Skip to main content

You pressed the Fn button, didn't you?

I was in a petrol station yesterday, filling up. When I got to the till, I did the usual business with the card machine, pushing the card into the slot, punching in my PIN and pressing Enter. Nothing happened. I must have look puzzled, staring rather blankly at the keypad. The salesperson smiled at me benignly.

'You pressed the Fn button, didn't you?' she said. 'I don't know why it's there, it doesn't do anything.'

I peered at the pad. Most chip and pin keypads are laid out pretty much the same. Numbers in a block at the top, Enter (or OK) key - the one you have to press to make a transaction - at the bottom right. But on this particular pad, Enter was second from the right. The rightmost key was this functionless Fn button.

This is a wondrous example of a designer not thinking through the way a product is used. When it's something as ubiquitous as a keypad we don't really think too much about what we're doing, it's mostly automatic. So it really throws the user if you mess around with the position of something that has to be pressed every time like the Enter key. I can guarantee that loads of people press the Fn button instead. The salesperson knew this. The designer was, simply, incompetent.

It reminds me of one more example of designers not thinking through the use of a simple item they designed. A door. How can you get a door wrong? Quite easily. One of the classic ways to do this is to make an all-glass door with no push plates and no obvious hinges. So you don't know which side it opens. But I've watched an even better example in action, infallibly tripping up users.

This was in the BA headquarters building Waterside, built about 10 years ago. It's beautifully designed with a sweeping interior street, pavement cafes, all the goodies of a modern, well-thought out office complex. And then they let the door designer loose.

A big failing of many designers is a love of symmetry. This one had designed beautiful high wooden doors for the entrance to the toilets. And to keep them nice and symmetrical he had put a long pull handle on both sides of the door. But this door had to be pushed from the outside to open it. I have watched person after person walk up to this door, pull the handle, fail to get in and then push. Even if there was a person in front of them making the same mistake, they would probably still do it.

Okay it's not major. Just a minor irritation in life. But it could have been avoided. If the designer had specified a push plate on the outside instead of a pull handle, everyone would know what to do. Trivial for the designer, but many, many instance of minor irritation arising from a lack of thinking it through. I wonder if (s)he went on from designing doors to designing keypads...


Image from Wikipedia

Comments

  1. Reminds me of Ben Elton's 'Academy of Crap Design' (might not be quite right)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense