When I was in the U. S. Air Force, I often checked out vehicles from the Motor Pool. I loved the standardization which allowed me to jump in and drive away. There was usually an on-off ignition switch that was plainly marked. There was a big red button on the dash, that if pushed would cause the engine to start. Controls for lights, horn, etc. were plainly marked and different shapes and sizes.
Contrast this with checking out a strange rental car at night at an unfamiliar airport. I no longer simply head for the appropriate freeway as soon as I get the car started (not always obvious how to even do that any more). I now carefully find and test the many controls having to do with everything from lights to emergency brake, and even throw in the navigation system, if it has one and I intend to use it. I am tired of washing the windshield when I think I am dimming the lights, and trying to figure out the radio as I move into heavy traffic. One could be killed that way.
Standardization seems to have disappeared. It seems as though every team designing or upgrading a product wants to put its own improved features on or in it. Hey, I figured out a way to combine de-fogging the windshield with opening the gas tank door! Look, this way you can operate the horn with your foot! Let’s make all of the buttons the same color and size and line them up in straight rows. Oh, and let’s not have labels. They will make the design too busy.
I have bad dreams about burning to death in the back seat of a friend’s car after an accident because I can’t figure out how to work the door handle. And speaking of gas tank doors, it’s nice to now have a little picture telling what side the door is on, but is there any reason they are not all on the same side?
The same, of course is true for many products. Software needs more standardization. I realize that it is a counter-capitalistic and heretical thing to say, but isn’t it about time that the operating systems on P.C.’s and Apples converged? They are very similar now, and after all, Microsoft owns a sizable chunk of Apple. The remaining differences just serve to further burden already overburdened brains. And how about projector connectors? Etc, etc, etc.
This photo shows one of the two “entertainment systems” in my house. It is a real one, not the type featured in Architectural Digest, or Wired Magazine. It consists of used, but highly serviceable components, Note the remote controls under the TV. One of them is a “universal” remote, but of course it does not access many control functions on the individual components. We could control them manually, but for various reasons, two of the components, including the receiver, are those dark boxes on the lower right. A close up of them is shown below:
These photos were taken with a floodlight. Normally the room is quite dark, especially if TV is being watched. In that lighting it is essentially impossible to make out the labels or the controls, or even find the manual switches, even if one is lying on the floor next to them. I suppose the designer might have thought that the owner would use the equipment so continuously that manual operation, when desired or necessary, could be done by feel.
Note the lack of clues on how to accomplish various tasks. We keep the extra five remotes around for when we need to control components such as these without lying on the floor with a flashlight and a magnifying glass, and of course the remotes often stray. The ability to manually control components would be enhanced if I rebuilt the cabinet, but I don't seem to get around to it. But woe be unto the visitor who tries to operate this mess. In fact, woe often unto us.
The system performs well visually and acoustically, so I am not about to replace it. It would not only cost money, but I spend too much of my time learning to use new digital stuff. Besides, this system reminds me of how not to design controls and labels on devices such as these that are used in normal homes such as ours.
Recent Comments