- Email: [email protected]
Decision making of vending machine users
Applied Ergonomics 1988, 19.2, 103-109
Decision making of vending machine users L.W.M. Verhoef Netherlands Railways, Central Advisory Group on Ergonomics, Utrecht, The Netherlands
This article discusses two possible solutions to decision making about controls by users of vending machines: the 'one button to press' system (requiring a compound decision - the pressing of one button only); the 'several buttons to press' system (requiring a compound decision - the pressing of several buttons). The basis for the discussion is a field evaluation of a train ticket vending machine (TVM) that can sell 800 different types of tickets and can accept all kinds of payment. For this evaluation several hundred TVM users and ticket window users were observed and interviewed. Special attention was paid to the errors which were made. Keywords: Railways, errors, ticket vending machines I ntroduction From an ergonomics point of view it is very easy to design a bubble gum vending machine. There is only one product and there is only one coin to be inserted. Fig. 1 shows a 'one product one coin machine' for vending platform tickets. However, society is becoming more and more complex and so are vending machines. Hence, one can expect that new problems will emerge when people have to use these machines.
The ticket vending machine ( T V M ) evaluated The ticket vending machine (TVM) sells tickets for 80 destinations and of several fare types (first/second class, single/return, whole day/evening only return, full/reduced price, etc). The machine accepts coinage and paper currency and in future it will also be possible to use credit cards. The steps to be taken by the purchaser are described in the written instructions in the upper left hand corner of the machine front. Numbered arrows indicate the controls associated with each step, and these arrows start flashing when that step has to be taken. The first step a passenger has to take is to select between some 80 destinations. He or she then has to choose fare type. Only when these two steps have been taken is payment possible. Fig. 2 shows the TVM which was evaluated.
Method Users were observed and interviewed, and the errors the users made were analysed. Interviews and observations were carried out in the Central Stations of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht on three working days between 8.00 and 18.00 hours in August 1985. The TVMs had been in use for more than 9 months (since September 1984). Simple activities were observed without technical recording means. For example, whether or not passengers had noticed that a TVM was out of order was observed by
Fig. 1
0003 6870/88/02 0103-07 $03.00 © 1988 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd
A one-coin product vending machine for vending platform tickets
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
103
Fig. 2
The Autelca B100 train ticket vending machine
an investigator who stood near the TVM. For the observation of more complicated activities a hidden video camera was used (Fig. 3). To collect data that could not be obtained by observation of overt behaviour, users were interviewed (n = 316). The passengers were interviewed immediately after they had bought a ticket.
tbllowed different procedures. One of them, fc)r example, had been reselling the tickets.
(e)
Errors not noticed by the users After each interview the ticket bought by the passenger was checked.
Table 1 gives the number of passengers involved in the observations and the interviews. The proportion of first-time users was about 10%.
In this research project much effort was devoted to trying to detect errors made by users. There were several reasons for this. Firstly, it could be argued that errors made by users originate from errors made by designers, and that designer errors can be analysed by analysing user errors. Secondly, the number o f errors made provides very useful data when discussing the costs of ergonomics improvements. A distinction is made between several kinds of errors.
Several types of problem can occur in the interaction between intending passengers and a fare ticket vending machine. For instance, we have observed that:
(a)
• information presented by the system may not be noticed by the user;
Errors noticed and corrected before paying It was impossible to observe all the errors which the passengers corrected themselves. Very often there was no overt behaviour to indicate that an error had been made. However, it was possible to interpret from all kinds of additional information (head movements, hand movements, reaction times, hesitations) that a mistake had probably been made.
Results
• information necessary to the transaction, but not presented by the system, may not be available in users' long-term memory ; • users' tasks may not be clearly presented to them; • users may not perform all tasks in the correct order. These problems result in:
(b)
104
Errors noticed and corrected after paying Tickets that were returned by passengers for exchange were examined. For some of these, the reason for their return was known, but not all the returned tickets could be so analysed. The reason for this was that ticket window personnel who received these tickets
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
• giving up the operation, which happened for 13% of the first-time users (Hoonhout, 1985); • longer purchase time; • frustration; • wrongly ordered tickets.
Table 2: Errors that went unnoticed during operation of the TVM, made by passengers who were not in a hurry Proportion Estimated of percentage returned over all tickets tickets* Wrong class
9%
0"147%
Errors with single/return
13%
0"213%
Errors with the price
50%
0"819%
Wrong destination
18%
0"295%
Wanted only to change a banknote
4%
0"065%
Wanted a ticket for the next day
7%
0"114%
Total
100%
1"6%
n = 56
n = 122
* I t should be stressed that the types of error as a percentage of all the tickets sold by the TVMs are very approximate estimates based only on two wrong tickets in a sample of 122 tickets which were checked by the interviewers.
a 1.6% error rate, every day about 3000 passengers will buy a wrong ticket.
