doing. Now, you have oven mitts on .
Shostak: Well, actually it isn’t too hard to open this, if you want to know the truth, because it’s so big that even with oven mitts.. watch. (crinkle sounds) Maybe it’s not so easy. Pull it!
Bentley: C’mon, Seth! The Martian rocks are waiting for you. (struggling sounds)
Shostak: Well, those Martian rocks are safe from me because I cannot get this bag open!
Bentley: Ok, Jennifer is vindicated.
Oven mittens or something similarly cheap could be a nice lab-based pre-test for any manual equipment, before it even gets to the spacesuit test.
So. In closing… Human Factors isn’t rocket science.
Or is it!?!?
Photo credit veggietothemax @ Flickr
The above is from a gas pump in a large metro area. Can you guess the most common zip code number? How about what object people use to to press the keys?
But you’re probably missing my favorite part – look in the lower right. Do you see the black electrical tape? Under that tape is the START button for the gasoline. The instructions on the screen say to “press the start button to begin fueling.” As the most commonly pressed button it was the first to be destroyed, and the station attendant’s tape solution earned it a humor tag in this post. I’m also willing to bet that hiding the START button is why the “No/Cancel” button has been furiously destroyed as well.
I’ve come across some of these where the soft keypads were entirely destroyed by keys for the common zip code numbers. Once I had to leave to find another gas station, since it wouldn’t accept my card without a zip code entered and the buttons no longer worked.
Photo credit Maribeth Gandy Coleman
New research shows that our ability to rapidly estimate the number of things in a set (an ability called subitizing) peaks around 30 and declines with age. Researchers posted an experiment online to measure this “number sense”.
This could have implications for the design of displays that require decision making based on judgements of the number of things. A simple example might be comparing the star ratings on products when shopping online.
The team found that scores on the test improved gradually throughout the school years, peaking around age 30, then declining. Nonetheless, there were large individual differences in scores among people of the same age. Those differences appeared to be modestly linked to school performance: Those with the best innate number sense reported the highest ability in math in school. A subgroup of nearly 500 subjects were also asked to report their math scores on the SAT. Again, a higher innate numbers sense was associated with higher SAT scores.
I live in Raleigh, NC. Our area code has always been a little problematic for the nationwide 911 emergency system – it is 919. But at least until now, dialing the 919 for a local call was optional. Looks like we’re finally big enough for ten digit dialing and we can expect to pay the price in our public safety system. Check out this email from the Director of Emergency Communications, particularly the part about dispatching officers every 7.5 minutes to investigate hang-ups:
I am sure by now that you have seen or heard about some of the impact that the new 10 digit dialing requirement has made upon our 9-1-1 center. Unfortunately, we are almost three weeks downstream from this implementation, and are seeing few signs of improvement.
Neither the 9-1-1 center, the city, or the local telephone carriers are responsible for selecting area codes. They are distributed according to a national plan. “Overlays” are added when a region begins to run out of numbers in their original pool; in this case 9-1-9. Unfortunately, with the similarity between 9-1-9 and 9-1-1, our agency has seen this issue in the past, as some of our citizens have utilized 10 digit dialing for some time. The current impact on our staff – and on law enforcement – is that on our peak days we are dispatching officers to investigate hang up calls once every seven and a half minutes. Of course, this is a daily average, meaning that at peak times the impact is even more severe. Plus, we only dispatch calls that we can’t resolve another way. Many people who misdial don’t realize they have until we answer. Others hang-up, but answer when we call them back. In such cases sending an officer is not required, so the total number of calls we receive in error far exceeds those dispatched.
As Director of Emergency Communications, I am asking for your help. We have identified that a majority of such calls come from either senior citizens or business telephones. In the first case, confusion over the proper procedures seems to be the norm. After 40 years, folks now have to dial 10 digits just to talk to their neighbor. We’ve had callers tell us they thought they had to now dial 9-1-1 before calling in our area, and others ask if they needed to dial 9-1-9 before they called 9-1-1. If you have an elderly friend, relative, or neighbor, I’d like to personally ask you to take the time to make sure they understand to carefully dial “9-1-9” when required. I believe that with some patience and understanding we can make significant inroads.
With regard to business telephones, the issue is a little more complex, and may in some cases even involve the need to dial “9” to get an outside line, followed by the unnecessary “1” before dialing the area code. Whatever the reason, it really boils down to just taking a few extra seconds to make sure of the numbers you’re dialing. Whether you work at a local business, or own one, can I please also count on you to assure that your co-workers use due care when calling? This is a very serious issue and takes resources away from dealing with actual emergencies.
