It seems to me, that the main focus of the article, was talking about how a very simple UI change (a pop-up cancel option) made all the difference.
On the other hand, these types of popups can be incredibly disruptive to the UX, especially if the text is badly written, and there's no clear utility to the user. All too frequently, these types of guardrail popups are there, only to advance the agenda of the developer/service provider, and not the end-user.
It looks like the popup was well-designed, the text was well thought-out, and the user advantage is clear.
Good point, but that is OK. The end user still gets the advantage (so does the TfL, but that doesn't concern the user).
I feel that so many tech companies consider their end-users to be little more than cattle herds (the real product is the company), and they simply don't think about stuff like this.
This kind of usability is a basic, fundamental mindset, that, in my opinion, seems to be severely lacking, in today's tech industry.
Arguably indeed. Depends what is considered the service in this case. I would argue that the service is “using the public transport “, and it is not “using machine for buying paper tickets”.
Perhaps, but there ample room for improvement here.
The text simply say's it's cheaper, but the amount saved is not mentioned. This can be a big factor in changing people's behaviors. I may choose to shop at a local market for convenience, or fly a specific airline to get airline miles. In both cases, I know that I did not pay the absolute rock bottom price, but that the difference is small enough to not deter my loyalty.
Later in the article an example is given: "...Paddington to Canary Wharf would cost £6.70 if buying a paper ticket but £2.80 if using contactless payments" I am unsure how random that example is, but if typical, that is a massive 60% discount. Sharing that sort of precise information would certainly change habits of even the most loyal of paper customers.
It is of course far simpler (and cheaper) from a software design perspective to have the generic message, and perhaps it is all that could be accomplished in the timeframe allotted to the effort, and I understand that. But I do hope that more precise messaging is provided in the future so that we can revisit this discussion and review the results.
One minor problem is that the paper ticket is anytime, but the contactless fare had peak/off-peak fares…
So if you buy a paper ticket at 0925, you’ll pay 6.70 GBP. If you touch in and travel immediately you’ll pay 3.40 GBP (peak fare), but if you stop for a coffee first and the time ticks over past 0930 before you touch in, you’ll get the off-peak 2.80 GBP fare.
(I think there is actually a little grace time, and it may be when you complete the journey which matters, but the principle holds).
The whole UI of that interface looks horribly designed to me, including that pop-up with weird tiny text, huge line-spacing, padding all over the place and left-aligned button text.
The entire thing screams back-end developer forced to make UI :)
On the other hand, these types of popups can be incredibly disruptive to the UX, especially if the text is badly written, and there's no clear utility to the user. All too frequently, these types of guardrail popups are there, only to advance the agenda of the developer/service provider, and not the end-user.
It looks like the popup was well-designed, the text was well thought-out, and the user advantage is clear.