4 ms·

Reminds me of the elevator button example: You're in the fourth floor, the elevator is on the fifth floor (indicated by a display above the door) and you want

Reminds me of the elevator button example: You're in the fourth floor, the elevator is on the fifth floor (indicated by a display above the door) and you want to go up. Do you press the up, or down button? At first this seems obvious, since you want to go up, but it's only obvious because you know how elevator interfaces work. Another valid way to interpret the elevator interface is to press the down button, since you're in the fourth floor and want it to come down to you. Yep, interface design is hard.

derefr 16y ago
You press the single button on the panel, hypothetically labelled—hypothetically because a label is completely unnecessary when there's only one—"come to me." A lot of what makes interface design "hard" is that our minds are filled with cached solutions to no-longer-valid problems (like the problem of directing around a purely-hydraulic lift that cannot indicate its relative position to you.) The elevator now has a computer in it; it knows which direction it needs to go to come toward you, and you now know if it's coming from the "wrong" direction in order to pick an alternate lift out of a bank. Some of these things are so codified that people would react badly if we took them away, though. For example, JRPGs no longer need to display numeric damage tallies—but it persists because that's what makes a JRPG a JRPG.
- jasonkester 16y ago
  But that's wouldn't solve the problem that elevator buttons are designed to solve. You have to tell it "I'm going up" so that it doesn't stop downward-bound elevators on your floor and slow the system. Your single-button interface would make things considerably worse.
  - derefr 16y ago
    That assumes, though, that there is more than one elevator. There is already well-known and battle-tested solution for that case: put a destination-floor-number panel outside the elevator bank (not connected to any single elevator, but rather offset), with the current floor's button removed. To remove the possibility of thinking that the panel of buttons has anything to do with the numbers the elevators display, remove the external displays from all the elevators. When you press the button, the first elevator available (and going in the right direction) opens at your floor, already set to go to your destination floor. (If you really insist, you can pulse the backlight of the activated destination floor button as the elevator nears, in a sort of marco-polo way; I've seen a very upscale hotel do just this.) Now, what I was referring to in my previous post was a single-elevator scenario (which is most elevators outside of hotels and apartment buildings.) In the case of a single elevator, there's really no difference between the elevator either: 1. passing you, turning around, arriving at your floor, picking you up, and heading to your destination floor; or 2. opening at your floor, taking you along with whomever else is inside to their destination floors, then turning around and heading for your destination floor. Either way, you spend the same amount of time waiting (arbitrarily either inside or outside of the elevator), and the elevator opens the same number of times. When there is one elevator, all that really matters is getting inside it.
    - bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
      Capacity is often a bottleneck in large buildings. The elevator might be full as it passes going the wrong way, so getting in isn't even an option. Also, more people might show up on your floor by the time the elevator passes going the right way, necessitating another stop.
      - derefr 16y ago
        Firstly, if capacity is a problem, there really shouldn't just be a single elevator serving this supposedly "large" building. But since a lot of places can't afford all the elevators they need... you know how a full bus will just ignore everyone at a bus stop, and only stop when someone wants off? Elevators know when they're full.
parallax7d 16y ago
Creating available, consistent and learn-able interfaces is not that hard. Making them completely ignorance proof may be though. Having to teach something is a reasonable part of any interface. Such as having a sign near elevator buttons that says "press the direction in which you want to travel". Or a cashier that says "no, use this pen." Or a website support person that guides an elderly man over the phone on the differences between a login box and a password recovery box. Of course, it would be the ultimate aesthetic if interfaces would just do the magic, decide what the user really wanted, no thinking needed. I think this is the unreasonable ideal some designers dream of. Even better, when we are born we could get a dialog box that says "Lead a Long, Fulfilling Life. OK, Cancel". But then we would have to learn to read to understand the dialog box. Maybe someone could press a button for us that makes us learn to read first. Or maybe an even more magical button could be designed, that when pressed, no one ever would have to read dialog boxes and press buttons ever again, or think or live. I think the Russians actually have a button like that.

derefr 16y ago

You press the single button on the panel, hypothetically labelled—hypothetically because a label is completely unnecessary when there's only one—"come to me." A lot of what makes interface design "hard" is that our minds are filled with cached solutions to no-longer-valid problems (like the problem of directing around a purely-hydraulic lift that cannot indicate its relative position to you.) The elevator now has a computer in it; it knows which direction it needs to go to come toward you, and you now know if it's coming from the "wrong" direction in order to pick an alternate lift out of a bank. Some of these things are so codified that people would react badly if we took them away, though. For example, JRPGs no longer need to display numeric damage tallies—but it persists because that's what makes a JRPG a JRPG.

jasonkester 16y ago
But that's wouldn't solve the problem that elevator buttons are designed to solve. You have to tell it "I'm going up" so that it doesn't stop downward-bound elevators on your floor and slow the system. Your single-button interface would make things considerably worse.
- derefr 16y ago
  That assumes, though, that there is more than one elevator. There is already well-known and battle-tested solution for that case: put a destination-floor-number panel outside the elevator bank (not connected to any single elevator, but rather offset), with the current floor's button removed. To remove the possibility of thinking that the panel of buttons has anything to do with the numbers the elevators display, remove the external displays from all the elevators. When you press the button, the first elevator available (and going in the right direction) opens at your floor, already set to go to your destination floor. (If you really insist, you can pulse the backlight of the activated destination floor button as the elevator nears, in a sort of marco-polo way; I've seen a very upscale hotel do just this.) Now, what I was referring to in my previous post was a single-elevator scenario (which is most elevators outside of hotels and apartment buildings.) In the case of a single elevator, there's really no difference between the elevator either: 1. passing you, turning around, arriving at your floor, picking you up, and heading to your destination floor; or 2. opening at your floor, taking you along with whomever else is inside to their destination floors, then turning around and heading for your destination floor. Either way, you spend the same amount of time waiting (arbitrarily either inside or outside of the elevator), and the elevator opens the same number of times. When there is one elevator, all that really matters is getting inside it.
  - bluesnowmonkey 16y ago
    Capacity is often a bottleneck in large buildings. The elevator might be full as it passes going the wrong way, so getting in isn't even an option. Also, more people might show up on your floor by the time the elevator passes going the right way, necessitating another stop.
    - derefr 16y ago
      Firstly, if capacity is a problem, there really shouldn't just be a single elevator serving this supposedly "large" building. But since a lot of places can't afford all the elevators they need... you know how a full bus will just ignore everyone at a bus stop, and only stop when someone wants off? Elevators know when they're full.

parallax7d 16y ago

Creating available, consistent and learn-able interfaces is not that hard. Making them completely ignorance proof may be though. Having to teach something is a reasonable part of any interface. Such as having a sign near elevator buttons that says "press the direction in which you want to travel". Or a cashier that says "no, use this pen." Or a website support person that guides an elderly man over the phone on the differences between a login box and a password recovery box. Of course, it would be the ultimate aesthetic if interfaces would just do the magic, decide what the user really wanted, no thinking needed. I think this is the unreasonable ideal some designers dream of. Even better, when we are born we could get a dialog box that says "Lead a Long, Fulfilling Life. OK, Cancel". But then we would have to learn to read to understand the dialog box. Maybe someone could press a button for us that makes us learn to read first. Or maybe an even more magical button could be designed, that when pressed, no one ever would have to read dialog boxes and press buttons ever again, or think or live. I think the Russians actually have a button like that.