In case anyone finds it validating or cathartic, you can read user interaction professionals explain that, yes, things are often designed with horrible, horrible usability.[1]Bruce Tognazzini has a vast website.
Here is one list of design bugs. The first one is the F-16 fighter jet’s flawed weapon controls, which caused pilots to fire its gun by mistake during training exercises (in one case shooting a school—luckily not hitting anyone) on four occasions in one year; on the first three occasions, they blamed pilot error, and on the fourth, they still blamed pilot error but also acknowledged that “poorly-designed controls” contributed to the incident.
Bug: The driver must accurately toggle a hidden, completely unlabelled switch inside the engine compartment in response to changing conditions. If, even once, the switch is forgotten or flipped the wrong way, it will destroy the $5000 engine and transmission within five minutes.
Calling the company was of no help. The engineer who answered responded that nothing was wrong with the design of the switch that extremely careful operation would not overcome. He’d been using it for months with no problem.
The problem could be easily corrected by the manufacturer replacing this manual switch with a solenoid-driven switch that only kicks in when the car has been connected for towing. This would add little to the already high price and would replace certain anxiety and uncertain calamity with a solid, dependable result.
The Design of Everyday Things (by Don Norman, Tognazzini’s more-famous colleague) is an entire book about good and bad design. Excerpting from the chapter “Why Designers Go Astray”:
“It probably won a prize” is a disparaging phrase in this book. Why? Because prizes tend to be given for some aspects of a design, to the neglect of all others—usually including usability. Consider the following example, in which a usable, livable design was penalized by the design profession. The assignment was to design the Seattle offices of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The most noteworthy feature of the design process was that those who would work in the building had a major say in the planning. [...]
So there really were two designs: one in Seattle, with heavy participation by the users, and one in Los Angeles, designed in the conventional manner by architects. Which design do the users prefer? Why the Seattle one, of course. Which one got the award? Why the Los Angeles one, of course. [...]
Aesthetics, not surprisingly, comes first at museums and design centers. I have spent much time in the science museum of my own city, San Diego, watching visitors try out the displays. The visitors try hard, and although they seem to enjoy themselves, it is quite clear that they usually miss the point of the display. The signs are highly decorative; but they are often poorly lit, difficult to read, and have lots of gushing language with little explanation. Certainly the visitors are not enlightened about science (which is supposed to be the point of the exhibit). Occasionally I help out when I see bewildered faces by explaining the scientific principles being demonstrated by the exhibit (after all, many of the exhibits in this sort of museum are really psychology demonstrations, many of which I explain in my own introductory classes). I am often rewarded with smiles and nods of understanding. I took one of my graduate classes there to observe and comment; we all agreed about the inadequacy of the signs, and, moreover, we had useful suggestions. We met with a museum official and tried to explain what was happening. He didn’t understand. His problems were the cost and durability of the exhibits. “Are the visitors learning anything?” we asked. He still didn’t understand. Attendance at the museum was high. It looked attractive. It had probably won a prize. Why were we wasting his time?
At first glance, this is because designers are stupid assholes. At second glance, designers (a) are usually rather different people than the intended user on several dimensions [which is difficult to compensate for even when you’re trying], and (b) often face bad incentives, such as (c) design competition awards being based solely on aesthetics rather than functionality and (d) the purchaser of a product being unsophisticated and not the intended user [e.g. a manager or director buys a product that the lowest-level employees will use], and hence having little to go on except aesthetics (and reputation).
At third glance, some designers really are stupid assholes. Seriously:
[Frank Lloyd Wright’s] chair design originally had only three legs, supposedly to encourage better posture (because one would have to keep both feet on the ground at all times to sit in it). However, the chair proved unstable, tipping very easily. Purportedly, Wright redesigned the chairs after Herbert Johnson asked him to sit in one, and he fell out of it.
In case anyone finds it validating or cathartic, you can read user interaction professionals explain that, yes, things are often designed with horrible, horrible usability.[1] Bruce Tognazzini has a vast website.
Here is one list of design bugs. The first one is the F-16 fighter jet’s flawed weapon controls, which caused pilots to fire its gun by mistake during training exercises (in one case shooting a school—luckily not hitting anyone) on four occasions in one year; on the first three occasions, they blamed pilot error, and on the fourth, they still blamed pilot error but also acknowledged that “poorly-designed controls” contributed to the incident.
Here is another list. Item 3 I’ll quote below:
More detail:
The Design of Everyday Things (by Don Norman, Tognazzini’s more-famous colleague) is an entire book about good and bad design. Excerpting from the chapter “Why Designers Go Astray”:
At first glance, this is because designers are stupid assholes. At second glance, designers (a) are usually rather different people than the intended user on several dimensions [which is difficult to compensate for even when you’re trying], and (b) often face bad incentives, such as (c) design competition awards being based solely on aesthetics rather than functionality and (d) the purchaser of a product being unsophisticated and not the intended user [e.g. a manager or director buys a product that the lowest-level employees will use], and hence having little to go on except aesthetics (and reputation).
At third glance, some designers really are stupid assholes. Seriously: