Email
Like
Liked ×
Save
Private Content
Embed
Loading embed code…
We have emailed the verification/download link to "".
Login to your email and click the link to download the file directly.

To request the link at a different email address, update it here. Close
Validation messages. Success message. Fail message.

Check your bulk/spam folders if you can't find our mail.
Loading

+ Follow

Saving the World With User Centred Design by Hilary Little

by Hilary Little

1,251 views

This presentation will help you better understand user centred design (UCD). ...

This presentation will help you better understand user centred design (UCD).

I'll introduce you to our superhero, UCD Girl, who works tirelessly to save the world from bad design. Then we'll meet Dave, her archenemy, who, despite good intentions, has dealt many blows to good design.

UCD Girl only knows him as Bad Design Dude. Can she save him from the dark side?

As this epic battle plays out, you'll learn the benefits of treating early designs as hypotheses that need to be tested for usability with end users.

You'll learn that design is inextricably linked to business value, and will see some compelling examples of how this method saves companies big bucks.

Accessibility

View text version

Upload Details

Uploaded via SlideShare as Apple Keynote

Usage Rights

File a copyright complaint

5 Embeds 235

http://www.hilarylittle.com	202
http://localhost	26
http://pinterest.com	4
http://www.linkedin.com	2
http://usability4government.wordpress.com	1

Statistics

Likes: 3
Downloads: 0
Comments: 1
Embed Views: 235
Views on SlideShare: 1,016
Total Views: 1,251

1–1 of 1 previous next

Hilary Little, Senior User Experience Designer at Hilary Little Ideation and Design Thanks, Jax! 6 months ago
Are you sure you want to

