4 ms·

I never experienced that "Unexpected item in bagging area" here in Sweden, the UX failures are not universal. Most stores I visited don't even have scales and

I never experienced that "Unexpected item in bagging area" here in Sweden, the UX failures are not universal. Most stores I visited don't even have scales and just trust you to put in the correct items. Especially the ones where you get a handheld device to scan while you walk trough the store. I would guess that fraud levels are much lower here so the stores don't need to do that.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>I never experienced that "Unexpected item in bagging area" here in Sweden, the UX failures are not universal. the automated føtex near my house has this, or also put your item in the bag, you need to put an item in the bag etc. crash because you didn't put item in bag fast enough, or you took bag off scale to put new one on. >the UX failures are not universal. yes, because they do not have a universal interface which a human checker provides. By using a machine you switch from having one well understood, pretty standardized ui paradigm: put stuff on track, tracks goes to checker, checker checks them through, you pay and bag your stuff - to having as many ux as there are companies implementing automatic checkout machines and however many versions of their workflow are in distribution. The UX failures for a self-service checkout are unique and unfamiliar to the user, just like the ux failures of a new checkout flow on an online retailer.
- wasmitnetzen 6y ago
  The UX of a human being is only good if you have a common language. I'm not fluent in Swedish, so for me the ability to read the text on the machine instead of listen to it is a plus. Of course, I can ask the cashier to talk English to me, but that also has some friction to it. And I only regularly go to two different supermarkets, so once I know their flow, there's nothing new to it. In contrast, humans seem to like to change their interface quite regularly, even between customers...
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    Ok, I've gone to shop in lots of stores in countries where I do not speak the language, as part of the whole human checkout system there is always (in non street market situations) a machine display that says how much of the local currency I need to give up. On the other hand I think I may be abnormally sensitive to badly worked out human machine interactions since working out these kinds of interactions is part of my job as a programmer. So when something is poorly thought out I think that I feel it stronger than most people do.
- jinglebells 6y ago
  > By using a machine you switch from having one well understood, pretty standardized ui paradigm: put stuff on track, tracks goes to checker, checker checks them through, you pay and bag your stuff Even this is not universal. In Sweden the checkouts have that divider so the checkout clerk can start scanning the next customer's products while you're packing. In the UK, you can't move on until the other person has bagged and removed which you're expected to do before paying, which makes self-checkout considerably faster because you're already bagged.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>I never experienced that "Unexpected item in bagging area" here in Sweden, the UX failures are not universal. the automated føtex near my house has this, or also put your item in the bag, you need to put an item in the bag etc. crash because you didn't put item in bag fast enough, or you took bag off scale to put new one on. >the UX failures are not universal. yes, because they do not have a universal interface which a human checker provides. By using a machine you switch from having one well understood, pretty standardized ui paradigm: put stuff on track, tracks goes to checker, checker checks them through, you pay and bag your stuff - to having as many ux as there are companies implementing automatic checkout machines and however many versions of their workflow are in distribution. The UX failures for a self-service checkout are unique and unfamiliar to the user, just like the ux failures of a new checkout flow on an online retailer.

wasmitnetzen 6y ago
The UX of a human being is only good if you have a common language. I'm not fluent in Swedish, so for me the ability to read the text on the machine instead of listen to it is a plus. Of course, I can ask the cashier to talk English to me, but that also has some friction to it. And I only regularly go to two different supermarkets, so once I know their flow, there's nothing new to it. In contrast, humans seem to like to change their interface quite regularly, even between customers...
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  Ok, I've gone to shop in lots of stores in countries where I do not speak the language, as part of the whole human checkout system there is always (in non street market situations) a machine display that says how much of the local currency I need to give up. On the other hand I think I may be abnormally sensitive to badly worked out human machine interactions since working out these kinds of interactions is part of my job as a programmer. So when something is poorly thought out I think that I feel it stronger than most people do.
jinglebells 6y ago
> By using a machine you switch from having one well understood, pretty standardized ui paradigm: put stuff on track, tracks goes to checker, checker checks them through, you pay and bag your stuff Even this is not universal. In Sweden the checkouts have that divider so the checkout clerk can start scanning the next customer's products while you're packing. In the UK, you can't move on until the other person has bagged and removed which you're expected to do before paying, which makes self-checkout considerably faster because you're already bagged.