Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing • Hacker News Board

Re: Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing

#11

Post by ojbyrne » Sat, Dec 26, 2009, 2:00 AM UTC

inquata wrote: post #10

jamesbritt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I expect them to be symmetrical, just like double doors, and would be surprised if they both turned in the same direction, because hands turn naturally in opposite directions. What's really annoying, though is when the faucets (or light switches) in a place are not consistent.

For the faucets to be consistent, they need to behave like every water bottle, valve etc.: righty tighty, lefty loosy. @ojbyrne: It does not matter how they work from an engineer’s point of view: Design needs to be user-centered.

I'm not talking about an engineer's point of view. In fact "righty tighty lefty loosy" is an engineer's point of view. When taps are presented in pairs users expect them to open "away" from the central spout.

Re: Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing

#12

Post by inquata » Sat, Dec 26, 2009, 2:31 AM UTC

ojbyrne wrote: post #11

inquata wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the faucets to be consistent, they need to behave like every water bottle, valve etc.: righty tighty, lefty loosy. @ojbyrne: It does not matter how they work from an engineer’s point of view: Design needs to be user-centered.

I'm not talking about an engineer's point of view. In fact "righty tighty lefty loosy" is an engineer's point of view. When taps are presented in pairs users expect them to open "away" from the central spout.

That’d be interesting to clarify in actual usage testing – unless you already have such data to support your claim.

I regard »righty tighty lefty loosy« as an established standard for opening revolving things. But due to the mnemonic existing in the first place, that probably needs some testing as well.

Re: Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing

#13

Post by ojbyrne » Sat, Dec 26, 2009, 2:57 AM UTC

inquata wrote: post #12

ojbyrne wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about an engineer's point of view. In fact "righty tighty lefty loosy" is an engineer's point of view. When taps are presented in pairs users expect them to open "away" from the central spout.

That’d be interesting to clarify in actual usage testing – unless you already have such data to support your claim. I regard »righty tighty lefty loosy« as an established standard for opening revolving things. But due to the mnemonic existing in the first place, that probably needs some testing as well.

I'll admit to not having data to support my claim, other than my personal behavior (and the guy above). I'm not sure how you would do the testing since I think everyone has used faucets, and they almost always go the way I described (or at least that's my best recollection).

Re: Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing

#14

Post by jamesbritt » Sat, Dec 26, 2009, 2:59 AM UTC

inquata wrote: post #10

jamesbritt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I expect them to be symmetrical, just like double doors, and would be surprised if they both turned in the same direction, because hands turn naturally in opposite directions. What's really annoying, though is when the faucets (or light switches) in a place are not consistent.

For the faucets to be consistent, they need to behave like every water bottle, valve etc.: righty tighty, lefty loosy. @ojbyrne: It does not matter how they work from an engineer’s point of view: Design needs to be user-centered.

"For the faucets to be consistent, they need to behave like every water bottle, "

I meant consistent with each other, if there are multiple faucets. The house I'm renting has two bathrooms with a total of three sinks. I think each sink had a different faucet pattern, until I changed them.

For some reason hotels like to experiment with new ways to control water. Each time I use a different shower it sees to have some new variation on how to control as many functions with as few knobs as possible, and I don't understand why.

Was there some key design failure in having two obvious knobs to independently control the flow of hot and cold water? Now I feel like I'm taking an IQ test whenever I want to get clean.

Re: Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing

#15

Post by tlb » Sat, Dec 26, 2009, 6:32 AM UTC

W isn't supposed to be "good design". What they are is "stylish". They cater to image & brand-conscious people just like Prada or Versace. I assume it's a profitable niche.

Re: Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing

#16

Post by obxerve » Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 6:59 PM UTC

NathanKP wrote: post #5

This reminds me of an article I read by Dustin Curtis. The flimsy doorknob and the cheap receipt: http://dustincurtis.com/two_stories.html I highly recommend that you read it. Basically it is an article about how presentation can make a positive or negative effect. And Dustin Curtis does a phenomenal job with the presentation of his own website. It is a real joy to read and always makes me aspire to the shear eleganc…

Great article; I agree with him wholeheartedly.

To those who think that faucets are supposed to be like double-doors, I understand, but usability is not always about idealism or philosophy. Sometimes it's about consistency. If most faucets operate one way, wrongly or rightly, then doing it differently forces the users to do it wrong the first time (or first few times) he/she uses the product.

The book that comes to mind is "Don't make me think" by Steve Krug. He did not advocate perpetuating "wrong" convention, but the point is still valid: don't waste the user's time by designing something to behave differently than "expected".

Re: Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing

#17

Post by inquata » Sun, Jan 31, 2010, 5:24 PM UTC

ojbyrne wrote: post #13

inquata wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’d be interesting to clarify in actual usage testing – unless you already have such data to support your claim. I regard »righty tighty lefty loosy« as an established standard for opening revolving things. But due to the mnemonic existing in the first place, that probably needs some testing as well.

I'll admit to not having data to support my claim, other than my personal behavior (and the guy above). I'm not sure how you would do the testing since I think everyone has used faucets, and they almost always go the way I described (or at least that's my best recollection).

I had to think about this thread when today I, oddly enough, stumbled over not 1 but 2 blog posts regarding water faucets and taps: http://mattmorphett.blogspot.com/2009/01/sometimes-there-is-... http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/usability-taps-lessons-we... (via http://www.uselog.com/2009/05/checklists-and-water-taps-for-...)