Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 375 posts

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#291

Post by amelius »

whatever_dude wrote: post #19

It's easy to see how this is bad, and I bet dozens of designers are now creating alternatives for their dribble and Twitter appreciation, but the problem is probably what led to this, not this specifically. I can see it: a contractor started with a link that triggers a push notification, then someone requested another link, then another, then it grew from there, never having the ability to stop and rethink this from…

Still, it would be a fun exercise to imagine how e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft or Apple would have designed this screen :)

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#292

Post by unit91 »

jrockway wrote: post #275
crispyambulance wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like quite a normal UI from an "internal" government or enterprise application point of view. In this case, the citizens of Hawaii paid for the bad system design with 48 minutes of existential horror. But these kinds of mistakes happens ALL THE TIME with "enterprise applications." Oracle has similar horrendous UX for their EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), so does SAP, Siemens, etc. People regularly make cost…

I don't know. The interface could be better, but a different interface wouldn't necessarily stop someone who's confused from sending the wrong alert. How many times do you see a dialog box and click "yes" without even reading it? I do it all the time, and it's usually fine... except sometimes I think "wait, what did I just agree to!?" Someone under pressure to get that drill going can easily make the same mistakes, n…

> How many times do you see a dialog box and click "yes" without even reading it?

A simple fix would be to use a tried and true method that's been effective for decades. Have different popups that read

Type "REAL WORLD" to send this alert.

and

Type "DRILL" to send this alert.

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#293

Post by lisper »

jrockway wrote: post #275
crispyambulance wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like quite a normal UI from an "internal" government or enterprise application point of view. In this case, the citizens of Hawaii paid for the bad system design with 48 minutes of existential horror. But these kinds of mistakes happens ALL THE TIME with "enterprise applications." Oracle has similar horrendous UX for their EBS (Enterprise Business Suite), so does SAP, Siemens, etc. People regularly make cost…

I don't know. The interface could be better, but a different interface wouldn't necessarily stop someone who's confused from sending the wrong alert. How many times do you see a dialog box and click "yes" without even reading it? I do it all the time, and it's usually fine... except sometimes I think "wait, what did I just agree to!?" Someone under pressure to get that drill going can easily make the same mistakes, n…

I can think of two obvious mitigations that would have helped a lot.

1. Separate items intended to be tests from items intended to be live warnings. Draw a green (or yellow) box around the test items and a red box around the live items.

2. Require a confirmation before sending out a live item, and not just clicking a button. Put up a big red flashing warning that says, "You are about to send out a live warning, are you absolutely sure you want to do this?" and require the operator to type "YES".

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#294

Post by bfrydl »

vardump wrote: post #233

UI crudeness is one thing. What I wonder about is whether those links generate HTTP GET-requests. Links do so by default. If so, just need internal web spider or overzealous web browser prefetcher, and one day Hawaii might have a lot of false alerts going on... GET-requests are not supposed to have side effects, like alerting a whole state. When you have side effects, HTTP verb should be something else, like POST. Of…

You're assuming a lot here. This might not even be an HTML page. It used to be fairly common in Windows UIs to have underlined blue clickable text in native applications.

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#295

Post by wambotron »

I've worked at quite a few companies in my time, and almost all of them have complete garbage for their internal tools. It's always perceived as "something we need, but it doesn't matter what it looks like" -- but this shows exactly why it _does_ matter. I actually prefer working on internal tools if given the opportunity, because I get to talk directly with most of, if not all, of the users and get real, continuous feedback.

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#296

Post by vardump »

bfrydl wrote: post #294
vardump wrote: post #233

UI crudeness is one thing. What I wonder about is whether those links generate HTTP GET-requests. Links do so by default. If so, just need internal web spider or overzealous web browser prefetcher, and one day Hawaii might have a lot of false alerts going on... GET-requests are not supposed to have side effects, like alerting a whole state. When you have side effects, HTTP verb should be something else, like POST. Of…

You're assuming a lot here. This might not even be an HTML page. It used to be fairly common in Windows UIs to have underlined blue clickable text in native applications.

Well, all I know it looks like an unstyled web page. We can just guess indeed.

Oh, and their display mode is set incorrectly. It's clearly non-native resolution (blurry text, bilinear "zooming" performed by the display, while individual pixels are in sharp focus) and wrong aspect ratio (the font appears too wide).

Perhaps 1024x768 on a display with 1920x1080 native resolution. Or something similar.

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#297

Post by alkonaut »

notyourday wrote: post #269
harleypig wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a contractor or an employee, you do have the ability to do what you think is right despite what your employer says they want. But only to a point. People resist perceived change. You can improve the back-end all you want, as long as you don't make unexpected changes to the front-end. This includes something as simple as a clarifying pop-up, or a speed increase of a procedure.

> As a contractor or an employee, you do have the ability to do what you think is right despite what your employer says they want. ... as long as you do not mind being fired.

And being fired isn’t just a risk you should be willing to take, it’s the required course of action here. With any luck you could get a superior in trouble by going above their heads or reporting to a relevant authority.

Doing things that are immoral/dangerous/stupid because you need to eat is not an excuse.

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#299

Post by merb »

unit91 wrote: post #292
jrockway wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. The interface could be better, but a different interface wouldn't necessarily stop someone who's confused from sending the wrong alert. How many times do you see a dialog box and click "yes" without even reading it? I do it all the time, and it's usually fine... except sometimes I think "wait, what did I just agree to!?" Someone under pressure to get that drill going can easily make the same mistakes, n…

> How many times do you see a dialog box and click "yes" without even reading it? A simple fix would be to use a tried and true method that's been effective for decades. Have different popups that read Type "REAL WORLD" to send this alert. and Type "DRILL" to send this alert.

this would probably be a bad design aswell. because if a real missle treat happens I would need to get out the warning as fast as possible. the best way would've been a second page with a big button and huge warnings.

Re: The screen that set off the ballistic missile alert on Saturday

#300

Post by alkonaut »

thehardsphere wrote: post #256
alkonaut wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incremental design doesn’t excuse the guy adding thing #2 or thing #3 not paying attention to the whole. Nor does being a contractor excuse it. You don’t get a contract job to add some links to a page. You are contracted to modify it (regardless of what the buyer said he wanted) - and you are responsible for not making it dangerous. Even if that means you can’t take the job. Someone reviewed the spec for this. Someon…

I think you and other commentors are being generous in assuming there was a spec to review and that the work was done by a contractor. I've seen lots of organizations try to save a buck by extending a previously existing system with in-house labor after the original contractor asked for more money to do the change. I would bet that the original contractor (if they're still involved with the project) hasn’t seen that…

If there is no spec or process, then the risk that the system becomes a mess is higher - but on the bright side it’s a lot easier to fix.
Post reply on HN