It was incredibly hard to make everybody happy. Every restaurant and bar and cafe had their own way of doing things, and wanted our system to do it that way.
We did have a few "rules" that helped make the system easier to use and to avoid stories like this.
We tried to ensure that nothing that was used more than a couple of times a day was more than 3 taps away from the main screen.
We also did a lot of visits to our customers. If there were sticky notes around the POS terminal, that was always a red flag that our system wasn't doing something the right way.
One important take away from my time at the company, where we worked fairly closely with our customers, is that people love sticking to the old way of doing things, even if there's an easier, new way to do it. If you changed this system to only require one click to change bookings, they'd probably still use a whiteboard marker on the screen, because that's the way they've always done it. Cargo culting is incredibly common for non-technical people using technology, and even fairly common for technical people.
I've sat through dozens of sales pitches for (shiny new product that will replace your old piece of junk). When pressed on why it's better, the answer is basically "Technology!"
After some discussion, the boss determined "This is solution in search of a problem" (it really was), so the project wasn't started.
This answer stuck with me. The tech was interesting but looking the bigger picture it didn't help the business. It was the do nothing alternative that made the most sense
Seems like this might have been one of the more productive ones.
If you want to introduce a step that lets someone skip 2 steps, it's going to be a hard sell. Unless it's a critical part of your product, you should probably make it skippable. Otherwise people are liable to avoid it, falling back onto pen and paper, then run into trouble down the line when it prevents them from doing what they want.
This is what I often see happens with software, when someone tries to simplify the workflow by just looking at the most common sequence of actions and designing around that, and not minding all the flexibility they're throwing away that's crucial to handling uncommon cases. It's (one of) the reason people keep going back to Excel spreadsheets, even though your custom-tailored piece of software does everything they need better. It's because your system is rigid, and Excel spreadsheets are flexible.
The ideal SaaS is one that sells software they use themselves.
I would think for a PoS it would be similar. Selling a good PoS might require running a few restaurants where you deploy and test it. That way you aren't running risk of not knowing the pain points because the users are far away and don't want to bother you with it. It should also lead to some pragmatism instead of overthinking.
The problem of many today's companies is not using this approach right - or even worse - not considering this as a part of their business strategy, and that's when their solutions fail.
One place I learned a lot was working at a company that did displays for boats. From little fish finders on recreational fishing boats to multi-screen navigation systems for yachts. I'd go on-site to customers boats all the time, and these captains are busy people. When they're out on the water, they have 99 problems and your software cannot be one of them. Any task they need to do that involves traversing some menu hierarchy or precise cursor positioning (remember, 5-10 foot waves) is not going to work. Touchscreens are out of the question, unless they work when covered with salt water and you have gloves on. Physical knobs and buttons (with nearby handholds) are obviously preferable to pointer and keyboard input. You can hang your design school diploma and "UX master" certificate in your office above your desk and talk academically about the program's optimal information architecture, but your ideas are useless if they don't survive contact with the actual customer.
- Cars design is focused on sales, not utility. Futuristic tech like touchscreens looks better in commercials, and makes people think they're buying high-tech. This is incidentally what IMO is plaguing software industry too - software products are designed with focus on pretty looks, not utility, because it's the initial experience that drives sales / subscriptions.
- A touchscreen interface simplifies car design. When you're design the car's interior, a touchscreen is just a box connected to the CAN bus. You can ignore the rest. Which means, all UI work can now be done completely in parallel by a separate team, or (more likely) subcontracted out. Also, altering that software to e.g. move a button elsewhere is much cheaper than moving a physical button.
It's hardly surprising that they'd prioritize looks, regarding touch screens.
Many bad votes in appstores seems to come from "ugly interface" or "looks old" and other similar things. Why is it that an app needs to follow the latest fashion trends? There was a time when we computer nerds looked down at fashion trends, thinking that they just repeat themselves anyway. Why is it that you have to have the latest fashion colors/UI to get more than two stars from some people? No matter if the program does what it needs to and does it fast and efficient.
I think our fashion and design tastes directly reflect something important about the time we are living in. For example, minimal and clean is in right now. You could speculate many valid reasons for this. It's also dependent upon the person. The majority of people are attracted to the latest fashion for various reasons, but some people go somewhere else, and others don't care. Users are thinking, if you're not on trend maybe you're out of sync with the user's needs?