So, to summarize:
- There is a lack of understanding when to use 10-digit dialing.
- Being “careful” is not going to fix this problem.
- The added traditions for businesses to dial “9″ to get out adds to the problem (NC State moved to a dial “7″ system, presumably for this reason).
- Those with a lifetime of 7-digit experience, and presumably the least likely to have numbers pre-programmed into a cell phone, make the most errors.
The issues here are fascinating, yet predictable. I don’t know if there is a perfect answer, since changing the long-term ill-chosen area code would be confusing (although my home town in Alabama has gone through 3 such changes in the last couple of decades – from 205 to 334 to 251!). But it is clear that we are penalized by the similarity of our numbers to a national standard for emergency calls. I applaud the tone of the email, which is not blameful – just desperate for a solution. However, I have great skepticism that advising “due care” in dialing will make any difference at all.
In an earlier post we discussed how illuminating simple user testing can be. The video below is computer blogger Chris Pirrilo who put his dad in front of the new Windows 8 Preview. The dad seems to be relatively sophisticated and knows about Windows 7 but is completely flummoxed by Windows 8 new “Metro” interface.
Note that this is the reaction of just one person but we shouldn’t discount it. Plenty of users (both young and old) are not as sophisticated as you and I. I guess Anne and I (and other human factors & aging researchers) will still have lots of work!
(via Daring Fireball)
Here is a design that requires disobedience of the fundamental rule in a sport: don’t point your gun at someone you don’t plan to shoot. Blogger Mark Shead posits it might be due to a lack of domain knowlege by the designer and extends the analogy to software design.
Mistakes in software design aren’t always as easy to spot, but often it comes down to the same thing. To design something you must have at least a basic level of domain knowledge. That doesn’t means you have to be a world famous chef in order to write a recipe webapp, but you need to make sure you at least know the basics.
Read the full post discussing this design.
“I wasn’t trying to make a computer interface, I was just trying to make a drum” – NPR interviews Bill Buxton
“I wasn’t trying to make a computer interface, I was just trying to make a drum,” Buxton tells NPR’s Robert Siegel. “Did I envision what was going to happen today, that it would be in everybody’s pocket — in their smartphone? Absolutely not. Did we realize that things were going to be different, that you could do things that we never imagined? … Absolutely.”
Today, Buxton is known as a pioneer in human-computer interaction, a field of computer science that has seen a spike in consumer demand thanks to a new, seemingly ubiquitous technology: Touch.”
“Turkle says that’s because touch-screen devices appeal to a sentiment that pretty much everyone can relate to: the desire to be a kid again.
“[The] fantasy of using your body to control the virtual is a child’s fantasy of their body being connected to the world,” Turkle says. “That’s the child’s earliest experience of the world and it kind of gets broken up by the reality that you’re separate from the world. And what these phones do is bring back that fantasy in the most primitive way.”
And Turkle warns that living in that fantasy world could mean missing out on the real world around you.”
Photo credit Bejadin.info at Flickr.
Two articles came up that both touched upon the topic of how behavior is shaped and influenced by the environment and how we shape our immediate environment to suit particular behaviors. The topic of how behavior is constrained by the physical environment is a long discussed topic in psychology and human factors (e.g., affordances, ecological psychology, situated cognition, “cognition in the wild“).
According to Wendy Wood, a psychologist at University of Southern California who researches behavior change, throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s scientists believed that if you wanted to change behavior, the key was to change people’s goals and intentions.
“Once a behavior had been repeated a lot, especially if the person does it in the same setting, you can successfully change what people want to do. But if they’ve done it enough, their behavior doesn’t follow their intentions,” Neal explains.
Neal says this has to do with the way that over time, our physical environments come to shape our behavior.
“People, when they perform a behavior a lot — especially in the same environment, same sort of physical setting — outsource the control of the behavior to the environment,” Neal says.
Outsourcing control over your behavior sounds a little funny. But understand consider what happens when you perform a very basic everyday behavior like getting into a car.
