Examples of bad design

[alxndr]

Who chooses your clothes for you?

I do, but it's frustrating seeing trousers which are otherwise ideal, except for the pockets.

Trouser pockets are a fairly standard size.

Men's ones, yes. Women and children's ones less so.

And even if the size is right, sometimes the angle/positioning is such that things very easily fall out.

 

[Ediswan]

Trouser pockets are a fairly standard size.

I used to believe that. Then I carelessly bought a pair of jeans where the pockets were about half the usual depth (Asda ?). Now I check.

 

[150249]

Don't know if it's come up yet but the letters "I", "O" and "U" are next to each other on a keyboard. I always use the wrong one as a result of typing quickly and it gives the sentence a completely different meaning.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Don't know if it's come up yet but the letters "I", "O" and "U" are next to each other on a keyboard. I always use the wrong one as a result of typing quickly and it gives the sentence a completely different meaning.

I guess the QWERTY key arrangement is one of those things that was designed that way for sensible reasons back in the day, but now technology has moved on, the reasons for that design no longer exist, and now we're stuck with a sub-optimal keyboard layout because it's what everyone uses and there comes a point where keeping to the standard that everyone is familiar with is much less disruptive than trying to change to a better standard. I imagine you could find hundreds of similar examples, especially in technology.

Having said, that, I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't touch-type, and if you learned proper touch-typing, you'd no longer keep getting the wrong vowel.

 

[birchesgreen]

QWERTY dates from the earliest commercial typewriter back in the 1870s, basically the design relied on gravity to return keys to "off" and this sometimes messed up if keys next to each other were pressed. Hence the designers commissioned an academic to do some analysis to work out the best way to stop it happening.

(Wrote a blog post about the history of QWERTY recently, still fresh in the memory )

 

[py_megapixel]

I guess the QWERTY key arrangement is one of those things that was designed that way for sensible reasons back in the day, but now technology has moved on, the reasons for that design no longer exist, and now we're stuck with a sub-optimal keyboard layout because it's what everyone uses and there comes a point where keeping to the standard that everyone is familiar with is much less disruptive than trying to change to a better standard.

That's exactly the problem. QWERTY is imperfect, but there is nothing better enough that the time saved by using it would outweigh the time taken to learn it.

I imagine you could find hundreds of similar examples, especially in technology.

I think Windows is quite a good example. It is flawed in many, many ways, and Microsoft haven't exactly shown themselves to be saints, but so much would have to change for the world to completely ditch it that it will almost certainly never happen.

An excellent lesson, in my opinion, in how vital it is that monopolistic practices are nipped in the bud before they start to cause major harm. (Unfortunately this lesson seems to be ignored worldwide, most obviously with Amazon, and this will no doubt come back to bite us at some point.)

 

[MotCO]

I guess the QWERTY key arrangement is one of those things that was designed that way for sensible reasons back in the day, but now technology has moved on, the reasons for that design no longer exist, and now we're stuck with a sub-optimal keyboard layout because it's what everyone uses and there comes a point where keeping to the standard that everyone is familiar with is much less disruptive than trying to change to a better standard. I imagine you could find hundreds of similar examples, especially in technology.

Having said, that, I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't touch-type, and if you learned proper touch-typing, you'd no longer keep getting the wrong vowel.

Similarly, telephoness use the 123 - 456 - 789 - 0 format, whereas calculators and QWERTY keyboards use the 789 - 456 - 123 - 0 format keyboard. Why the two different layouts?

 

[AngusH]

On the number layout thing there are various theories, neatly summarised here:

Keyboard Trivia

 

[DynamicSpirit]

QWERTY dates from the earliest commercial typewriter back in the 1870s, basically the design relied on gravity to return keys to "off" and this sometimes messed up if keys next to each other were pressed. Hence the designers commissioned an academic to do some analysis to work out the best way to stop it happening.

Interesting. I'm guessing that, by 'next to each other', you mean something more like, the keys below each other (like QAZ or WSX) since I think those are the ones that would have had the hammers next to each other on manual typewriters?

(Wrote a blog post about the history of QWERTY recently, still fresh in the memory )

That would be interesting to see if you're willing to share a link (or msg privately if you don't want your blog publicly associated with your posts here)

 

[alxndr]

On the topic of keyboards, things with A-Z keyboards (ticket machines are the usual culprit, although I have seen a Dymo label writer too) instead of QWERTY.

The amount of people who are completely unfamiliar with QWERTY must be pretty small now, and decreasing all the time.