It's also about consistency, and appearing as though you've spent time on the app to give it a consistent design. It doesn't necessarily need to be on trend as long as the design says something about the functionality of the app. A retro game in the play store should have a retro-looking menu!! If your design looks significantly outdated without being consistent with the functionality of the app, I think it sends a subconscious signal that the functionality is also deprecated, or that the developer was too lazy to care about an aspect of development that usually gets a lot of attention.
But, it depends on what your app is for.
Just observe the new task switcher on the Android P preview.
Where before you hit a button (either on-screen on fixed depending on the OEM design) and got a list of previously used apps, now you have to swipe from the center to the edge at the bottom of the screen to flip though them.
I remember MS word putting in the 'word count' feature for the article authors who reviewed the software. That feature is a high priority item for the writers and people who need their work to fit in a certain constraint, but not for most users.
"You can check off a reservation in the system, with the mouse, but hey, it’s at least four clicks away from this screen"
indicates that the problem here was not untrained, obstinate or idiosyncratic users, but a design that did not meet the most basic, general and obvious standards of usability.
Maybe it was a consequence of the system being customized to a specific set of requirements, in which case the interaction between the customer and the developer would be an interesting study in how things go wrong.
Getting a rush of "all-asking-the-same-questions-in-slighly-different-ways" and "all-wanting-the-same-information-but-with-slightly-different-phrasing" information security questionnaires - CREATED AS EXCEL SPREADSHEETS.
If you want multiple-paragraph answers please stick a table in a document if you really must or, better still, base your enquiry on a standardised document - they do exist (https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/group/consensus-assessment... - albeit it's another bloomin' spreadsheet)
It's like job application hell (every company wanting you to put the same info into their specific questionnaire) in reverse.
(Fortunately, most of my responses are now 'see our GDPR doc ref: nnnn, which covers this point')
- Write down words as customer orders on duplicate orderpad thing. One copy to kitchen, one to us.
- Write down words as customer orders. Get back to bar and start using POS system. Faff around trying to get it to add custom requests. Get moaned at by other person who also needs to put an order through. Click wrong thing, get annoyed. Fix it. Check a final time that it's consistent with my notepad. Send.
There are lots of things POS improved if I'm honest, but none of it was an improvement for the waiting staff in my experience. Things are obviously much better now - but the reason everyone hated the machine (even ignoring the freezes/crashes) was because it made a previously simple task have 15 extra time-consuming steps.
Consider things that are easy to do with a POS that are hard to do with handwritten notes:
* Generate a list of how many of each dish sell each night/week/month to decide what dishes to add/cut.
* Reconcile sales figures with purchasing to identify abnormal food waste/shrink.
* Identify waitstaff who are unusually good/bad at up-selling on wine/desserts.
* Automatically reconcile the till at the end of the night to notice any discrepancies.
Whenever you have data be converted from an unstructured format to a structured format and then back into the identical unstructured format, the detour in the middle is always going to seem like a pain in the ass because data entry is always a pain in the ass. But the justification for doing so is that other people need the data in that structured format so they can aggregate and analyze that data more easily and you happen to have just shouldered the shitty task of data entry on top of all of your other duties. It doesn't make the system overall a bad one though.
This is how the lowest paid get undervalued. Their job has been made harder but it is their work that has allowed "some big-shot restaurant exec" to claim he has added $n in extra value with his changes. BigShot gets a pay rise while the poor sod who struggles to cope with the new system gets fired.
The irony is when the new system is for just a single customer, after going through several meetings with mockups and usage scenarios with all key users.
Managers especially fuck this up. Go straight to the source and see what the people who will be using your app do.
Actual users engaged and discussing how they actually work and what they, the actual people that have to deal 8h a day with the system, want it to behave.
These same people will dismiss their previous remarks and state that the old way was better, even though they were the ones actually suggesting the new behaviours as improvements to the current issues.
I think "ease of use" is highly attribute, enormously dependent on the expectations and workflows a user has already learned.
If there is an arcane mouse gesture/shortcut/menu item/cmd command that a user knows very clearly how to use and a simple-looking button with unclear purpose, then for that user the former is probably a lot easier to use.
Disclaimer: a user if Linux who wants to use desktop and drag the window borders and scrollers. For Gnome I’ve wasted so much time to achieve that. A normal user can’t do that.
