

Tell HN: un-design of everyday thing - obxerve

On a recent business trip, I was booked at the W Hotel in SF.  Nice decor, but they overdid it to the point that "usability" suffers.  Now I used to travel every week, so I know business hotels.  Just like in s/w or web design, when a designer tries too hard to be cute or fancy, he/she ended up irritating.  Here are some examples from that trip.<p>I could not find the light switches for the desk area for the first hour, because they were all located in an out-of-the-way side.  And the switches are small.<p>For a hotel that recommends the guest to be green by recycling, their water lever in the bath / shower did such a poor job that when you set it to shower, half the water actually went down to the bath, instead of to the shower head.  Wasted water.<p>The water faucets at the wash basin: one turn clockwise and the other turn counter-clockwise to open the water.  Go figure.<p>I can mention a couple more, but the point here is not to rant - I like Starwood hotel chain.  The point is to hear your experiences of "un-design" similar to mine.<p>And Merry Christmas, by the way!
======
mixmax
Good design isn't what most people think it is. Good design isn't about bells
and whistles, fancy doorknobs and thick carpets. It's about making something
that works just like you expect it to. Apple and dropbox know this and it's a
large part of their success. It just works. All the fanciness in an apple
computer or an iphone is there for a reason, there are no equivalents to fancy
doorknobs or thick carpets.

This is also why Scandinavian design seems to be held in such high regard -
it's very simple and works like you expect it to.

This wikipedia should be compulsory reading for industrial designers:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_follows_function>

~~~
AndrewDucker
The Law of Least Astonishment is also a good one.

------
zck
My car's turn signals are frustrating as hell. Normally, when switching lanes,
I don't push the signal lever all the way over, so that it locks; I simply
push it and hold it, so when I am in the moved-to lane, I just let go, and the
signal turns off.

However, the designers found a way to trick me, making my attempts at
signaling useless. When I push the lever over, the point at which there is
significant torque pushed back also turns on a faster-than normal click of the
turn signals. However, the signals do not turn on until I push past this;
there is a further point where the turn signals actually turn on.

My instinct is to push the lever until there is audible and felt feedback, but
this doesn't work, since that point does not turn the signals on. Very
frustrating.

------
andrewljohnson
You should read Norman's "The Design of Everday Things." I bet you'd really
enjoy the bit where he discusses hotel doors.

[http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-
Norman/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald-
Norman/dp/0385267746)

It's a really great book, and something I would consider a must-read for
serious UI designers/developers. While the book was written in the 80s, and
talks about things like ring slide projectors, VisiCalc, the original Macs,
the ideas about what constitutes good and bad design are salient to this day.

~~~
mrduncan
Based on the title of the post, I'm sure that's where part of the inspiration
for this post came from. That said, great book which I completely recommend.

------
NathanKP
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 elegance of his typographic
layout.

~~~
obxerve
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".

------
ojbyrne
While I get your point in general, I disagree with the water faucets.
Typically that's how they work - because they turn outwards (so to speak) from
the spout in the center.

~~~
jamesbritt
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.

~~~
inquata
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.

~~~
ojbyrne
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.

~~~
inquata
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.

~~~
ojbyrne
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).

~~~
inquata
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://mattmorphett.blogspot.com/2009/01/sometimes-there-is-good-
reason-to-break.html) [http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/usability-taps-
lessons-we...](http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/usability-taps-lessons-web-
design/) (via [http://www.uselog.com/2009/05/checklists-and-water-taps-
for-...](http://www.uselog.com/2009/05/checklists-and-water-taps-for-
usability_28.html))

------
tlb
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.