\n
You experienced design: \nnavigating the streets, pathways and sidewalks to get here tonight.\nwhen you pulled the door open to come into this funky place.\nyou’re experiencing it right now. From that seat under your bum to that glass in your hand.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
Design is everywhere.\n \n You experience design from the moment you wake up until the time you go to sleep. \n \n Look at all the product designs you’ve encountered. You’re not even out the door yet.\n
We have all experienced how much design can either delight us or drive us nuts. But you may not be aware...\n
We have all experienced how much design can either delight us or drive us nuts. But you may not be aware...\n
... that design can also cause catastrophes. \n
Design happens; whether it’s done consciously and intentionally or whether it’s simply the byproduct of a development, planning or manufacturing process.\n Design happens; whether it’s focused on end user needs or not. \n Design happens; whether it’s been proven successful or not.\n I’m here today to talk to you about how to make good design happen.\n\n
Design happens; whether it’s done consciously and intentionally or whether it’s simply the byproduct of a development, planning or manufacturing process.\n Design happens; whether it’s focused on end user needs or not. \n Design happens; whether it’s been proven successful or not.\n I’m here today to talk to you about how to make good design happen.\n\n
Design happens; whether it’s done consciously and intentionally or whether it’s simply the byproduct of a development, planning or manufacturing process.\n Design happens; whether it’s focused on end user needs or not. \n Design happens; whether it’s been proven successful or not.\n I’m here today to talk to you about how to make good design happen.\n\n
Design happens; whether it’s done consciously and intentionally or whether it’s simply the byproduct of a development, planning or manufacturing process.\n Design happens; whether it’s focused on end user needs or not. \n Design happens; whether it’s been proven successful or not.\n I’m here today to talk to you about how to make good design happen.\n\n
Design happens; whether it’s done consciously and intentionally or whether it’s simply the byproduct of a development, planning or manufacturing process.\n Design happens; whether it’s focused on end user needs or not. \n Design happens; whether it’s been proven successful or not.\n I’m here today to talk to you about how to make good design happen.\n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
By “good design”, many of you will already suspect I’m talking about usability. It’s true. I am.\n User Centred Design is an approach that grounds a product’s design in user needs and data instead of guesswork or opinion. \n\n
Early focus on users and tasks \n Analyze and observe users to understand their tasks, goals, abilities, limitations, environment and challenges \n Empirical Measurement and testing\n Testing of prototypes with actual users where quantitative data is gathered on how well the design supports them in completing tasks\n Iterative Design\n Product designed, modified and tested repeatedly.\n Data-driven design decisions\n Design decisions made based on research data like usability test results, not assumptions, best guesses or personal opinions. \n
All projects go through these stages, even if they’re combined or totally casual. \n1. Discover a need for a “thing” and bring it from an abstract concept to a series of documents outlining scope, success factors, budget and timeframe etc.\n2. Define the basic goals and objectives, and requirements, identify the target audience.\n3. Design a prototype based on the requirements - this is often done as part of the development process.\n4. Development starts. Things get real. Often there is some form of testing at this stage, but it only measures how well the system works.\n5. Deploy - the “thing” is implemented or released.\n\nWith UCD, we extend the design phase (and often the define phase as well). Instead of moving straight to development, we evaluate the high level design with real users. We gather data on how well the design supports them, and then we refine the design to address issues. \n\nWe continue this loop - called iterative design - until the design is - excuse the technical jargon - good.\nThis allows us to de-risk the design before a bit of code gets written. \nIt’s cheap and fast to create a design prototype and change it rapidly based on research. It’s very expensive to change code. And even more expensive to fix a design bomb that’s already been deployed.\n\n
All projects go through these stages, even if they’re combined or totally casual. \n1. Discover a need for a “thing” and bring it from an abstract concept to a series of documents outlining scope, success factors, budget and timeframe etc.\n2. Define the basic goals and objectives, and requirements, identify the target audience.\n3. Design a prototype based on the requirements - this is often done as part of the development process.\n4. Development starts. Things get real. Often there is some form of testing at this stage, but it only measures how well the system works.\n5. Deploy - the “thing” is implemented or released.\n\nWith UCD, we extend the design phase (and often the define phase as well). Instead of moving straight to development, we evaluate the high level design with real users. We gather data on how well the design supports them, and then we refine the design to address issues. \n\nWe continue this loop - called iterative design - until the design is - excuse the technical jargon - good.\nThis allows us to de-risk the design before a bit of code gets written. \nIt’s cheap and fast to create a design prototype and change it rapidly based on research. It’s very expensive to change code. And even more expensive to fix a design bomb that’s already been deployed.\n\n
