3 ms·
Still would take a lot of training to get right. Its not intuitive. And I can certainly find a lot of humor in how its implemented.
by TheGRS 3y ago
Still would take a lot of training to get right. Its not intuitive. And I can certainly find a lot of humor in how its implemented.
- alexpotato 3y agoIf you have a system with low turnover of staff then intuitive is not the goal. The goal is to efficiently transfer information with additional steps in a common language. A similar example is the hand signals from the old trading exchange floors [1]. The point wasn't for it to be easy to learn. The point was to make it easy to transfer visual information across a very loud and boisterous place. Plus, you had to do it with both people you knew well and people you may never have worked with before. 1 - https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/07/opinion/20080407_TRADING_GRAPHIC.html#step1 https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008...
- TheGRS 3y agoWe're talking about Waffle House staff here so I'd be surprised if the turnover was low.
- tivert 3y ago> Still would take a lot of training to get right. I don't think it would take that much extra training, especially compared to whatever shorthand a waitress or ordering system would have to use. And it seems like it's something that's possible to get right. All the alternatives I can think of suffer from serious problems this one doesn't (e.g. having to mentally keep track of the correspondence between the order ticket and palate, which invites lots of error). > Its not intuitive. It actually seems pretty intuitive. There appears to be a pretty clear correspondence between the code and what it means in most cases.