I came to realize that the only care to be around programmers that do care about UI/UX experience and hanging out with designers is to be on the Apple, Google, Microsoft platforms.
Check on each of their conferences how many UI/UX sessions are there and how many show up on a random UNIX conference.
- 1 pixel wide window borders (left/right/bottom)
- big thick corners to grab with the mouse
- and an aesthetically pleasing (to me) titlebar that is high contrast when not the focus (because that's when you're looking for a new window to select) and medium contrast when it is the focus (because most of the time you already know what you're typing into).
This can be applied to many areas. Our first product over at DaycareIQ was a childcare waitlist management app. It would allow parents to pre-register kids, place them in a queue until the site confirmed their place etc etc. In our minds it was a good way to keep organized and ensure that the waitlist was fair and equitable.
We showed it to many childcare centres and were met with "Well our flow is XYZ, can you change it so it does that." We ended up abandoning that app as no one was willing to change their process, some of which were just a pile of few hundred forms. When filling a childcare spot, they would just grab a pile of forms and start calling, only to waste their time as many kids already found another spot. Our app would allow parents to remove their kid from the list, ensuring that the person at the top of the list actually still needed a spot... but still didn't convince operators.
I wish we spent as much time on HCI in our field. I get a lot more value out of seeing how people I develop software for do their tasks and then thinking about how that could be improved. An implication of that is that I'm not building a fancy UI for my resume's sake; that I'm actually improving their day-to-day workflows. That takes some cost and time but in my projects nobody wants to pay for that.
I do that too! In fact, I do that so often that on Windows, I have the following workflow in my muscle memory:
CTRL+C ;; copy
Win+R ;; open "Run"
CTRL+V ;; paste
CTRL+A ;; select what I just pasted
CTRL+X ;; cut it out (disappearing text serves
;; as a visual proof of operation completion)
ESC ;; close the "Run" box, restoring focus
;; to original application
CTRL+V ;; paste cleaned-up text
On Linux, I usually abuse the address bar of the browser.
Then I discovered this handy little utility, PureText:
Now all you gotta do is press Win-V to paste the pure text representation of your clipboard. It's a 43k download and unobtrusive. Great program.
I don't even release the CMD key between presses and it's all done with one hand extremely quickly. I've often wondered if Chrome collects usage statistics on this and what it looks like from their perspective. "This user opens a lot of tabs, pastes stuff in the address bar, then gives up before the new tab page is even done loading."
This is one reason why old-school, keyboard-shortcut-driven UI can feel so good to use (and why animations that block interaction are so frustrating).
No, seriously. I try to port all my workflow to Emacs, because with all the power and consistency of that keyboard-driven platform, I can finally put my muscle memory to use.
Beyond that, I finally developed a habit of automating annoyances away. Today, if I do something frequently and find it annoying, I fix it with a script. Be it elisp (Emacs), CL (Linux - I use StumpWM as my WM), or AutoHotkey (Windows).
Actually, some random recent examples:
- I frequently deal with Lisp code that outputs large structured or semistructured blobs of text; at some point I decided I need a quick way to pipe such output to a separate Emacs buffer: https://gist.github.com/TeMPOraL/8715c9dd9837e0b601d1cdce059....
- At my previous workplace, I found myself pasting some strings to various communications channels quickly. Since I already used AutoHotkey to remap Caps Lock to CTRL, this is what I came with (and later expanded): https://gist.github.com/TeMPOraL/d330edccf8ba9a2b13d01b4e7f1....
- Speaking of whipping up ad-hoc UIs on the fly, the Hydra package (https://github.com/abo-abo/hydra) is perfect for that in Emacs. My config becomes increasingly full of ad-hoc popup menus like these: https://gist.github.com/TeMPOraL/d3a0b3065c43d41526bcb3fe2c9....
- StumpWM - https://github.com/TeMPOraL/conffiles/blob/master/stumpwm/.s... - unlike my Emacs config, most of this was written by me, on the fly, to fix some annoyances.
The point of giving those examples, beyond obviously showing off :), is that this is what IMO good software enables. Improving your life on the fly, one simple binding or one simple script at a time. Scripting isn't only for shell commands. It's definitely useful for UI experience as well. I regret it took me that long to figure this out.