Fig. 3
(c)
The complexity of the system will increase and so probably will the percentage of errors; more destinations (from 80 now to 340 in the near future), more ticket types (now 'only' 10), more kinds of payment (more types of banknotes, plastic money), will all be incorporated.
(d)
As we will argue, the errors that did occur were induced by the design. In a redesign, based on an ergonomics analysis, the number of errors can be minimised.
The hidden camera was mounted on top of the luggage cart. The monitor, recorder and batteries were concealed in the luggage
Table 1: Samples taken by the techniques used Study technique
Sample size
Video observation of TVM users
428 (A'dam 34%, R'dam 36%, Utrecht 31%)
Interviews with TVM users
316 (A'dam 46%, R'dam 25%, Utrecht 28%)
In this paper we will confine ourselves to the passenger decision making problem only. The passenger had to make the following selections: (a)
Returned tickets: reason for return known
57 tickets
reason not known
299 tickets
Table 2 gives an overview of the purchasing errors that were made. The figure of 1.6% errors may seem very low, but the following points have to be considered: (a)
(b)
It is supposed that the results are quite conservative because the criteria for selecting passengers were rather rigorous: all passengers used the vending machines voluntarily, and passengers who were in a hurry (26%) did not answer the questionnaire and their tickets were not checked. In the future about 190 000 tickets a day will be sold by these kinds of machines. In other words, even at
'Choose one out of 80 destinations', accounting for 18% of all errors. Destination errors are perceptual errors. These kinds of errors will be reduced by improving the lay-out of the list of destinations.
We will not discuss, therefore, such issues as the routing problem - how the purchaser's tasks flow through the machine layout, although such perceptual problems are addressed elsewhere (Verhoef, 1987a). (b)
'Choose full or reduced price', accounting for 50% of all errors. These problems will be solved by presenting better information on the fare types.
(c)
'Choose single or return', accounting for 18% of all errors. We expect that this number of errors can be minimised by using a 'more buttons to press' system. This system will be discussed below.
(d)
'Choose first or second class', accounting for 9% of all errors.
To exemplify our approach further details will be given on this last kind of error.
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
105
Second class tickets could be bought by pressing one of the upper group of ticket type buttons. First class tickets could be obtained by pressing one of the lower group of buttons. (See Fig. 4.)
question was: "Do you remember the difference between these two rows?". Of 111 TVM users who were not in a hurry, 59% could not recall this difference.
Some passengers used the TVM without noticing that a class type selection had to be made. They bought a ticket o f the wrong class and noticed this before paying, after paying or not at all. These points will be discussed in more detail below.
(c)
Recall of class type selection
Although recall of information concerning a decision taken one or two minutes ago is not equivalent to having noticed and used that information, these figures suggest that many passengers may not have made a conscious class type selection.
When the passenger buys a ticket at the ticket window, only first class passengers mention the class type. Most passengers are not used to paying attention to the class type. However, when buying a ticket at a TVM the passenger has to pay attention to the class type selection. Several tests were made to see if the passengers could remember making this selection. (a)
The first way to test if the passengers had paid attention to the class type selection was by asking if they could remember the difference in colour coding. The first class buttons were coded green. The second class buttons were white, as were all the other buttons. The users were asked if they could remember if green buttons were present on the TVM. Only 14% could remember that there were green buttons and that these buttons were for first class tickets. 'No' was the reply of 41%, and 45% answered 'Don't know.'.
(b)
The second way to test if the passengers had paid attention to the class type selection was by presenting a colour picture of the TVM. On that picture the texts 'first class' and 'second class' were removed. The
Finally, the third way to test the attention paid to the class type selections was to ask passengers if there were first class tickets available. Of the 55 second class users who were not in a hurry, 16% did not remember that first class tickets were available and 2% answered 'not available'.
Wrong class type tickets bought For this investigation, 122 tickets of passengers who were not in a hurry were checked. Two passengers had bought the wrong ticket (1-6%). As the numbers are far too low to be able to draw reliable conclusions about the number of wrong class type tickets bought in particular, an additional analysis was made of 356 tickets which for some reason were returned by passengers. For 57 o f these tickets the reason for their return was known, and 9% changed their ticket because they bought a ticket of the wrong class type. Furthermore, of the 299 tickets which were returned and for which the reason for return was not known, the percentage of first class tickets was 13%. Since the TVMs in practice sell only 2% first class tickets, it is likely that 11% were returned because of a class type error. From these figures it is estimated that at least 0.147% of all passengers, who are not in a hurry, buy a ticket of the wrong class type.