Memories, too, are cued by the physical environment. When you visit a place you used to live, these cues can cause you to revert back to the person you were when you lived there. The rest of the time, different places are kept largely separated in our minds. The more connections our brain makes to something, the more likely our everyday thoughts are to lead us there. But connections made in one place can be isolated from those made in another, so we may not think as often about things that happened for the few months we lived someplace else. Looking back, many of my homes feel more like places borrowed than places possessed, and while I sometimes sift through mental souvenirs of my time there, in the scope of a lifetime, I was only a tourist.
Here is a link to an enjoyable radioshow called “99% invisible,” about the “design, architecture & the 99% invisible activity that shapes our world.”*
This episode covers the difficulty people have in correctly miming use of a steering wheel (spoiler: they can’t!) and how they can learn to do so correctly with no visual feedback. The researcher interviewed was Steven Cloete, whose website can be found here with more information about research specifics.
99% invisible was recently featured on Radiolab, one of my favorite science podcasts.
*no relation to the 99%.
Image credit ryanready at Flickr
Follow the link to read “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design” by Bret Victor. The briefest of summaries would be that we over-use simple touch in our visions of the future, when we could be including many other cues, such as weight and balance.
From the post:
If you’re with me so far, maybe I can nudge you one step further. Look down at your hands. Are they attached to anything? Yes — you’ve got arms! And shoulders, and a torso, and legs, and feet! And they all move!
Any dancer or doctor knows full well what an incredibly expressive device your body is. 300 joints! 600 muscles! Hundreds of degrees of freedom!
The next time you make breakfast, pay attention to the exquisitely intricate choreography of opening cupboards and pouring the milk — notice how your limbs move in space, how effortlessly you use your weight and balance. The only reason your mind doesn’t explode every morning from the sheer awesomeness of your balletic achievement is that everyone else in the world can do this as well.
With an entire body at your command, do you seriously think the Future Of Interaction should be a single finger?
Photo credit jstarpl @ Flickr
Touch Usability points to a nice Don Norman post about new gesture scrolling differences primarily instigated by Apple. As a side note, i’ve fully converted to the “content moves” model (at home, work, laptop) and did not find the transition unusual at all. As Norman notes, it just required a subtle mental shift in my model:
Both models are correct in the sense that both make logical sense. The “correct” answer is that the method of scrolling should match the user’s conceptual model of the activity (usually called the user’s mental model). Whichever method is adopted then requires that all people learn to see the world through that particular conceptual model.
It helps that I use all Macs (with Magic Trackpads and Magic Mice). When I move to a PC, the switch back to “old world” scrolling is almost effortless after a quick re-orientation.
And now you can browse his collection with him — all 28 minutes and 48 seconds worth!
Photo credit andreakirkby @ Flickr
You may have heard that an employee who managed “social media” for Chrysler accidentally posted on Chrysler’s twitter account about *ahem* poor driving in Chrysler’s home city of Detroit. Click here for the original story.
The guy who sent the tweet blames the program he used for multiple twitter accounts. The article calls it a “glitch,” which would not necessarily be usability, but it seems more likely to be a problem with understanding what account a tweet will come from when multiple accounts are accessible.
From the article on WXYZ:
Scott is convinced a software glitch on a program called Tweetdeck led to the tweet being sent out on the wrong account. He says he deleted the Chrysler account from the program, but somehow it still went out.
His attorney, Michael Dezsi, says Scott has a case.
“A simple web search shows a number of other users have encountered the same issues,” Dezsi said.
Action News made contact with a Tweetdeck spokesman via email about the claim.
“We are not familiar with the error you describe–tweets sent from a deleted account–but we normally would try to replicate it to make sure there is no problem on our end (although it sounds very unlikely that this is a TweetDeck issue). If you know the type of hardware, platform and TweetDeck version we could check further,” said Sam Mandel, Tweetdeck executive vice president of business operations.
This looks like another case where people feel more justified when the problem is a software bug or engineering glitch than when a usability problem caused the error.
I enjoy the mix of economics and psychology, which is why I am a faithful reader of the Freakanomics blog. Their recent podcast on “pain” started off with a good human-factors-related tale of the problematic design of a subway alarm system. I have included a link below to the podcast, but the quick overview is that there is an ear piercing alarm that is triggered by using the “emergency” exit, which is invariably used every day by someone wanting to get out faster than turnstiles permit.
The person breaking the rules has to hear the alarm for the shortest period of time and face no repercussions. The law abiding citizens waiting in line to exit get to listen to the alarm the longest.
Photo Credit Wavebreaker @ Flickr
The picture above shows the front and back of a trashcan designed to be lifted by machinery.
