Car Park Payment Systems - Good or Evil?
Parking area payment machines often pose a fascinating design scenario. In order to create a machine that people can use very first time, without training, is no simple job.
Second, they have no constant user interface pattern.
Visit 5 different parking lots and you'll find 5 different machine designs. And third, there's often little support or assistance available if you need help because there is no attendant to whom you can turn.
We've known for some time that devices work best when their design considers the limitations of people, rather than making individuals fit the device.
However, this basic guideline of considering human usage factors is often flouted in the design of car park payment devices.
Everyday parking payment systems usage experience teach us that lesser tasks ought to not control the interface. Parking area payment devices teach us that use is more than visual design. There's an old stating in usability: you can apply lipstick to a pig, however, it's still a pig. Most traffic engineers will tell you that the main issue associated with car park payment systems is that ease of use is of the utmost importance!.
If people utilize the machine improperly, there are two possible outcomes. Either a client overpays for parking, in which case the owners of the parking lot make more money. Or consumers underpay for parking, in which case the owners of the parking area raise a fine and make even more cash. In either case, the owner of the parking lot makes more cash. It's like a dark pattern in the same method that the pricing structure of these ticket machines is created to result in over payment.
With most systems, the provider has added assistance expenses, such as call centres and customer service. However, car park payment systems have various designs. If you can't utilize the machine, there's no-one you can turn to for help. You simply need to solve the problem by yourself.
So the sad truth is that, in this case, enhanced usability acts against stakeholder interests.
Second, they have no constant user interface pattern.
Visit 5 different parking lots and you'll find 5 different machine designs. And third, there's often little support or assistance available if you need help because there is no attendant to whom you can turn.
We've known for some time that devices work best when their design considers the limitations of people, rather than making individuals fit the device.
However, this basic guideline of considering human usage factors is often flouted in the design of car park payment devices.
Everyday parking payment systems usage experience teach us that lesser tasks ought to not control the interface. Parking area payment devices teach us that use is more than visual design. There's an old stating in usability: you can apply lipstick to a pig, however, it's still a pig. Most traffic engineers will tell you that the main issue associated with car park payment systems is that ease of use is of the utmost importance!.
If people utilize the machine improperly, there are two possible outcomes. Either a client overpays for parking, in which case the owners of the parking lot make more money. Or consumers underpay for parking, in which case the owners of the parking area raise a fine and make even more cash. In either case, the owner of the parking lot makes more cash. It's like a dark pattern in the same method that the pricing structure of these ticket machines is created to result in over payment.
With most systems, the provider has added assistance expenses, such as call centres and customer service. However, car park payment systems have various designs. If you can't utilize the machine, there's no-one you can turn to for help. You simply need to solve the problem by yourself.
So the sad truth is that, in this case, enhanced usability acts against stakeholder interests.