Changing class before paying It was observed also that passengers changed the class of their ticket before paying. Many of them did so because they wanted to compare prices, which could easily be observed. These passengers pressed several buttons and then looked at the price each time. The latter behaviour was quite obvious because the price is presented somewhat to one side and rather large head movements have to be made to look at the price. If one disregards the 'price comparers' this leaves four passengers (1%)who changed class, probably because they noticed their class mistake. The performance of these passengers is described in detail:
Passenger 1 A young man, not looking like a first class passenger, walked to the TVM. It could clearly be seen that his eyes were directed to the fare type buttons. When he reached the TVM he immediately pressed 'first class, single, full price'. After 3 s he pressed his destination and looked at the price. His eyes went to the fare type buttons, his hand was in the first class area. 1 s later his hand went to the second class area and he immediately pressed a second class button.
Passenger 2
Fig. 4
The ticket type buttons on the T V M , giving choices of single full fare, single reduced fare, return full fare, return reduced fare or evening-only return, w i t h i n the choice of 1st or 2nd class
106
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
A young man pressed a destination at the b o t t o m of the destination field. 2 s later 'first class, single, reduced price' was pressed (first class buttons are also at the bottom). ½ s later he looked at the price and seemed astonished. Looking at the destination and fare type again he pressed 'Press for mistake', restarted and quickly bought a 'second class, single, reduced price' ticket.
Passenger 3 A middle-aged man studied the banknote slot for 3 s. After that, he immediately pressed a destination. 5 s later 'second class, single, reduced price' was pressed. Next he looked at the price. Then he went to the second class area with his eyes and his hand. After 3 s he went to the first class area and 1 s later he pressed 'first class, single, reduced price'. He looked at the price and about 4 s later he pressed 'Press for mistake'. Apparently at this moment he understood the operation of the TVM and intended to restart from the beginning. In this second effort he bought a 'first class, single, reduced price' ticket.
Fig. 6
A 'one button to press' matrix system
Passenger 4 A well dressed gentleman immediately pressed a destination at the bottom of the list. 3 s later he pressed 'first class, single, reduced price'. Then there were problems with the banknote acceptor. The TVM reset itself. The passenger again ordered a first class ticket. Again there were problems with the banknote and the passenger decided to try another TVM. However, he now ordered a second class ticket. Again he had problems with the banknote. The passenger pressed first class. The banknote was not accepted and the passenger left without a ticket. Passengers 1 and 2 obviously made class type mistakes. One cannot be sure for passengers 3 and 4, but they probably did as well. If so, 1% of the passengers made a class type error but corrected it before paying.
Discussion When one considers the perceptual and the mental activities which have to be performed using the TVM, then the errors described above are not surprising. First we will discuss several ways to design ticket vending machines which aid decision making. When using a 'one button to press' solution, the user presses only one button to indicate a combination of several selections. A one-button system can consist of a list in which for every element all selections are presented on, or near to, an associated button. On the TVM evaluated, this solution is used for the selection of the fare type (first/second class, single/return, whole day/ evening only return, full/reduced price). (A one-button machine for a coffee vending machine, another example, is shown in Fig. 5.) Another 'one button to press' system is the matrix type system. Here also for every combination of elements there is only one button. However, the information which belongs to this button is positioned elsewhere - for instance, at the start of a list or to the left margin and at the top of the matrix. In Fig. 6 the decision single/return is taken at the top and the decision concerning class is taken to the left. On the TVM evaluated a 'one button to press' is applied to the class type decision. When using a 'more buttons to press' solution, the user presses several buttons. For every decision they make a selection between the buttons of one particular group. Fig. 7 shows a redesign of the TVM using this principle for selection of fare type. From a psychological point of view the 'one button to press' system has many disadvantages, which will be of more importance when the system is complex (many decisions and much information).
Perceptual disadvantages of one-button system For users there are two perceptual disadvantages of a 'one button to press' system: (a) there is no need to go through the whole list and (b) the information cannot always be presented in the proximity of the controls. (a)
Fig. 5
A 'one button to press' list system for a coffee vending machine
As concluded elsewhere (Verhoef, 1987b),usersofa 'one button' system may read instructions and probably they will not go through the whole list of legends. One reason for not reading a whole list can be that the passenger is in a hurry; another reason can be that they do not expect a particular 'product' to be in the list. The latter reason could be concluded from the results of this research. Although an evening
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
107
(b)
Fig. 7
A 'more buttons to press' system on a redesign of the evaluated machine
return is about 40% cheaper than a day return, and although an evening return has already been in use for 20 years, of the passengers who bought a return ticket between 18.00 and 19.00 hours, 30% pressed the more expensive 'day return' button instead of the cheaper 'evening return' button. This latter button is positioned one or two buttons below the former one. In a 'more buttons to press' system there is no list and consequently the user cannot make a mistake due to not going through the whole list. (b)
In a complicated system where a 'one button to press' interface is used it is impossible to put all the necessary information on or very near the buttons. In such cases the visual angle between button and legend is increased and consequently the possibility of not noticing the legend increases as well (Cole and Hughes, 1984). In a 'more buttons to press' system there is less information for the number of buttons. Consequently it is not such a problem to place information on or adjacent to the buttons.
Cognitive di~dvantages of 'one button' system For the users, the cognitive disadvantages of a 'one button to press' system are that there is a load on short-term memory, that they have to apply a strategy which is mostly employed by experienced decision makers, and that they have to understand the system. (a)
108
A consequence of the frequent non-proximity of legends and buttons noted above is that when users do seek and note the relevant information there is a requirement to store this in short-term memory before selecting the relevant button. It can be argued that a prospective departing passenger should not be required to do this. In a 'more buttons to press' system, information can be presented with the buttons. There is no load on short-term memory and consequently a lower probability that the intbrmation will be forgotten.
AppliedErgonomics June 1988
Psychologists often distinguish between two strategies in perception and decision making. When using a sequential strategy, people take decisions one after the other. This strategy would perhaps be mostly employed by inexperienced decision makers for instance. children who read words or passengers who use a TVM. When using a parallel or a simulataneous strategy. people immediately and automatically identify an object or make a compound decision. This strategy is mostly employed by experienced decision makers for instance, adults reading words and staff selling tickets 8 h a day. As passengers are often stressed, it could be argued that a human-machine interlace which forces a sequential strategy is preferable. This choice is supported by the research of Wright (1977), who investigated the speed and accuracy of people using a variety of presentation formats for n umericat tables. She concluded that taking four binary decisions one after the other (tree-structure) is faster and less error prone than taking two binary decisions at the same time (matrix-structure). When one considers the decision-making strategies that people use, it is better to force departing passengers to take their decisions in a sequence. A 'more buttons to press' system is prelerable.
(c)
Finally, the understanding of the operation should be mentioned. Bartram (1984) summarised research concerning two-dimensional timetables. From several investigations it can be concluded that 60% of the population did not understand this way of presenting information. This could be put forward as an argument in favour of the 'more buttons to press' system.
Conclusion It is argued that both empirical data and theoretical analysis clearly indicate that a 'more buttons to press' system is preferable for users who will not become experts and who are stressed. For the users of the TVM evaluated this conclusion comes too late. The manufacturer is not able to change the machine. For technicians and ergonomists involved in designing these kinds of machines a lesson can be learned. The designers of the TVM have chosen the wrong alternative because the psychological disadvantages mentioned above (non-proximity of legends and controls, load on short-term memory, parallel decision strategy and need to understand the system) are less 'obvious' than one practical advantage of the 'one button to press' system that is, the lower work-load for the fingers because only one button has to be pressed.
Acknowledgement The author is indebted to colleagues in the department of Ergonomic Psychology at the University of Utrecht and to colleagues in the Ergonomic Advisory Group of Netherlands Railways for discussion, field observations and the construction of research instruments.
References and literature
Bartram, D. 1984, The presentation of information about bus services. In: Easterby, R., and Zwaga, H. Information Design, 2 9 9 - 3 2 0 .
Cole, B.L., and Hughes, P.K.
1984, A field trial of attention and search conspicuity. Human Factors, 26(3), 299-313. Easterby, R., and Zwaga, H. 1984, Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material. Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester. Hoonhout, J. 1985, De Autelca plaatskaatenautomaat een veldonderzoek in Utrecht-centraal. (The Autelca ticket vending machine. A field study in Utrecht Central Station): Utrecht, stage verslag Psychologisch Laboratorium Rij ksuniversiteit Utrecht. Oborne, D.J. 1986, Contemporary Ergonomics. Proc Erg Soc Ann Conf, Durham, England, 8-11 Apr. Taylor & Francis, London.
Verhoef, L.W.M. 1986, Using a ticket vending machine; A perceptual model. In: Oborne, DJ., Contemporary Ergonomics, 173-177. Verhoef, L.W.M. 1987a, Met gegruikersvriendelijk maken van centrall parkeerautomaten, Verkeerskunde, 38(3), 122-124.
Verhoef, L.W.M. 1987b, Teksten en plaatjes op automaten. (Text and pictures on vending machines.) Ti]dschrift voor Ergonomie, 12(4). Wright, P. 1977, Decision making as a factor in the ease of using numerical tables. Ergonomics, 20(1), 91-96.
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
109
occu ,,o,,, i 1 AND HEALTH
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
CI|
IIKI Your CIS subscription gives you access to: •
CIS ABSTRACTS, a periodical providing an overview of the most important and useful occupational safety and health information published throughout the world;
•
annual cumulative subject and author indexes;
•
Copies of the publications abstracted, through the original document service of CIS (subject to the usual copyright conditions);
•
Special literature searches compiled by computer on request and supplemented, where appropriate, by data extracted from the most important and recent publications.