This is also why I try to port as much of my workflow as I can to Emacs. It's because Emacs makes such modifications seem trivial. If you need something to interoperate more, you can glue it with together with a little bit of Elisp. If you need something new, you can probably add it with a little bit of Elisp in no time. Emacs, being a runtime-modifiable, introspectable and tremendously well documented system with a decent REPL, makes this quick and relatively painless.
Same here. I used to disable “search suggestions” so I wouldn’t be sending all of that stuff to Google but at the same time search suggestions can actually be useful sometimes so now I have it enabled anyway, meaning that I send a lot of random stuff to Google.
However mostly it’s no big deal. The primary reason that I disabled search suggestions was that I used to type out the passwords for new accounts in the address bar first and copy them and then paste them twice into the password and confirm password fields respectively. Since then I’ve written a pass-phrase generator command line program that I named pgen  which I use instead, so because I no longer use the address bar for passwords there is rarely anything sensitive that I am typing.
If a website has password requirements that are incompatible with the passwords generated by pgen I have the terminal I just ran pgen in open already anyways so I paste back into it and modify the password to suit the requirements.
But keep almost all formatting (except font size) if pasted into a new empty paragraph.
But under no circumstances have the formatting under the cursor after the operation changed.
I know that breaks all convention and would probably cause more problems, but boy would I be happy.
That's the place I use to "unformat" copied text. Would save you pressing R and ESC...
What the video doesn't show, you can also make the taskbar higher and place the address bar underneath the icons.
My Firefox doesn't show such option under right-click menu. But even if it's common in other browsers now, it wasn't when I needed it first, so I found an alternative and put the problem out of my mind. Thanks for pointing out that there is a solution in (some) browsers, though. Maybe it's time to abandon the alternative habits.
Setting up a shortcut to "paste as plain text" is a handy secondary capability. Being able to see/select your last n copied items is very helpful indeed. (Ctrl-Alt-H is my shortcut, and whenever I'm on a system that doesn't have it installed I become sad when that shortcut doesn't work...)
CTRL+A, CTRL+C, Alt + Tab, CTRL+T (new tab), CTRL + V, CTRL + A, CTRL + C, CTRL + W (close tab)
Or, CTRL + TVACW in that order does it <1 sec.
An obscure keyboard shortcut (vs 4-5 common ones), finding your option, and switching to the mouse doesn't seem like a better solution. Plus it's not universal.
Ctrl+V, Ctrl, T
To paste then remove formatting.
Personally I still use notepad or the address bar.
gcb | scb
Get-Clipboard | Set-Clipboard
HN strips formatting, but many forums don't.
So did I, but IME, time and effort spent on minor UX improvements are rarely justifiable to upper management, especially in the case of business software it won't generate more revenue, often because the people using the software are not the ones buying it.
I've had the fortune of working in a couple of places where the most hardcore users of our product were our own employees. So I often silently wandered into others desks and observed their workflows, it's amazing to see the little hacks they come up with because of their routine. Sometimes it's things we can easily fix but it's not prioritized. Quite often I've spent a couple hours of my free time hacking together some minor features to help these internal users and they are always amazingly grateful.
I’m part of a team searching for an appropriate tool and the pickings are slim. Thankfully the people buying the software that may be in use for the next five years to a decade are taking it very seriously and working closely with a number of experts around the company and editorial teams. They’re also very familiar with the regular workflows, so they don’t fall prey to salesmanship.
My schedule’s kept fairly open lately to give me “free time” to develop something to help with a specific aspect of it (as upper leadership isn’t openly keen on any in house development). It’s been very interesting working closely with the people who will be using it just 3 floors away on a daily basis.
I’ve done similar projects in the past and some people were ...more grateful than others...
But the current situation is a little different, and the art and editorial teams this time through have been fantastic. I think it’s because they know exactly what they want to make their days and weeks easier, and they’re so grateful to even get close. And I’m happy to try and deliver as much relief as possible.
But I don't think GP is going to achieve their goal with this. On the contrary, I bet their managers already read that book, and that's why the UX sucks in the first place. The managers want to follow Steve Jobs' footsteps, and treat UX as a sales driver, instead of something that should be designed to make the end user productive and happy.
But the iPhone has a major presence in corporate America, has first class support for Exchange servers and their are plenty of MDM solutions deployed for iDevices.
