Information is power when crossing the road

It's green now, but I as I cross I have no idea what it
is showing...

We are all aware how important information is, and anyone who has designed a system or computer program also knows that feedback is an essential type of information in making things go well. Our entire physical interaction with the world is dependent on feedback to show whether or not we need to change a course of action, or how something is progressing.

This is why a mechanism that tells you how far you are through a process (a progress bar or a percentage complete value) is much more effective that simply indicating that a process is underway, even if the percentage isn't particularly accurate. A Windows-style 'floaty dots to show you something is happening' only indicates that a process has started. It's a touch of feedback, but it gives no indication that things are continuing to happen - and that's bad. Feedback should continue to be updated until the process is complete. That way, we feel in control, even if we can't actually do anything. It's a major weight off the mind.

Which leads us on to crossing the road. Traditionally in the UK, crossings linked to traffic lights have had a red/green person on the opposite side of the road. When it's green you can go, when it's red you shouldn't. It's a crude form of feedback, but it's a start. And crucially, because the sign is on the opposite side of the road, the feedback continues throughout the crossing process. If the lights start changing when you are half way across, you know about it. More recently, though we've seen a divergence, replacing the old indicators with two alternatives. One is a huge step forward, but the other (which is far more common) is disastrous in terms of feedback.

The step forward I've only ever seen in London, and it's brilliant. A fair number of London crossings have a countdown to the lights changing. So not only do you have the red/green person, you know how many seconds you have left to cross safely. This is superb. As you cross, you have constantly updated feedback, always accessible. This is how it should be done.

Unfortunately for those oiks amongst us who choose not to live in the metropolis, there's a problem. Our crossing indicators are being increasingly replaced by ones like the image above. Here we still have the red/green person - but the information is provided on the side of the road you start from. This is fine in terms of getting started. But if you begin to cross when the green person was already showing, you have no idea how long the indicator has been green. If the lights start changing when you are part way across, you can't see the green man change to red. There is no way to see the status when you are at your most vulnerable, in the middle of the road. You can't even see the indicator for people from the other side, as they are angled away from the street. So you have to cross entirely without feedback. And that is stupid indeed.

Please talk to some decent interface design people, town planners.

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

Search This Blog