7 ms·

Until you try all the rest.

by vtaeed 10y ago

nikatwork 10y ago
I have tried traffic buttons in many different countries (there's a sentence I never thought I'd type) and none have made me as egregiously furious as the Australian ones. They're an abomination on the level of CSS and the iTunes interface.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jsmeaton 10y ago
  Furious at traffic light buttons? Why?
ZenoArrow 10y ago
I've not tried all of them, but I don't think the UK ones are too bad, and they seem pretty basic to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light#British_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light#British_standard In addition to the lights mentioned in the Wikipedia article above, there is often a sound played when it's safe to cross, and there's a device at the bottom of the traffic light controls that allows you to feel when it's safe to cross. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22706881 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22706881 Are the systems from other countries much different (better or worse)?
- bmsleight_ 10y ago
  The British (actually England, Wales and Northern Island) have the design covered by law (TSRGD 2016). Scotland have minor change in the regulations. The sounder (aka bleeper) and device (aka tactile) are for visually impaired pedestrians. In Scotland, you can also have a voice telling you the vehicles has a red (e.g. Vehicles heading North on Main Street have been given a red signal). Systems in other counties have advantages and disadvantages (IMHO), lack of a clear standard compared to background noise. Too complex, so problems in maintenance. However some difference in sounds give a better indication to pedestrians on the start/middle/end of crossing time. There is also Countdown - http://content.tfl.gov.uk/PCaTS-Note-2-Overview-Presentation.pdf http://content.tfl.gov.uk/PCaTS-Note-2-Overview-Presentation...
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  I dislike the ones that are used in at least LA. The buttons don't have much haptic feedback to them, plus they shout "WAIT!" at you if you press it.
- stevetrewick 10y ago
  The current trend in the UK is towards removing the green/red signal from the opposite pole and sticking them on the switch box. This is supposed to help people like me who have a severe visual impairment. Unfortunately, whoever came up with this idea allowed their good intentions to override a bunch of other design problems, viz: 1) They used a light with basically the same brightness as they were using for the poles on the opposite side of the road and stuck it at head height. Thanks, now that's all I can see at night. Many people with a VI suffer some form of photophobia, so this is not helpful. 2) It completely disregards decades of unconscious habit/muscle memory formation. We are trained pretty much from birth to look across the road for a visual signal while waiting to cross and it's not there anymore because the new signalling method was used as a substitute instead of a complement. 3) The ergonomics of standing looking sideways at a box which blocks your view of the traffic vs standing facing the road being able to scan traffic in both directions and the signal. 4) Since there are no signals on the opposite pole and most complex crossings have no audible signal, there is no longer any way for pedestrians to know that the state of the system has changed or is about to change once they have stepped into the road. 5) With RE to point 3, it is universal that the new boxes are mounted at 90 degrees to the kerb. This means they are facing oncoming traffic (albeit usually on the opposite side of the road). This means they are in driver's eyeline. What happens when a zombie driver sees a light in their eyeline change from red to green? Three times in the last year I have nearly been run down outside my flat due to this particularly stupid human factors error. 6) For extra stupid, newer installs come with a pedestrian detecting PIR sensor mounted on the top of the pole. Not - as one might imagine - to detect a pedestrian and automatically trigger a request but to detect if a pedestrian has pushed the button and then walked away. These are universally either so badly installed or so poorly designed in the first place that the false positive rate is insane. There is no audible or tactile indication that the system has cancelled your request because you're not standing in the particular 30 cm spot its PIR can see. So the UK gets A for effort but F for implementation. Edit : rogue punctuation.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I see. Thanks for your advice. Are there any groups working on behalf of the visually impaired to improve the designs of these systems?

Until you try all the rest.

by vtaeed 10y ago

Until you try all the rest.

I have tried traffic buttons in many different countries (there's a sentence I never thought I'd type) and none have made me as egregiously furious as the Australian ones. They're an abomination on the level of CSS and the iTunes interface.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jsmeaton 10y ago
Furious at traffic light buttons? Why?

ZenoArrow 10y ago

I've not tried all of them, but I don't think the UK ones are too bad, and they seem pretty basic to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light#British_standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light#British_standard In addition to the lights mentioned in the Wikipedia article above, there is often a sound played when it's safe to cross, and there's a device at the bottom of the traffic light controls that allows you to feel when it's safe to cross. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22706881 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22706881 Are the systems from other countries much different (better or worse)?

bmsleight_ 10y ago
The British (actually England, Wales and Northern Island) have the design covered by law (TSRGD 2016). Scotland have minor change in the regulations. The sounder (aka bleeper) and device (aka tactile) are for visually impaired pedestrians. In Scotland, you can also have a voice telling you the vehicles has a red (e.g. Vehicles heading North on Main Street have been given a red signal). Systems in other counties have advantages and disadvantages (IMHO), lack of a clear standard compared to background noise. Too complex, so problems in maintenance. However some difference in sounds give a better indication to pedestrians on the start/middle/end of crossing time. There is also Countdown - http://content.tfl.gov.uk/PCaTS-Note-2-Overview-Presentation.pdf http://content.tfl.gov.uk/PCaTS-Note-2-Overview-Presentation...
madeofpalk 10y ago
I dislike the ones that are used in at least LA. The buttons don't have much haptic feedback to them, plus they shout "WAIT!" at you if you press it.
stevetrewick 10y ago
The current trend in the UK is towards removing the green/red signal from the opposite pole and sticking them on the switch box. This is supposed to help people like me who have a severe visual impairment. Unfortunately, whoever came up with this idea allowed their good intentions to override a bunch of other design problems, viz: 1) They used a light with basically the same brightness as they were using for the poles on the opposite side of the road and stuck it at head height. Thanks, now that's all I can see at night. Many people with a VI suffer some form of photophobia, so this is not helpful. 2) It completely disregards decades of unconscious habit/muscle memory formation. We are trained pretty much from birth to look across the road for a visual signal while waiting to cross and it's not there anymore because the new signalling method was used as a substitute instead of a complement. 3) The ergonomics of standing looking sideways at a box which blocks your view of the traffic vs standing facing the road being able to scan traffic in both directions and the signal. 4) Since there are no signals on the opposite pole and most complex crossings have no audible signal, there is no longer any way for pedestrians to know that the state of the system has changed or is about to change once they have stepped into the road. 5) With RE to point 3, it is universal that the new boxes are mounted at 90 degrees to the kerb. This means they are facing oncoming traffic (albeit usually on the opposite side of the road). This means they are in driver's eyeline. What happens when a zombie driver sees a light in their eyeline change from red to green? Three times in the last year I have nearly been run down outside my flat due to this particularly stupid human factors error. 6) For extra stupid, newer installs come with a pedestrian detecting PIR sensor mounted on the top of the pole. Not - as one might imagine - to detect a pedestrian and automatically trigger a request but to detect if a pedestrian has pushed the button and then walked away. These are universally either so badly installed or so poorly designed in the first place that the false positive rate is insane. There is no audible or tactile indication that the system has cancelled your request because you're not standing in the particular 30 cm spot its PIR can see. So the UK gets A for effort but F for implementation. Edit : rogue punctuation.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I see. Thanks for your advice. Are there any groups working on behalf of the visually impaired to improve the designs of these systems?