This past weekend I helped my parents start to clear their home for an upcoming move and filled this trashcan to capacity. I didn’t want my mother to have to haul it to the street, so I went to go do that before I left.
I looked at the front of the can and saw the metal bar (left picture). I looked at the can and saw the wheels were on the other side and thought “I guess I grab the bar so it tilts onto the wheels.” When I did it pretty much instantly tipped over and dumped out all of the items it contained (many of which weren’t in bags, since I knew it was dumped by a machine into the truck).
Because, of course, you should grab the handles at the top (right picture) and lean the can toward you on the wheels. But I saw the bar, so I did what you do with a bar and grabbed it. I learned two things: 1. I don’t know much about trashcans (lucky me?) and 2. Sometimes affordances are for non-humans… that bar was to be grabbed by the dumptruck machine, not me!
Posts by category
- academia (11)
- accessibility (51)
- affordances (42)
- aging (63)
- alarms (14)
- APA (11)
- automation (53)
- automobiles (48)
- aviation (17)
- ballots (4)
- classroom (1)
- cognition/memory (42)
- conference (5)
- databases (7)
- design (136)
- Division 21 (14)
- ergonomics (64)
- errors (104)
- expertise (6)
- featured (11)
- games (2)
- guestpost (5)
- hci (78)
- health/healthcare (57)
- HFES Annual Meeting (18)
- history (8)
- humor (61)
- infovis (31)
- input device (54)
- instructional design (5)
- labs (5)
- Links (1)
- military (6)
- misc (31)
- mobile (38)
- multi-tasking (11)
- philosophy (2)
- potpourri (23)
- privacy (4)
- profile (4)
- rock climbing (1)
- safety (81)
- signs (16)
- spatial (2)
- sports (2)
- teams (2)
- technology (97)
- training (28)
- transportation (22)
- trust (15)
- Uncategorized (1)
- usability (167)
- vigilance (7)
- warnings (33)
- websites (38)
Posts by Month
- March 2014 (1)
- February 2014 (1)
- January 2014 (1)
- December 2013 (1)
- November 2013 (4)
- October 2013 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (1)
- May 2013 (1)
- April 2013 (3)
- March 2013 (1)
- February 2013 (3)
- January 2013 (2)
- November 2012 (3)
- October 2012 (2)
- September 2012 (3)
- August 2012 (6)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (5)
- May 2012 (2)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (5)
- February 2012 (7)
- January 2012 (7)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (4)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (3)
- August 2011 (5)
- July 2011 (7)
- June 2011 (2)
- May 2011 (6)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (7)
- February 2011 (11)
- January 2011 (7)
- December 2010 (8)
- November 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (5)
- September 2010 (7)
- August 2010 (11)
- July 2010 (7)
- June 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (5)
- April 2010 (5)
- March 2010 (12)
- February 2010 (8)
- January 2010 (13)
- December 2009 (17)
- November 2009 (7)
- October 2009 (5)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (7)
- July 2009 (11)
- June 2009 (14)
- May 2009 (4)
- April 2009 (6)
- March 2009 (6)
- February 2009 (6)
- January 2009 (14)
- December 2008 (4)
- November 2008 (7)
- October 2008 (11)
- September 2008 (15)
- August 2008 (7)
- July 2008 (6)
- June 2008 (8)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (7)
- March 2008 (7)
- February 2008 (5)
- January 2008 (10)
- December 2007 (9)
- November 2007 (9)
- October 2007 (3)
- September 2007 (9)
Twitter or RSS
Popular Recent Posts
Popular Posts (postviews)
- Usability of a Glass Dashboard? (7296), April 4, 2013
- Collection of Aviation Safety Articles & Student Activity Ideas (7113), July 20, 2012
- Using the iPad in Academia (6767), May 30, 2012
- Product Confusability: Tide Pods (6602), September 17, 2012
- What Apple Maps “PR Disaster” Says about Human-Automation Interaction (6008), September 28, 2012
- Lack of human factors = more of your tax dollars at “work” (5830), April 22, 2012
- No one wants to touch the gas pump (5697), August 22, 2012
- Continuing Adventures of an Academic’s Use of the iPad (mini) (5663), February 13, 2013
- Paper prototyping made easier (5105), November 19, 2012
- Who’s responsible when the robot (or automation) is wrong? (4749), April 23, 2012