All projects go through these stages, even if they’re combined or totally casual. \n1. Discover a need for a “thing” and bring it from an abstract concept to a series of documents outlining scope, success factors, budget and timeframe etc.\n2. Define the basic goals and objectives, and requirements, identify the target audience.\n3. Design a prototype based on the requirements - this is often done as part of the development process.\n4. Development starts. Things get real. Often there is some form of testing at this stage, but it only measures how well the system works.\n5. Deploy - the “thing” is implemented or released.\n\nWith UCD, we extend the design phase (and often the define phase as well). Instead of moving straight to development, we evaluate the high level design with real users. We gather data on how well the design supports them, and then we refine the design to address issues. \n\nWe continue this loop - called iterative design - until the design is - excuse the technical jargon - good.\nThis allows us to de-risk the design before a bit of code gets written. \nIt’s cheap and fast to create a design prototype and change it rapidly based on research. It’s very expensive to change code. And even more expensive to fix a design bomb that’s already been deployed.\n\n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
UCD is a proven methodology: \nFor improving user send user satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness \nFor reducing project risk, cost and time\n(also reducing training costs and support or help desk requests).\n\nSo why isn’t everyone doing it already?\n \n
Dave has good intentions. But he has inadvertently dealt some serious blows to good design. \n He is the archenemy of UCD girl, known by her only as Bad Design Dude.\n Bad Design Dude dismisses following a user-centred design process because he thinks it’s too slow and expensive. He doesn’t need to do any upfront research because he already knows his users. Anyway, he gets a designer to make his screens look nice when he’s done coding. \n Dave believes his products are easy to use because he always tries to put himself in the shoes of his users. He considers his gut instinct to be a reliable way to make design decisions and believe me, he’s always the loudest voice at the table. When unsure, which is rare, he simply goes out and asks users if they like his design. \n\n
Dave has good intentions. But he has inadvertently dealt some serious blows to good design. \n He is the archenemy of UCD girl, known by her only as Bad Design Dude.\n Bad Design Dude dismisses following a user-centred design process because he thinks it’s too slow and expensive. He doesn’t need to do any upfront research because he already knows his users. Anyway, he gets a designer to make his screens look nice when he’s done coding. \n Dave believes his products are easy to use because he always tries to put himself in the shoes of his users. He considers his gut instinct to be a reliable way to make design decisions and believe me, he’s always the loudest voice at the table. When unsure, which is rare, he simply goes out and asks users if they like his design. \n\n
Dave has good intentions. But he has inadvertently dealt some serious blows to good design. \n He is the archenemy of UCD girl, known by her only as Bad Design Dude.\n Bad Design Dude dismisses following a user-centred design process because he thinks it’s too slow and expensive. He doesn’t need to do any upfront research because he already knows his users. Anyway, he gets a designer to make his screens look nice when he’s done coding. \n Dave believes his products are easy to use because he always tries to put himself in the shoes of his users. He considers his gut instinct to be a reliable way to make design decisions and believe me, he’s always the loudest voice at the table. When unsure, which is rare, he simply goes out and asks users if they like his design. \n\n
Dave has good intentions. But he has inadvertently dealt some serious blows to good design. \n He is the archenemy of UCD girl, known by her only as Bad Design Dude.\n Bad Design Dude dismisses following a user-centred design process because he thinks it’s too slow and expensive. He doesn’t need to do any upfront research because he already knows his users. Anyway, he gets a designer to make his screens look nice when he’s done coding. \n Dave believes his products are easy to use because he always tries to put himself in the shoes of his users. He considers his gut instinct to be a reliable way to make design decisions and believe me, he’s always the loudest voice at the table. When unsure, which is rare, he simply goes out and asks users if they like his design. \n\n
Dave has good intentions. But he has inadvertently dealt some serious blows to good design. \n He is the archenemy of UCD girl, known by her only as Bad Design Dude.\n Bad Design Dude dismisses following a user-centred design process because he thinks it’s too slow and expensive. He doesn’t need to do any upfront research because he already knows his users. Anyway, he gets a designer to make his screens look nice when he’s done coding. \n Dave believes his products are easy to use because he always tries to put himself in the shoes of his users. He considers his gut instinct to be a reliable way to make design decisions and believe me, he’s always the loudest voice at the table. When unsure, which is rare, he simply goes out and asks users if they like his design. \n\n
Dave has good intentions. But he has inadvertently dealt some serious blows to good design. \n He is the archenemy of UCD girl, known by her only as Bad Design Dude.\n Bad Design Dude dismisses following a user-centred design process because he thinks it’s too slow and expensive. He doesn’t need to do any upfront research because he already knows his users. Anyway, he gets a designer to make his screens look nice when he’s done coding. \n Dave believes his products are easy to use because he always tries to put himself in the shoes of his users. He considers his gut instinct to be a reliable way to make design decisions and believe me, he’s always the loudest voice at the table. When unsure, which is rare, he simply goes out and asks users if they like his design. \n\n
This is one of Dave’s end users. This is what he’d like to say to Dave.\nLet’s take look at some of Bad Design Dude’s arguments against following a user centred design process, and see if UCD girl can save him from the dark side.\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Asking users what they want or like is an utterly unreliable way to gather user needs.\n\nUsers aren’t designers. They don’t know the options or constraints. They have poor recall of how they actually use something. And they tend to tell you what they think you want to hear, or what they think is the “right” answer. \n\nUCD Mantra:\nWatch what people actually do.\nDon’t believe what people say they do.\nDefinitely don't believe what people predict they may do in the future.\n