Actually, this suggests that there was a relatively brief period, probably about 1986 - 1996, where corporate IT buys dominated personal computing.
Earlier, and it was hobbyist markets (and corps used mainframes and minis). Later and it was mass, then mobile, markets.
Not that corp purchasing doesn't remain large, and influential. But it's no longer hegemonic.
But yes, corporate buys present a principle-agent problem, especially as regards UI/UX.
Also, on most Google apps including Docs and Gmail, Ctrl-\ (backslash) will reset the formatting of selected text.
On mac the shortcut is Command-Option-Shift-V
Yes! I do exactly that. I use the window frame to act as a ruler so I don't lose my position when reading left to right.
I also do the copy to Notepad, but since moving to Mac, Notes keeps the formatting by default, so I'm conditioned now to use Ctrl+Shift+V - on the second attempt.
Other things are in Word or Google Docs to automatically backspace auto corrections, such as automatic links in the document. I do the same with auto complete on my iPhone to remove the trailing space.
On Mac you just need to:
pbpaste | pbcopy
pbpaste | jq . | pbcopy
If you open it up in Automator, it'll let you see the steps, and prompt you to install it [which really just moves the file into ~/Services]. This makes it show up in every app's Services menu.
Once installed, you can head to System Preferences > Keyboard > Shortcuts > Services, to set a keyboard shortcut for it.
You may enjoy reading about The Humane Interface and Archy. It's how the original Macintosh would have worked, had its designer got his way.
That reminds me of the Spritz interface for reading text which came out a few years ago:
I'm a little surprised it isn't super ubiquitous by now, especially since everyone has their own small but personal screen nowadays.
Maybe it's too encumbered with licensing or didn't have enough marketing follow-through?
EDIT: minor edits
Excel is an (eghem) excellent example of this concept in software, as pointed out by another commenter here. It doesn't presume a particular flow or even a particular set of user stories. It gives you the tools to record and manipulate large amounts of data, no matter what it is or what shape it's in, without writing code. That's a powerful concept and one that more designers should keep in mind.
Turns out, you don't really need complicated automated processes and different views for the same data (as abstractions lover in me was absolutely sure of). Doing task management manually and easily changing workflows on the fly is much more useful.
Excel is indeed an excellent example, and excellent software. On a related note, pivot tables must be the next best invention after the spreadsheet itself.
I know a lot of restaurants around here that use a sheet of glass placed over a printout of the seating chart to record reservations and which tables are clear / ready to be seated at.
This article buries the lead, the most important takeaway is at the end of the list at #6:
> to really find out what’s important to the users, and how a system is actually used, you need to observe real users, in the field.
(see also: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-... )
As a developer, it is normal to look at a system and extract the generalities and patterns and systematize them. Then the users start using the system. And they always ask for the same things. Exceptions. The ability to cheat the rules they swore were "always" the case.
If they've got someone on the staff who knows just enough to be dangerous, their system will grow by bits and pieces organically, eventually resulting in a real nightmarish mess. For years I have wanted to try to design a system which actually has this in mind as a primary use case. Something which can be bit-by-bit 'expanded' over time with the special cases, exceptions, etc but which can remain sensible, maintainable, and tractable. It's possible that such a system cannot be made both as flexible as necessary and still usable by the average person, but I think it might be. Anything which accomplished the goal even partially would be pretty successful I imagine.
I completely agree that good software requires this direct contact, but you have to find the right people.
There are so many examples in that book where users, frustrated or inconvenienced by the (high-tech) complexity of their tools, devise their own (low-tech) way to use a tiny subset of the features that just barely gets the job done for them--though perhaps not as creatively as writing on the screen here. One is the emergence of scrappy post-it-note instruction guides for basic tasks people would tape next to overengineered phone systems in the 90s. He also presents the concept of a 'gulf of evaluation' that makes contextualizes the difference between designer expectations and actual use (or the difficulty of getting feedback that would bridge this gulf).
The book---in its latest version, intentionally---omits discussions about modern software, but it does more than enough to prove its point with simple everyday examples. I'd highly recommend giving it a read to anyone!
The generals and sales goons would come up with all kinds of "would it not be useful if they had XYZ on their helmet". but once given field trials the feedback was that while it was nice to have, it made said helmets heavy, leading to neck strain and problems with simply looking around.