 

[birchesgreen]

That would be interesting to see if you're willing to share a link (or msg privately if you don't want your blog publicly associated with your posts here)

Yeah sure why not

QWERTY

All of my typewriters use the QWERTY layout (as indeed do all of my computers). However, when and why was the QWERTY layout first set out? O...

typewriter-museum.blogspot.com

 

[MotCO]

On the number layout thing there are various theories, neatly summarised here:

Keyboard Trivia

There are various theories, mostly similar, in that paper, but the one I find most persuasive is that phones used to have numbers and letters (i.e. button 2 also was A, B and C). Before the advent of Subscriber Trunk Dialling, telephone numbers used to be in the ABC1234 format. It therefore makes sense for A to be top left on the phone keypad, and therefore 1 was placed there.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There are various theories, mostly similar, in that paper, but the one I find most persuasive is that phones used to have numbers and letters (i.e. button 2 also was A, B and C). Before the advent of Subscriber Trunk Dialling, telephone numbers used to be in the ABC1234 format. It therefore makes sense for A to be top left on the phone keypad, and therefore 1 was placed there.

That's correct.

To take a famous example, Scotland Yard was Whitehall 1212. WHI 1212. After the letters became numbers, it became 944 1212.

Although the code today is different, the last four digits of the switchboard number for New Scotland Yard are still 1212; that's partly a nod to the heritage but also partly because the number is still associated with the Yard in many peoples' minds.

 

[Devonian]

There are various theories, mostly similar, in that paper, but the one I find most persuasive is that phones used to have numbers and letters (i.e. button 2 also was A, B and C). Before the advent of Subscriber Trunk Dialling, telephone numbers used to be in the ABC1234 format. It therefore makes sense for A to be top left on the phone keypad, and therefore 1 was placed there.

It would be persuasive... except that in the UK there was no overlap between alphanumeric codes/numbers in the (few) 'Director' telephone areas and the current keypad pattern. The experimental push-button telephones that were introduced by the GPO in that period had the numbers in two rows 1-5 and 6-0. By the time that the next series of push-button phones were introduced more widely 15 or so years later, all-figure numbering was in use and letters disappeared from the keypad altogether for about 30 years.

The most likely explanation is simply that, with or without letters, it made sense to run the numbers in standard western writing fashion, left-to-right and lines running top-to-bottom. The GPO did note that "The layout of the numbers conforms to the recommendations of the International Consultative Committee on Telephones and Telegraphs (CCITT)", so lettering in other countries may have been relevant to international concensus.

Some UK telephone operators (and a few busy subscribers who paid extra!) meanwhile were used to using 'key senders' with number keys that were strictly left to right in two rows of odd and even numbers.
1 3 5 7 9
2 4 6 8 0

Thank heavens that did not become the standard.

 

[MotCO]

It would be persuasive... except that in the UK there was no overlap between alphanumeric codes/numbers in the (few) 'Director' telephone areas and the current keypad pattern.

I can think of two of the top of my head - ABBey became 222 (hence London Transport became 222 1234) and BATtersea became 228 (my grandmothers number - I can still remember it, but can't remember my own!)

The most likely explanation is simply that, with or without letters, it made sense to run the numbers in standard western writing fashion, left-to-right and lines running top-to-bottom. The GPO did note that "The layout of the numbers conforms to the recommendations of the International Consultative Committee on Telephones and Telegraphs (CCITT)", so lettering in other countries may have been relevant to international concensus.

The question then becomes chicken and egg - were digital telephones established before calculators or vice versa? If calculators were first, why didn't the CCITT adopt the calculator format, or if phones were first, why didn't calculators follow the CCITT?

 

[Ediswan]

The question then becomes chicken and egg - were digital telephones established before calculators or vice versa? If calculators were first, why didn't the CCITT adopt the calculator format, or if phones were first, why didn't calculators follow the CCITT?

The first keypad phones were analogue, for the DTMF system (tone dialing) in the 1960s. That set the precedent. Electronic calculators inherited the 'smallest numbers at the bottom' layout from mechanical calculators . On that basis, the phone keypad layout is the newcomer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2023 ==

It would be persuasive... except that in the UK there was no overlap between alphanumeric codes/numbers in the (few) 'Director' telephone areas and the current keypad pattern

The Director system did use the phone dial to map exchange names to numbers. The current keypad mapping is mostly the same. O and Q have moved, Z has been added.

# Dial Keypad
1 - n/a n/a
2 - ABC ABC
3 - DEF DEF
4 - GHI GHI
5 - JKL JKL
6 - MN MNO
7 - PRS PQRS
8 - TUV TUZ
9 - WXY WXYZ
0 - OQ n/a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_telephone_system

The first three digits were encoded as the first three letters of the local exchange name. The translation map of letters to digits was displayed directly on the telephone rotary dial, by grouping the letters with the corresponding digits.