Asking users what they want or like is an utterly unreliable way to gather user needs.\n\nUsers aren’t designers. They don’t know the options or constraints. They have poor recall of how they actually use something. And they tend to tell you what they think you want to hear, or what they think is the “right” answer. \n\nUCD Mantra:\nWatch what people actually do.\nDon’t believe what people say they do.\nDefinitely don't believe what people predict they may do in the future.\n
Here’s a fun example of a bunch of remote control features that probably sounded great, but ended up getting in the way of people doing what they wanted to do. In this example, the users came up with a brilliant fix to simplify their remote.\n\nIn a recent TED talk by Malcolm Gladwell, he argues that the food industry makes big mistakes by asking people what they like and gave the following example.\n\n“If I asked all of you in this room, what you want in a coffee, you know what you’d say? Every one of you would say ‘I want a dark, rich, hearty roast.’ \nIt’s what people always say when you ask them what they want in a coffee. What do you like? Dark, rich, hearty roast! \nWhat percentage of you actually like a dark, rich, hearty roast? According to research data, somewhere between 25 and 27 percent of you. \nMost of you like milky, weak coffee. But you will never, ever say to someone who asks you what you want — that ‘I want a milky, weak coffee.’”\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n1. Assumptions about what users need are biased and often wrong. This is design based on best guesses, and it doesn’t work. I frequently encounter developers, designers and managers making assumptions about what users want without getting the proper data. The result is usually a product that users don’t like and can’t use effectively. \n\n2. Design based personal preference doesn’t work. If you want people to like and be able to use your product efficiently, you can’t reliably ask yourself what you like and how you want it to work and make your design decisions based on that. \n\n3. Even worse than designing based on assumptions and personal opinion: doing it as part of a group. Design by committee is like a kiss of death to good design. \n\nWho’s familiar with the ill-fated Google Buzz? \n\nBuzz was something Google worked on for a long time. As you probably know, it was scrapped. The concept was great - Buzz would integrate sharing status updates, conversations, photos and email. Buzz was built to make automatic connections. \n\nBuzz would also automatically connect you to people you’ve emailed in Gmail.Great, at first glance. And it worked beautifully with 20,000 Google employees.\n\nThat’s a lot of user data. But unfortunately, it was the wrong sample.\n\nGoogle employees are special. Their have skills and lives that not like people outside Google. By basing all their user research on them, Google ran into a major design problem. \n\nGoogle assumed that everyone you email you would also want to share things with, and that you’d want to connect these people as well. \n\nIn a work setting like Google, this could be a real perk. But the real world is much messier. How many of you have an ex, a boss or an annoying in-law that you email but wouldn’t want to share things with?\n\nOne the fundamental principles of UCD is to always let your users feel in control. By taking control of users' data, Buzz misstepped. The outcome? Buzz has been ditched and many users now trust Google less. \n\nEven testing with a few friends or family members of Google employees would have turned this up. Googlers are not their users either.\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
User centred design needn't take any longer than a traditional design approach.\nBy allotting more time up front to the Discover, Define and Design phases, we can reduce the time it takes for development and deployment.\nThe extra time up front allows us to do user research and ground the fundamental structure of the design on user needs. \nThis works well for speeding up development because we remove the churn and debate around how to best meet user needs, allowing technical resources to focus on being Code Whisperers.\nThe total amount of time doesn’t change, just how work is divided up within the same time frame.\n\n
User centred design needn't take any longer than a traditional design approach.\nBy allotting more time up front to the Discover, Define and Design phases, we can reduce the time it takes for development and deployment.\nThe extra time up front allows us to do user research and ground the fundamental structure of the design on user needs. \nThis works well for speeding up development because we remove the churn and debate around how to best meet user needs, allowing technical resources to focus on being Code Whisperers.\nThe total amount of time doesn’t change, just how work is divided up within the same time frame.\n\n
User centred design needn't take any longer than a traditional design approach.\nBy allotting more time up front to the Discover, Define and Design phases, we can reduce the time it takes for development and deployment.\nThe extra time up front allows us to do user research and ground the fundamental structure of the design on user needs. \nThis works well for speeding up development because we remove the churn and debate around how to best meet user needs, allowing technical resources to focus on being Code Whisperers.\nThe total amount of time doesn’t change, just how work is divided up within the same time frame.\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
