3 ms·
Everyone here seems to focus on the bad UI and blames those who made the software because this particular operation was complicated to perform and failed. But a
by gregoriol 6y ago
Everyone here seems to focus on the bad UI and blames those who made the software because this particular operation was complicated to perform and failed. But all this is missing the points: the UI reflect the business, the UI has likely been designed to perform many very complex banking operations and works well for that, we just don't
know how powerful it is from the screenshot and are not experts in the field. It's as if we were shown a shell and people were like "wow look at that horrible UI, no wonder they deleted the production database".
Sometimes a basic UI is the most efficient at some tasks, but one has to be trained to use it properly and processes have to be in place to prevent horrible issues. This is the problem here and this is where they failed.
- peterkelly 6y agoThis problem seems like it could have been fixed by a better UI though, specifically one which included a confirmation step that showed the implications of the decision i.e. the amounts that would be transferred and who they would be transferred to. If there was a screen that said "the transaction you have selected will result in a total of $900 million being sent to the following parties, broken down as follows: ...; Please confirm you wish to proceed" - then the outcome would have been very different.