Subscriptions and the cost of additional CIS services can in most cases be paid in national currency or by means of UNESCO coupons. These costs and additional information on CIS publications and services are available from the CIS National Centres, the ILO Offices and the
International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre (CIS) International Labour Office CH 1211 Geneva 22 Switzerland
110
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
Decision making of vending machine users L.W.M. Verhoef Netherlands Railways, Central Advisory Group on Ergonomics, Utrecht, The Netherlands
This article discusses two possible solutions to decision making about controls by users of vending machines: the 'one button to press' system (requiring a compound decision - the pressing of one button only); the 'several buttons to press' system (requiring a compound decision - the pressing of several buttons). The basis for the discussion is a field evaluation of a train ticket vending machine (TVM) that can sell 800 different types of tickets and can accept all kinds of payment. For this evaluation several hundred TVM users and ticket window users were observed and interviewed. Special attention was paid to the errors which were made. Keywords: Railways, errors, ticket vending machines I ntroduction From an ergonomics point of view it is very easy to design a bubble gum vending machine. There is only one product and there is only one coin to be inserted. Fig. 1 shows a 'one product one coin machine' for vending platform tickets. However, society is becoming more and more complex and so are vending machines. Hence, one can expect that new problems will emerge when people have to use these machines.
The ticket vending machine ( T V M ) evaluated The ticket vending machine (TVM) sells tickets for 80 destinations and of several fare types (first/second class, single/return, whole day/evening only return, full/reduced price, etc). The machine accepts coinage and paper currency and in future it will also be possible to use credit cards. The steps to be taken by the purchaser are described in the written instructions in the upper left hand corner of the machine front. Numbered arrows indicate the controls associated with each step, and these arrows start flashing when that step has to be taken. The first step a passenger has to take is to select between some 80 destinations. He or she then has to choose fare type. Only when these two steps have been taken is payment possible. Fig. 2 shows the TVM which was evaluated.
Method Users were observed and interviewed, and the errors the users made were analysed. Interviews and observations were carried out in the Central Stations of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht on three working days between 8.00 and 18.00 hours in August 1985. The TVMs had been in use for more than 9 months (since September 1984). Simple activities were observed without technical recording means. For example, whether or not passengers had noticed that a TVM was out of order was observed by
Fig. 1
0003 6870/88/02 0103-07 $03.00 © 1988 Butterworth & Co (Publishers) Ltd
A one-coin product vending machine for vending platform tickets
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
103
Fig. 2
The Autelca B100 train ticket vending machine
an investigator who stood near the TVM. For the observation of more complicated activities a hidden video camera was used (Fig. 3). To collect data that could not be obtained by observation of overt behaviour, users were interviewed (n = 316). The passengers were interviewed immediately after they had bought a ticket.
tbllowed different procedures. One of them, fc)r example, had been reselling the tickets.
(e)
Errors not noticed by the users After each interview the ticket bought by the passenger was checked.
Table 1 gives the number of passengers involved in the observations and the interviews. The proportion of first-time users was about 10%.
In this research project much effort was devoted to trying to detect errors made by users. There were several reasons for this. Firstly, it could be argued that errors made by users originate from errors made by designers, and that designer errors can be analysed by analysing user errors. Secondly, the number o f errors made provides very useful data when discussing the costs of ergonomics improvements. A distinction is made between several kinds of errors.
Several types of problem can occur in the interaction between intending passengers and a fare ticket vending machine. For instance, we have observed that:
(a)
• information presented by the system may not be noticed by the user;
Errors noticed and corrected before paying It was impossible to observe all the errors which the passengers corrected themselves. Very often there was no overt behaviour to indicate that an error had been made. However, it was possible to interpret from all kinds of additional information (head movements, hand movements, reaction times, hesitations) that a mistake had probably been made.
Results
• information necessary to the transaction, but not presented by the system, may not be available in users' long-term memory ; • users' tasks may not be clearly presented to them; • users may not perform all tasks in the correct order. These problems result in:
(b)
104
Errors noticed and corrected after paying Tickets that were returned by passengers for exchange were examined. For some of these, the reason for their return was known, but not all the returned tickets could be so analysed. The reason for this was that ticket window personnel who received these tickets
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
• giving up the operation, which happened for 13% of the first-time users (Hoonhout, 1985); • longer purchase time; • frustration; • wrongly ordered tickets.
Table 2: Errors that went unnoticed during operation of the TVM, made by passengers who were not in a hurry Proportion Estimated of percentage returned over all tickets tickets* Wrong class
9%
0"147%
Errors with single/return
13%
0"213%
Errors with the price
50%
0"819%
Wrong destination
18%
0"295%
Wanted only to change a banknote
4%
0"065%
Wanted a ticket for the next day
7%
0"114%
Total
100%
1"6%
n = 56
n = 122
* I t should be stressed that the types of error as a percentage of all the tickets sold by the TVMs are very approximate estimates based only on two wrong tickets in a sample of 122 tickets which were checked by the interviewers.
a 1.6% error rate, every day about 3000 passengers will buy a wrong ticket.
