11–20 of 31 posts
That's the most entitled thing I've read all year, but I look forward to the next 11 months.
The thing that upsets me most about self checkouts is just how artificially slowed down they are I used to be a cashier and bagger at a local supermarket. We were expected to be able to be able to keep up a pace from 20-30 scans per minute, including handling the money, counting change, etc, and baggers were expected to keep up, no matter the size of the order. Meanwhile I struggle to get self checkouts to recognize…
I think you should have to take a simple intelligence test as you walk into a store. If you refuse or fail you don't get to use the self checkout. This should be a very very simple test like being able to read a number properly and pick something out of a list....when I stand there watching people use those machines I really feel like 90% of them would fail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you should have to take a simple intelligence test as you walk into a store. If you refuse or fail you don't get to use the self checkout. This should be a very very simple test like being able to read a number properly and pick something out of a list....when I stand there watching people use those machines I really feel like 90% of them would fail.
That's right, it's the users who are stupid, and not the designers who didn't focus enough on the UX.
> “Anyone who pays for more than half of their stuff in self checkout is a total moron,” reads one of the more militant comments in a Reddit discussion on the subject. “There is NO MORAL ISSUE with stealing from a store that forces you to use self checkout, period. THEY ARE CHARGING YOU TO WORK AT THEIR STORE.” That's the most entitled thing I've read all year, but I look forward to the next 11 months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's right, it's the users who are stupid, and not the designers who didn't focus enough on the UX.
Ya sometimes it really is the users that are stupid. There are just some things some people shouldn't use. That's just the way of the world. If someone has trouble checking their email or doing basic computer tasks or even what should be simple life tasks, chances are they will struggle with a self checkout and no amount of good ux wil change that. Some people just can't or won't learn such things.
And I don't even think I agree with your premise, anyway. If Amazon can work out the kinks out of their magic-zero-checkout stores, then that's the best UX experience.
> “Anyone who pays for more than half of their stuff in self checkout is a total moron,” reads one of the more militant comments in a Reddit discussion on the subject. “There is NO MORAL ISSUE with stealing from a store that forces you to use self checkout, period. THEY ARE CHARGING YOU TO WORK AT THEIR STORE.” That's the most entitled thing I've read all year, but I look forward to the next 11 months.
That's the most morally bankrupt thing I've read all year, and, IIRC, beats anything I read last year.
It could be argued that they are correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the most morally bankrupt thing I've read all year, and, IIRC, beats anything I read last year.
If you ask on the thievery forums they argue it is rightous and equivalent to the corporation minimizing their tax bill, at the significant cost to societies health and wellbeing, to enrich shareholders. It could be argued that they are correct.
There is no sane argument for "righteous" for this behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya sometimes it really is the users that are stupid. There are just some things some people shouldn't use. That's just the way of the world. If someone has trouble checking their email or doing basic computer tasks or even what should be simple life tasks, chances are they will struggle with a self checkout and no amount of good ux wil change that. Some people just can't or won't learn such things.
Okay. And I get that your original comment was mostly in jest. But ... to what end, exactly? Fine; some people can't use self-checkout counters. But there are typically multiple counters, and nearly every one I've ever seen used operated on a British queue-based system instead of a line, so one person taking a long to check out shouldn't slow you down significantly. And I don't even think I agree with your premise, a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ask on the thievery forums they argue it is rightous and equivalent to the corporation minimizing their tax bill, at the significant cost to societies health and wellbeing, to enrich shareholders. It could be argued that they are correct.
That makes it equivalent. It doesn't make it righteous. In fact, the way they talk about the corporations doing things "at the significant cost to societies health and wellbeing" shows that they know what the corporations are doing is morally wrong. Arguing that it's equivalent just shows that this is also morally wrong. There is no sane argument for "righteous" for this behavior.
The difference is the thiefs action is illegal, the corp actions legal but hated by the masses (who it could be argued don’t understand the nuances of tax accounting), but who should hold power in a democracy.
It is what it is, and those forums are growing at an exponential rate as the punishments disappear. Worrying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the most morally bankrupt thing I've read all year, and, IIRC, beats anything I read last year.
If you ask on the thievery forums they argue it is rightous and equivalent to the corporation minimizing their tax bill, at the significant cost to societies health and wellbeing, to enrich shareholders. It could be argued that they are correct.
For extremely small values of "correct". It's apples-to-oranges; I have to pay taxes, one way or another. I don't have to shop at Tesco.