4 ms·

UI flaws have hit the Navy before, with even worse consequences [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)#Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wik

by pbh101 9y ago

UI flaws have hit the Navy before, with even worse consequences [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)#Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)#Iran_Air...

dragonwriter 9y ago
Nothing I see in that article (or anything else I've seen about the incident) attributes it to a UI issue. Not all errors made by users are the fault of the UI.
- theyregreat 9y ago
  More than binary nuance is needed. The ship that crashed is a system of humans plus machines, the UI being just the API between the two. Forensic incident analysis of ship design, UI, human factors, etc. is needed.
- pbh101 9y ago
  You're right: nothing in that article mentions the UI. I learned about the incident in my computer ethics class in college (along with Therac-25, etc). Quickly-skimming, it looks like Cracked has a decent writeup of the UI issue specifically [1]. [1] http://www.cracked.com/article_19776_6-disasters-caused-by-poorly-designed-user-interfaces.html http://www.cracked.com/article_19776_6-disasters-caused-by-p...
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    Because that website is cancer if you don't have an ad-blocker, I'll quote the relevant text: > The screen showed the operator what objects were detected on radar, and if he clicked on an object, it would track it. But if the operator wanted to get more information about the object (in this case, by listening in on its radio signals) to find out what it actually was, he had to move a separate cursor and click on the object again. > It's clumsy and unintuitive, and it made it really easy to forget which thing they were highlighting at any given moment -- the operator can be tracking one object and have it display the information for a completely different one because he forgot to move the other cursor. It's the kind of user interface that wouldn't make it out of the testing phase of a cheap browser game. And it cost the passengers of the plane their lives. > That's because the operator in the USS Vincennes thought he was listening to the incoming aircraft (the Airbus full of innocent people), because that's the thing he selected, when he was actually receiving signals from a parked F-14 several miles away, because that's where his other cursor was. > Granted, the transmissions alone wouldn't be reason enough to shoot down a plane: They'd also have to think that it was moving like an enemy aircraft. Unfortunately, the stupid system made that mistake pretty easy, too. Instead of telling the operators at the Vincennes if the approaching plane was ascending or descending, the system just showed them the present altitude on a smaller monitor. The operator had to write down or memorize the altitude, wait a few seconds, then ask again and mentally compare the two results to see if the aircraft was going up or going down. > Because of this, a calculation error led an operator to report that the Airbus was descending toward the USS Vincennes, like a combat aircraft would, when it was probably getting the hell away from them as fast as possible.

by pbh101 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

Nothing I see in that article (or anything else I've seen about the incident) attributes it to a UI issue. Not all errors made by users are the fault of the UI.

theyregreat 9y ago
More than binary nuance is needed. The ship that crashed is a system of humans plus machines, the UI being just the API between the two. Forensic incident analysis of ship design, UI, human factors, etc. is needed.
pbh101 9y ago
You're right: nothing in that article mentions the UI. I learned about the incident in my computer ethics class in college (along with Therac-25, etc). Quickly-skimming, it looks like Cracked has a decent writeup of the UI issue specifically [1]. [1] http://www.cracked.com/article_19776_6-disasters-caused-by-poorly-designed-user-interfaces.html http://www.cracked.com/article_19776_6-disasters-caused-by-p...
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  Because that website is cancer if you don't have an ad-blocker, I'll quote the relevant text: > The screen showed the operator what objects were detected on radar, and if he clicked on an object, it would track it. But if the operator wanted to get more information about the object (in this case, by listening in on its radio signals) to find out what it actually was, he had to move a separate cursor and click on the object again. > It's clumsy and unintuitive, and it made it really easy to forget which thing they were highlighting at any given moment -- the operator can be tracking one object and have it display the information for a completely different one because he forgot to move the other cursor. It's the kind of user interface that wouldn't make it out of the testing phase of a cheap browser game. And it cost the passengers of the plane their lives. > That's because the operator in the USS Vincennes thought he was listening to the incoming aircraft (the Airbus full of innocent people), because that's the thing he selected, when he was actually receiving signals from a parked F-14 several miles away, because that's where his other cursor was. > Granted, the transmissions alone wouldn't be reason enough to shoot down a plane: They'd also have to think that it was moving like an enemy aircraft. Unfortunately, the stupid system made that mistake pretty easy, too. Instead of telling the operators at the Vincennes if the approaching plane was ascending or descending, the system just showed them the present altitude on a smaller monitor. The operator had to write down or memorize the altitude, wait a few seconds, then ask again and mentally compare the two results to see if the aircraft was going up or going down. > Because of this, a calculation error led an operator to report that the Airbus was descending toward the USS Vincennes, like a combat aircraft would, when it was probably getting the hell away from them as fast as possible.