Fig. 3
(c)
The complexity of the system will increase and so probably will the percentage of errors; more destinations (from 80 now to 340 in the near future), more ticket types (now 'only' 10), more kinds of payment (more types of banknotes, plastic money), will all be incorporated.
(d)
As we will argue, the errors that did occur were induced by the design. In a redesign, based on an ergonomics analysis, the number of errors can be minimised.
The hidden camera was mounted on top of the luggage cart. The monitor, recorder and batteries were concealed in the luggage
Table 1: Samples taken by the techniques used Study technique
Sample size
Video observation of TVM users
428 (A'dam 34%, R'dam 36%, Utrecht 31%)
Interviews with TVM users
316 (A'dam 46%, R'dam 25%, Utrecht 28%)
In this paper we will confine ourselves to the passenger decision making problem only. The passenger had to make the following selections: (a)
Returned tickets: reason for return known
57 tickets
reason not known
299 tickets
Table 2 gives an overview of the purchasing errors that were made. The figure of 1.6% errors may seem very low, but the following points have to be considered: (a)
(b)
It is supposed that the results are quite conservative because the criteria for selecting passengers were rather rigorous: all passengers used the vending machines voluntarily, and passengers who were in a hurry (26%) did not answer the questionnaire and their tickets were not checked. In the future about 190 000 tickets a day will be sold by these kinds of machines. In other words, even at
'Choose one out of 80 destinations', accounting for 18% of all errors. Destination errors are perceptual errors. These kinds of errors will be reduced by improving the lay-out of the list of destinations.
We will not discuss, therefore, such issues as the routing problem - how the purchaser's tasks flow through the machine layout, although such perceptual problems are addressed elsewhere (Verhoef, 1987a). (b)
'Choose full or reduced price', accounting for 50% of all errors. These problems will be solved by presenting better information on the fare types.
(c)
'Choose single or return', accounting for 18% of all errors. We expect that this number of errors can be minimised by using a 'more buttons to press' system. This system will be discussed below.
(d)
'Choose first or second class', accounting for 9% of all errors.
To exemplify our approach further details will be given on this last kind of error.
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
105
Second class tickets could be bought by pressing one of the upper group of ticket type buttons. First class tickets could be obtained by pressing one of the lower group of buttons. (See Fig. 4.)
question was: "Do you remember the difference between these two rows?". Of 111 TVM users who were not in a hurry, 59% could not recall this difference.
Some passengers used the TVM without noticing that a class type selection had to be made. They bought a ticket o f the wrong class and noticed this before paying, after paying or not at all. These points will be discussed in more detail below.
(c)
Recall of class type selection
Although recall of information concerning a decision taken one or two minutes ago is not equivalent to having noticed and used that information, these figures suggest that many passengers may not have made a conscious class type selection.
When the passenger buys a ticket at the ticket window, only first class passengers mention the class type. Most passengers are not used to paying attention to the class type. However, when buying a ticket at a TVM the passenger has to pay attention to the class type selection. Several tests were made to see if the passengers could remember making this selection. (a)
The first way to test if the passengers had paid attention to the class type selection was by asking if they could remember the difference in colour coding. The first class buttons were coded green. The second class buttons were white, as were all the other buttons. The users were asked if they could remember if green buttons were present on the TVM. Only 14% could remember that there were green buttons and that these buttons were for first class tickets. 'No' was the reply of 41%, and 45% answered 'Don't know.'.
(b)
The second way to test if the passengers had paid attention to the class type selection was by presenting a colour picture of the TVM. On that picture the texts 'first class' and 'second class' were removed. The
Finally, the third way to test the attention paid to the class type selections was to ask passengers if there were first class tickets available. Of the 55 second class users who were not in a hurry, 16% did not remember that first class tickets were available and 2% answered 'not available'.
Wrong class type tickets bought For this investigation, 122 tickets of passengers who were not in a hurry were checked. Two passengers had bought the wrong ticket (1-6%). As the numbers are far too low to be able to draw reliable conclusions about the number of wrong class type tickets bought in particular, an additional analysis was made of 356 tickets which for some reason were returned by passengers. For 57 o f these tickets the reason for their return was known, and 9% changed their ticket because they bought a ticket of the wrong class type. Furthermore, of the 299 tickets which were returned and for which the reason for return was not known, the percentage of first class tickets was 13%. Since the TVMs in practice sell only 2% first class tickets, it is likely that 11% were returned because of a class type error. From these figures it is estimated that at least 0.147% of all passengers, who are not in a hurry, buy a ticket of the wrong class type.
Changing class before paying It was observed also that passengers changed the class of their ticket before paying. Many of them did so because they wanted to compare prices, which could easily be observed. These passengers pressed several buttons and then looked at the price each time. The latter behaviour was quite obvious because the price is presented somewhat to one side and rather large head movements have to be made to look at the price. If one disregards the 'price comparers' this leaves four passengers (1%)who changed class, probably because they noticed their class mistake. The performance of these passengers is described in detail:
Passenger 1 A young man, not looking like a first class passenger, walked to the TVM. It could clearly be seen that his eyes were directed to the fare type buttons. When he reached the TVM he immediately pressed 'first class, single, full price'. After 3 s he pressed his destination and looked at the price. His eyes went to the fare type buttons, his hand was in the first class area. 1 s later his hand went to the second class area and he immediately pressed a second class button.
Passenger 2
Fig. 4
The ticket type buttons on the T V M , giving choices of single full fare, single reduced fare, return full fare, return reduced fare or evening-only return, w i t h i n the choice of 1st or 2nd class
106
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
A young man pressed a destination at the b o t t o m of the destination field. 2 s later 'first class, single, reduced price' was pressed (first class buttons are also at the bottom). ½ s later he looked at the price and seemed astonished. Looking at the destination and fare type again he pressed 'Press for mistake', restarted and quickly bought a 'second class, single, reduced price' ticket.
Passenger 3 A middle-aged man studied the banknote slot for 3 s. After that, he immediately pressed a destination. 5 s later 'second class, single, reduced price' was pressed. Next he looked at the price. Then he went to the second class area with his eyes and his hand. After 3 s he went to the first class area and 1 s later he pressed 'first class, single, reduced price'. He looked at the price and about 4 s later he pressed 'Press for mistake'. Apparently at this moment he understood the operation of the TVM and intended to restart from the beginning. In this second effort he bought a 'first class, single, reduced price' ticket.
Fig. 6
A 'one button to press' matrix system
Passenger 4 A well dressed gentleman immediately pressed a destination at the bottom of the list. 3 s later he pressed 'first class, single, reduced price'. Then there were problems with the banknote acceptor. The TVM reset itself. The passenger again ordered a first class ticket. Again there were problems with the banknote and the passenger decided to try another TVM. However, he now ordered a second class ticket. Again he had problems with the banknote. The passenger pressed first class. The banknote was not accepted and the passenger left without a ticket. Passengers 1 and 2 obviously made class type mistakes. One cannot be sure for passengers 3 and 4, but they probably did as well. If so, 1% of the passengers made a class type error but corrected it before paying.
Discussion When one considers the perceptual and the mental activities which have to be performed using the TVM, then the errors described above are not surprising. First we will discuss several ways to design ticket vending machines which aid decision making. When using a 'one button to press' solution, the user presses only one button to indicate a combination of several selections. A one-button system can consist of a list in which for every element all selections are presented on, or near to, an associated button. On the TVM evaluated, this solution is used for the selection of the fare type (first/second class, single/return, whole day/ evening only return, full/reduced price). (A one-button machine for a coffee vending machine, another example, is shown in Fig. 5.) Another 'one button to press' system is the matrix type system. Here also for every combination of elements there is only one button. However, the information which belongs to this button is positioned elsewhere - for instance, at the start of a list or to the left margin and at the top of the matrix. In Fig. 6 the decision single/return is taken at the top and the decision concerning class is taken to the left. On the TVM evaluated a 'one button to press' is applied to the class type decision. When using a 'more buttons to press' solution, the user presses several buttons. For every decision they make a selection between the buttons of one particular group. Fig. 7 shows a redesign of the TVM using this principle for selection of fare type. From a psychological point of view the 'one button to press' system has many disadvantages, which will be of more importance when the system is complex (many decisions and much information).
Perceptual disadvantages of one-button system For users there are two perceptual disadvantages of a 'one button to press' system: (a) there is no need to go through the whole list and (b) the information cannot always be presented in the proximity of the controls. (a)
Fig. 5
A 'one button to press' list system for a coffee vending machine
As concluded elsewhere (Verhoef, 1987b),usersofa 'one button' system may read instructions and probably they will not go through the whole list of legends. One reason for not reading a whole list can be that the passenger is in a hurry; another reason can be that they do not expect a particular 'product' to be in the list. The latter reason could be concluded from the results of this research. Although an evening
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
107
(b)
Fig. 7
A 'more buttons to press' system on a redesign of the evaluated machine
return is about 40% cheaper than a day return, and although an evening return has already been in use for 20 years, of the passengers who bought a return ticket between 18.00 and 19.00 hours, 30% pressed the more expensive 'day return' button instead of the cheaper 'evening return' button. This latter button is positioned one or two buttons below the former one. In a 'more buttons to press' system there is no list and consequently the user cannot make a mistake due to not going through the whole list. (b)
In a complicated system where a 'one button to press' interface is used it is impossible to put all the necessary information on or very near the buttons. In such cases the visual angle between button and legend is increased and consequently the possibility of not noticing the legend increases as well (Cole and Hughes, 1984). In a 'more buttons to press' system there is less information for the number of buttons. Consequently it is not such a problem to place information on or adjacent to the buttons.