London Director Exchange Names

A list of all the codes in use in the London (England) Director system circa 1966.

 

[PeterY]

I guess the QWERTY key arrangement is one of those things that was designed that way for sensible reasons back in the day, but now technology has moved on, the reasons for that design no longer exist, and now we're stuck with a sub-optimal keyboard layout because it's what everyone uses and there comes a point where keeping to the standard that everyone is familiar with is much less disruptive than trying to change to a better standard. I imagine you could find hundreds of similar examples, especially in technology.

Having said, that, I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't touch-type, and if you learned proper touch-typing, you'd no longer keep getting the wrong vowel.

I'm sure if the QWERTY keyboard was to change to something better it would completely throw people, including me.

 

[dangie]

I'm sure if the QWERTY keyboard was to change to something better it would completely throw people, including me.

As a 72 year old one finger typist who swears the keys keep moving around, I don’t think any change would bother me too much.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Hand basins with two separate taps for hot and cold water

Stairs inside Dutch houses that are so steep that no human body, even a Dutch one, can use them comfortably. Although their design most probably derives from cost and land efficiency maximization, which makes them "well-designed" in a Dutch way.

The separate taps used to be for good reason. Either you had non potable cold water along with low pressure hot or mains pressure with low pressure hot. Obviously mixer taps definitely don’t work with the latter. Nowadays with combi boilers you have both hot and cold at mains pressure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2023 ==

You can still buy the 13 mini, just no 14 version, as you said, it wasn't selling.

iPhone

Designed for Apple Intelligence. Discover the new iPhone 16e along with iPhone 16 Pro, iPhone 16 and iPhone 15.

www.apple.com

Suspect the 14 mini is developed and will become the new iPhone SE

 

[D365]

I am dreading the day my beloved 13 mini comes to the end of the road, hopefully a few years away yet.

A friend has just purchased a 128GB iPhone 13 mini from Apple’s online ”Refurbished store” for ~£550. The 12 and 13 mini are stocked every now and again.

Suspect the 14 mini is developed and will become the new iPhone SE

If it has USB-C, that will be an instant buy for me. Albeit, that is speculation of good design.

 

[AM9]

The first keypad phones were analogue, for the DTMF system (tone dialing) in the 1960s. That set the precedent. Electronic calculators inherited the 'smallest numbers at the bottom' layout from mechanical calculators . On that basis, the phone keypad layout is the newcomer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Feb 2023 ==


The Director system did use the phone dial to map exchange names to numbers. The current keypad mapping is mostly the same. O and Q have moved, Z has been added.

# Dial Keypad
1 - n/a n/a
2 - ABC ABC
3 - DEF DEF
4 - GHI GHI
5 - JKL JKL
6 - MN MNO
7 - PRS PQRS
8 - TUV TUZ
9 - WXY WXYZ
0 - OQ n/a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_telephone_system

London Director Exchange Names

Actually there is an error on that list:
As I recall it, the Hainault exchange was never dialled by subscribers, - as it was the last manual exchange in the London director area (i.e. the '01' area), it was automated when AFN (All Figure Numbers) were introduced, receiving the number 01 500. Anybody elsewhere in London dialling H-A-I (represented by 4-2-4) did not get the exchange, - callers to Hainault numbers needed to dial 0 (for a local operator) who would get the Hainault operator to connect directly. We just had to pick up and wait for an operator to answer.

 

[PeterC]

This may seem a bit bizarre to some but when I was out in the garden topping up the bird food the other day, I noticed that the bird seed feeder I recently bought is flawed.

It's essentially a clear plastic cylinder with a lid, a base, a handle for hanging it from a tree, and a hole near the bottom of the cylinder from which the food is dispensed. The hole is located about 3cm above the bottom of the cylinder, meaning that there is always going to be an amount of food that is completely inaccessible. Whoever designed it clearly didn't think this through properly!

Plus you can't remove the base to clean out the mouldy seeds stuck at the bottom.

 

[Devonian]

The Director system did use the phone dial to map exchange names to numbers. The current keypad mapping is mostly the same. O and Q have moved, Z has been added.

