Can you name which design or usability principles this violates?

Blog Feed

Blog Archives and Categories

Email Russell

August 11th, 2008 by Russell Wilson

The bottom line is a series of arrows pointing to the left door.
(apologies for the poor quality photograph)

Tags: bad design
Posted in Opinion

Comments to “ Can you name which design or usability principles this violates? ”

Tom Kiss says:

August 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm

It’s a door. People know to use doors.
Normally, you say what not to use, surely…

(Don’t call me Shirley)

Hrvoje says:

August 12th, 2008 at 12:33 am

Which door? Left or right? Maybe we should read that small print on the bottom.

Ray Maz says:

August 12th, 2008 at 2:41 am

The text says “this” door when it really means “that” door, i.e. the arrows indicate the the door to the left of the sign should be used. The sign is misleading, because the most important information (the arrows pointing left) is not appropriately noticeable

Allan says:

August 12th, 2008 at 5:59 am

DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself)

Ok, it’s somewhat a stretch, but works for me.

peter says:

August 12th, 2008 at 7:03 am

Accessibility. No audio or braille version for blind users.

Russell Wilson says:

August 12th, 2008 at 7:07 am

I apologize for the quality of the picture. The line at the bottom is actually a series of arrows pointing to the left door. The sign is saying “don’t use this door (the one to the left)”

Paul Keeble says:

August 13th, 2008 at 3:09 am

A possible GUI analogy of this would be a label saying “OK >>>” and then having a button with no text on it which was meant to be clicked.

Another possibility is rather than greying out a button the button says “please use this button>>>>” pointing at the cancel.

Its not a basic usability problem but a very strange way to achieve disabling a function by having disabled function point at the only remaining option.

Jerome Gravel-Niquet says:

August 14th, 2008 at 9:02 am

They shouldn’t be pointing at the door to use, they would be better off just putting the sign on the left door with no arrows.

Plus, the arrows are really small compared to the type and they don’t catch the eye at all (assuredly they aren’t even visible in the distance) so people will probably just bump on the wrong door.

Rob says:

August 15th, 2008 at 12:38 am

Poor affordance, the suggestion of how to interact with door is misleading.

John Chin says:

August 19th, 2008 at 7:39 am

It’s like having a giant label over a button saying “click here”
(sound familiar?)

There are tons of signs that have terrible affordances.
I was at an Ikea Store and the parking sign said
“All Parking
No Trucks”

Go figure!

Amanda Woo says:

September 23rd, 2008 at 6:31 pm

This violets the “support workflow” of the Nielsen Usability principle since the wording of the sign does coincide with the tiny arrows as indicated at the bottom of the sign. Basically, the wording contradicts the image.

Reseller Hosting says:

October 31st, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Great info.Very good article.Bookmarked your blog plz keep it up

Shaun says:

March 5th, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

Vincent van der Lubbe says:

May 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

I am not an expert, but I ask myself what is the intention? If they want me to use the left door (not only temporarily), make a sign big enough to read from a distance. Otherwise I might see the sign too late. Maybe something green with “Please enter here”. Unfortunately, most people have a preference for the right side

If the main issue is not to use the right door, you could also place something in front of the door, so nobody can enter through the right door. Then you don't have to explain anything. The problem of course is: why should one use the left door? Maybe somebody should fix the right door?

User Interface Design and Engineering

Can you name which design or usability principles this violates?

Related Posts:

Related Posts

Archives

Categories

Popular Tags

Meta

Interests include: