By Peter Cochrane, 18 May 2006 11:45
COMMENT
Compiled in Brighton UK and on the train to Paris. Despatched to silicon.com from the wi-fi network of a Paris hotel where I could see six different wi-fi signals with and without WEP turned on.
Although I fully understand the reasons why, it bothers me that every button I now press needs to be held down for four seconds (or so it seems). All my audio and video equipment, and elements of my car, seem to require an inordinately loooong depression of keys and buttons in order to function correctly.
For those new to this world, four seconds may not seem strange but I can remember when pressing a button resulted in instant action. But, then again, during my life it is also been possible to lapse into double clicking elevator buttons too!
This four seconds thing is just a single manifestation of a wider problem. I now very often find the position, action and viewing angle of screens, displays and characters, plus tactile feedback of keys and buttons, less than satisfactory. This is especially the case in elevators, trains, cabs, kiosks, ATMs, telephone handsets, PDAs, laptops and PCs. In addition, the brightness and contrast ratios give me problems when trying to read even relatively large characters.
Way back in the 1960s to 1980s era there was a huge body of human-factors work completed on all these aspects to ensure that the 'man/machine interface' was as good as we could engineer, and that human operating errors would be minimised.
Have we forgotten all this wisdom or has it got lost? It appears to be a bit of both! Yes it is all on paper and available but it ain't available online. Moreover, a lot of the things I now buy are designed and produced in the Far East where the history of thorough human factors investigation is rather speckled. So 'if it ain't on line, then it don't exist' seems to be a very real credo after all!
Scanning the online research literature I am seeing what is claimed to be new and original work that is clearly not. To my knowledge much of it was original more than 20 years ago, before we had a computer on every desk and lap. Whilst this is a bit of a shame, a lot of the work should be repeated and reconfirmed given the swathe of new - and new variant - technologies that have emerged in the interim, including LCDs, plasma screens, card readers, capacitive keyboards and keypads.
So is this a pattern for a future where absolutely all past R&D is repeated because it isn't online? I hope not! Yes science depends on rigour and the trial and test of time, and it should always be challenged. Our knowledge and understanding should also be ready to be modified and updated - but not on the basis of apparent invisibility.
The sooner we get everything scanned-in and online the better. In the meantime I'll continue squinting and checking every character after I have pressed a key to make sure my action has been recorded correctly, and bending down in elevators to read the low mounted buttons.
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Peter
'Twas ever thus.
Ask any Policeman/Woman with any years of service how much effort and money is wasted on 're-learning' what has been proven to work/not work previously.
Its a bit of an 'age' thing really.
Anyone who has read your columns over the years, knows how much time and effort as been expended in gaining this experience, but try to convince the up and coming that 'the oldies' have been there and done that!
Sorry, but it is an uphill and probably fruitless task.
I would take huge odds that there will be readers in a wide range of industries and services who have experienced exactly the same situation.
Kind regards
Fred F.
[Big fan from way back]
2. misceng
Peter Fred is right. I recall an airline chief complaining about bad designs of interior fittings being repeated every seven to ten years. The explanation suggested is that the draughtsman made the mistake and learned from it so on promotion to section leader he stopped others making the mistake then further promotion took himaway from ordinary draughtsmen who then invented the mistake anew.
As an engineer I also think that design (ie shape and appearance) is too often substituted for proper engineering. A clever mechanism for opening the top of an electric kettle is over elaborate and as I found to my cost depended on a thin piece of plastic which breaks and is irreplacable. With less plastic properly arranged a cheaper and more robust solution could have been devised to last the whole life of the kettle. There are many more examples in everyday life. I am sure most people have experience of this problem.