Indeed - but the current push button arrangement did not exist on GPO telephones in the same time period as published alphanumeric Director codes: after experimental phones in the Director era had two rows of numbers with letters, the modern push button arrangement appeared without letters on the GPO 758 telephone in 1976, because the UK had converted to 'all-figure dialling' from 1966. Even where the numbers were still based on the original letters (they usually were and often still are), the letter combinations were no longer published and there were no letters on UK dials or push buttons for about 30 years. There was therefore no need for 1 to be top left to have the alphabet starting at the top of the keypad: with no letters on the dial, any logical numeric arrangement could have been used.

The separate taps used to be for good reason. Either you had non potable cold water along with low pressure hot or mains pressure with low pressure hot. Obviously mixer taps definitely don’t work with the latter. Nowadays with combi boilers you have both hot and cold at mains pressure.

And yet mixer taps in kitchens have been common for decades, happily 'mixing' mains cold with either low or high pressure hot. As long as the water only 'mixed' mains cold at the open outlet of the spout, there has been nothing to prevent mixer taps in any room (our 1970s bathroom had a mixer on the basin, our 1930s bath had one too); and what are showers but extended mixer taps? The two-taps thing is much more complex than it appears.

I would argue that the single-lever mixer tap is not very good design: with the 'default' central position usually being a mix of hot and cold water, there is a tendency to draw off both hot and cold whether or not it is really needed, and whether or not the water actually runs hot by the time the tap is turned off, wasting hot water.

 

[DelW]

And yet mixer taps in kitchens have been common for decades, happily 'mixing' mains cold with either low or high pressure hot. As long as the water only 'mixed' mains cold at the open outlet of the spout, there has been nothing to prevent mixer taps in any room (our 1970s bathroom had a mixer on the basin, our 1930s bath had one too); and what are showers but extended mixer taps? The two-taps thing is much more complex than it appears.

What looks like a mixer tap in my kitchen (and acts like one for practical purposes) actually has two separate orifices, one for hot and one for cold, at the delivery end of the spout. That enables it to cope with cold at mains pressure directly off the incoming supply and hot at low pressure from a tank in a bedroom at only about 3m head.
I've no idea how common that is, it was already here when I arrived in the early '90s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What looks like a mixer tap in my kitchen (and acts like one for practical purposes) actually has two separate orifices, one for hot and one for cold, at the delivery end of the spout. That enables it to cope with cold at mains pressure directly off the incoming supply and hot at low pressure from a tank in a bedroom at only about 3m head.
I've no idea how common that is, it was already here when I arrived in the early '90s.

Pretty common, yes. And they scald one side of your hand while freezing the other, so aren't great!

 

[DelW]

Pretty common, yes. And they scald one side of your hand while freezing the other, so aren't great!

Fortunately my hot water is kept below scalding temperature, so it's not been a problem for me. I can quite happily wash my hands under a mixture if I need to.

 

[pdeaves]

Here's another 'interesting' design. It's really cold in the mornings so I have my thick/warm coat. The hood can fold away into the back of the collar. The trouble is, if you do that, the resulting padded collar is too thick to allow the press stud on the front to do up. Well, unless you don't mind being choked, I suppose.

 

[philthetube]

I guess the QWERTY key arrangement is one of those things that was designed that way for sensible reasons back in the day, but now technology has moved on, the reasons for that design no longer exist, and now we're stuck with a sub-optimal keyboard layout because it's what everyone uses and there comes a point where keeping to the standard that everyone is familiar with is much less disruptive than trying to change to a better standard. I imagine you could find hundreds of similar examples, especially in technology.

Having said, that, I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't touch-type, and if you learned proper touch-typing, you'd no longer keep getting the wrong vowel.

The Qwerty keyboard is good design for touch typists, it is rare that it slows you down because of key location, to see an example where it fails tfy typing the word monopoly and see how much that slows you down,

That's exactly the problem. QWERTY is imperfect, but there is nothing better enough that the time saved by using it would outweigh the time taken to learn it.

not sure what would be better, abc etc wouldn't be.

 

[Ediswan]

not sure what would be better, abc etc wouldn't be.

People have tried, but none so far have managed to dislodge QWERTY.
https://kinesis-ergo.com/switching-from-qwerty/
(The descriptions in the link are fuller)

Dvorak​

The Dvorak layout was developed and patented in 1936 by Dr. August Dvorak. Dr. Dvorak recognized only 32% of typing was done on the home row keys of a QWERTY keyboard. His objective was to create an alternate layout to reduce the finger movement associated with typing to increase speeds and decrease errors.

Colemak​

The Colemak keyboard layout was developed much more recently but it is quickly attracting converts.

Workman​

The Workman keyboard layout was developed even more recently with a particular emphasis on software programming.

 

[DaleCooper]

I have a toaster that is very slightly too small for the majority of sliced loaves.