Cognitive di~dvantages of 'one button' system For the users, the cognitive disadvantages of a 'one button to press' system are that there is a load on short-term memory, that they have to apply a strategy which is mostly employed by experienced decision makers, and that they have to understand the system. (a)
108
A consequence of the frequent non-proximity of legends and buttons noted above is that when users do seek and note the relevant information there is a requirement to store this in short-term memory before selecting the relevant button. It can be argued that a prospective departing passenger should not be required to do this. In a 'more buttons to press' system, information can be presented with the buttons. There is no load on short-term memory and consequently a lower probability that the intbrmation will be forgotten.
AppliedErgonomics June 1988
Psychologists often distinguish between two strategies in perception and decision making. When using a sequential strategy, people take decisions one after the other. This strategy would perhaps be mostly employed by inexperienced decision makers for instance. children who read words or passengers who use a TVM. When using a parallel or a simulataneous strategy. people immediately and automatically identify an object or make a compound decision. This strategy is mostly employed by experienced decision makers for instance, adults reading words and staff selling tickets 8 h a day. As passengers are often stressed, it could be argued that a human-machine interlace which forces a sequential strategy is preferable. This choice is supported by the research of Wright (1977), who investigated the speed and accuracy of people using a variety of presentation formats for n umericat tables. She concluded that taking four binary decisions one after the other (tree-structure) is faster and less error prone than taking two binary decisions at the same time (matrix-structure). When one considers the decision-making strategies that people use, it is better to force departing passengers to take their decisions in a sequence. A 'more buttons to press' system is prelerable.
(c)
Finally, the understanding of the operation should be mentioned. Bartram (1984) summarised research concerning two-dimensional timetables. From several investigations it can be concluded that 60% of the population did not understand this way of presenting information. This could be put forward as an argument in favour of the 'more buttons to press' system.
Conclusion It is argued that both empirical data and theoretical analysis clearly indicate that a 'more buttons to press' system is preferable for users who will not become experts and who are stressed. For the users of the TVM evaluated this conclusion comes too late. The manufacturer is not able to change the machine. For technicians and ergonomists involved in designing these kinds of machines a lesson can be learned. The designers of the TVM have chosen the wrong alternative because the psychological disadvantages mentioned above (non-proximity of legends and controls, load on short-term memory, parallel decision strategy and need to understand the system) are less 'obvious' than one practical advantage of the 'one button to press' system that is, the lower work-load for the fingers because only one button has to be pressed.
Acknowledgement The author is indebted to colleagues in the department of Ergonomic Psychology at the University of Utrecht and to colleagues in the Ergonomic Advisory Group of Netherlands Railways for discussion, field observations and the construction of research instruments.
References and literature
Bartram, D. 1984, The presentation of information about bus services. In: Easterby, R., and Zwaga, H. Information Design, 2 9 9 - 3 2 0 .
Cole, B.L., and Hughes, P.K.
1984, A field trial of attention and search conspicuity. Human Factors, 26(3), 299-313. Easterby, R., and Zwaga, H. 1984, Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material. Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester. Hoonhout, J. 1985, De Autelca plaatskaatenautomaat een veldonderzoek in Utrecht-centraal. (The Autelca ticket vending machine. A field study in Utrecht Central Station): Utrecht, stage verslag Psychologisch Laboratorium Rij ksuniversiteit Utrecht. Oborne, D.J. 1986, Contemporary Ergonomics. Proc Erg Soc Ann Conf, Durham, England, 8-11 Apr. Taylor & Francis, London.
Verhoef, L.W.M. 1986, Using a ticket vending machine; A perceptual model. In: Oborne, DJ., Contemporary Ergonomics, 173-177. Verhoef, L.W.M. 1987a, Met gegruikersvriendelijk maken van centrall parkeerautomaten, Verkeerskunde, 38(3), 122-124.
Verhoef, L.W.M. 1987b, Teksten en plaatjes op automaten. (Text and pictures on vending machines.) Ti]dschrift voor Ergonomie, 12(4). Wright, P. 1977, Decision making as a factor in the ease of using numerical tables. Ergonomics, 20(1), 91-96.
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988
109
occu ,,o,,, i 1 AND HEALTH
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
CI|
IIKI Your CIS subscription gives you access to: •
CIS ABSTRACTS, a periodical providing an overview of the most important and useful occupational safety and health information published throughout the world;
•
annual cumulative subject and author indexes;
•
Copies of the publications abstracted, through the original document service of CIS (subject to the usual copyright conditions);
•
Special literature searches compiled by computer on request and supplemented, where appropriate, by data extracted from the most important and recent publications.
Subscriptions and the cost of additional CIS services can in most cases be paid in national currency or by means of UNESCO coupons. These costs and additional information on CIS publications and services are available from the CIS National Centres, the ILO Offices and the
International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre (CIS) International Labour Office CH 1211 Geneva 22 Switzerland
110
Applied Ergonomics
June 1988