I’ve had many a manager and developer come to me and ask me to make something look good. To them, this is design. To designers, this is called putting lipstick on a pig. I can make it look pretty, but it’s still a pig. Generally, if it’s already coded, they’ve come too late to do much more than put lipstick on their pig. \n60% of product usability is at the task and workflow level. Not the visuals or even the interaction design.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Ford’s MyTouch car telematics system has had many usability issues. Because of it’s poor usability, their J D. Powers initial quality ranking went from 5th to 23rd. Consumers Reports roasted the MyTouch, calling it more of a hinderance than a benefit. This has cost Ford millions in fixes and lost customers.\nDavid Champion, Consumers Reports sums up the situation perfectly.\n“It is a very complex system that they’ve put in, that works great if you’re in a showroom and not having to look where you’re going.”\n\nMany - if not all - of the usability issues would have been caught early with basic, cheap user testing.\n\nDealerships have been offering customers special demos up to 45 minutes long of the MyFord Touch. \n(What does this tell you about ease of use?)\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
This is an ROI calculation I did for a company who wanted to know the cost-benefit ratio for doing UCD work on an web application used daily by a group of their employees. This project only had about 100 end users.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Toyota recalled about 3.8 million cars and trucks to reshape and/or replace the accelerator pedals. The design of the accelerator pedal in combination with loose floor mats may result in the accelerator pedal getting stuck. Causing “unintentional acceleration”. Yikes. A very costly mistake.\n
Toyota recalled about 3.8 million cars and trucks to reshape and/or replace the accelerator pedals. The design of the accelerator pedal in combination with loose floor mats may result in the accelerator pedal getting stuck. Causing “unintentional acceleration”. Yikes. A very costly mistake.\n
Toyota recalled about 3.8 million cars and trucks to reshape and/or replace the accelerator pedals. The design of the accelerator pedal in combination with loose floor mats may result in the accelerator pedal getting stuck. Causing “unintentional acceleration”. Yikes. A very costly mistake.\n
Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine that was involved in at least six accidents between 1985 and 1987, in which patients were given massive overdoses of radiation - 100 times the intended dose. \n 3 patients died and three were critically injured. \n A commission concluded that the primary reason should be attributed to the bad software design.\n \n\n
Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine that was involved in at least six accidents between 1985 and 1987, in which patients were given massive overdoses of radiation - 100 times the intended dose. \n 3 patients died and three were critically injured. \n A commission concluded that the primary reason should be attributed to the bad software design.\n \n\n
In 1979, the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania had the worst nuclear accident in US history. A partial nuclear meltdown released radioactive gases and iodine into the environment.\n The main reason was poor design of critical status and error messages needed by engineers to identify the cause of the problem. \n\n
Flight 148 was a scheduled flight departing from Lyon, France on January 20th, 1992. It crashed at 7:20 pm in the mountains while circling to land at Strasbourg Airport. 82 passengers and 5 crew died. The cause of the crash was found to be a faulty design in the autopilot mode selector switch.\nIt was a critical usability issue: there was no clear indicator of the current autopilot status. So, it was not obvious to the pilots that they were in Vertical Speed mode instead of Flight Path Angle mode. \n\nWhen they entered "33" for "3.3° descent angle", what got submitted to the autopilot was a descent rate of 3,300 feet per minute.\n\n
In the very close Presidential race in Florida, a major issue was whether some of the votes that went to Pat Buchanan were really meant to be for Al Gore, making George Bush’s victory an accident. \n \n Confusing visual cues made this a bad design which may well have changed the course of the most powerful nation on earth.\n\n
In the very close Presidential race in Florida, a major issue was whether some of the votes that went to Pat Buchanan were really meant to be for Al Gore, making George Bush’s victory an accident. \n \n Confusing visual cues made this a bad design which may well have changed the course of the most powerful nation on earth.\n\n
In the very close Presidential race in Florida, a major issue was whether some of the votes that went to Pat Buchanan were really meant to be for Al Gore, making George Bush’s victory an accident. \n \n Confusing visual cues made this a bad design which may well have changed the course of the most powerful nation on earth.\n\n
In the very close Presidential race in Florida, a major issue was whether some of the votes that went to Pat Buchanan were really meant to be for Al Gore, making George Bush’s victory an accident. \n \n Confusing visual cues made this a bad design which may well have changed the course of the most powerful nation on earth.\n\n
In the very close Presidential race in Florida, a major issue was whether some of the votes that went to Pat Buchanan were really meant to be for Al Gore, making George Bush’s victory an accident. \n \n Confusing visual cues made this a bad design which may well have changed the course of the most powerful nation on earth.\n\n
In the very close Presidential race in Florida, a major issue was whether some of the votes that went to Pat Buchanan were really meant to be for Al Gore, making George Bush’s victory an accident. \n \n Confusing visual cues made this a bad design which may well have changed the course of the most powerful nation on earth.\n\n
These products failed because an appropriate research and design process wasn’t followed. Each and every one of them could have been saved if a UCD process had been followed.\n
Dave has been convinced to abandon his old way of doing things for a new, evidence-based approach.\nHe’s now known as Good Design Dude and is the Enforcer of of UCD in several galaxies. He’s almost conquered ours.\nHere’s what Dave needs you to know.\n\n
Dave has been convinced to abandon his old way of doing things for a new, evidence-based approach.\nHe’s now known as Good Design Dude and is the Enforcer of of UCD in several galaxies. He’s almost conquered ours.\nHere’s what Dave needs you to know.\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

3 Likes

Silverleaf999 6 months ago
jax wechsler at jaxinteractive Tags ucd 7 months ago
Terry Patterson at Terry Patterson 1 year ago