This overlay over the screen reminds me of some video games systems that used transparencies for part of the scene, or at least a measure of color. Vectrex was like this: vector graphics, augmented with a game-specific acetate overlay that you'd put on the screen for that game.
Vectrex is fantastic; if you find a working one in some garage sale, with game cartridges, snap it the hell up, and post about it here. :)
What the waiter is doing is kind of like a storage tube driven by markers.
One day a fly landed on the screen and managed to enter an order for a sandwich and two bottles of pop.
Talk about a bug!
My favorite part of UX is getting to go on site to see people's workflows in action. An example that comes to mind was working on an early iPad app for EMS / first responders. They already had toughbook-style computers in the ambulances, but had lots of complaints. One thing we noticed immediately was that they couldn't use the computers when they were wearing latex gloves. They actually tracked vital signs by writing them on the gloves themselves and attempting to transcribe them when they got back to the computer.
The systems built with customers where we talked to the end users both worked well and were well-accepted.
Other systems, where the managers insisted that we talk to a specified manager who would 'gather and transmit' the end-user requirements typically ended up being the endless projects that never quite worked. Yes, sort of endless billables too, but much less satisfying to both build and use.
If I were still developing software, I'd be at the point of insisting on direct end-user participation as a condition of doing the work, and primarily for the customer's sake.
The domain it is hosted on, by the way, translates roughly to bloodyshitesystem.se :)
The owner told me something, that stuck with me.
They only hire people who have worked in the hospitality industry before. They wanted people to know the domain extensively, so they were more likely to understand what their customers were facing in their workday.
During my talks with various roles in the company, formal and informal, almost all of them would refer back to a real-life situation, where they would face a problem - and how they tackle that in their software.
I think that was a pretty interesting approach.
I mean if the company just went out for beers one night and had one person try to use the software to "seat" each employee, they'd figure out pretty quickly that there are too many clicks. Especially if the rule is to take a drink for each employee seated. :)
Next, get the most attractive member of the waitstaff to go through the same process with your prototype. Ideally offer minimal prompting. Ask them at each step what they expected to see. Take notes. Repeat for the rest of the waitstaff, if possible.
The designer of a UI being able to do everything they need with it quickly and easily is the first step. The intended user being able do so with minimal training is a much later, much more important step.
Ideally, you'd test with both...several times. It would be wonderful if clients were willing to pay for this level of software perfection!
There is a kind of inverse in certain niche industries where the communication structure of the organizations is a result of the software. Like the people are as rigid/dysfunctional as the software. Sometimes there aren't nice solutions like dry erase marker on screen.
If you work in one of these, it's the most uncomfortable feeling. One benefit is that it can be motivating to create alternative software to claw your way out.
Unless the software mirrors the dysfunctional organization...
Thing that came up in the comments were that said doctors were holding on to and older, DOS based, patient record system, because it was all keyboard operated. This in turn allowed a seasoned doctor to work the UI while maintaining a dialog with the patient.
Although I can't help but note the irony of an ugly non-responsive webpage! At least on Firefox Android...
> Well, when patients are ready, they’re supposed to press a ”Save” button on the screen.
> But a lot of them instead press the Windows’ ”Close” icon in the upper right corner (perhaps they were determined not to let the next person see their entries).
> But this also shut down the machine, and the data they had entered were lost!
> Solution: cover the icon with a piece of paper or tape!
Back on topic, the solution as I see it is a data store, and different interfaces customized for each employee. Expensive, but the bartender and the hostess don't need the same information.
You really can make something beautiful and elegant and yet totally unusable for the people actually using the interface.
Having been spoiled by voice assistants, I'd like one I could bark my order to and have it done.
Software is meant to do things for you, but so many software developers think software is there to stop users messing up their database.
New programs like this tend to crop up every few years - MS Access, FileMaker, and most recently, Airtable.
Simplicity is the key and I found this restaurants solution to be extremely intuitive. More steps to sit a table simply because the technology is there to acquire more data points, is not always the correct solution.
The customer is always right, and in this case the restaurant is the customer.
This is a great example of that principle and in the end the customer was happy and used a, for their business need, a good system.
Privacy by design :-)
Or maybe at the end of their shift, they go in an "clear" the reservations who showed?
My guess is there's no reporting / data analysis on the back end.
If there is any data analysis it has to do with where the next restaurant can be built.
Great, except that isn't what I wrote.