Hacker News Reader

Comment by HarrietJones | Hacker News Reader

I've been "arguing" with people here as to what a better interface would look like, and it's interesting at how much disagreement there is. A lot (like too many) seem to think adding a yes/no dialog box would make things better, but it's well known users don't read dialog boxes.

My preference would be a mcDonald's menu style UI, showing the text that will be sent in a 6x5 grid of buttons. Easy to press; easy to see what you're sending; no funky "are you sure" messages that'll be auto-clicked.

View on HN

I would argue for a menu like this: https://twitter.com/iamlucamilan/status/953201356545974272

Combined with a confirmation dialog like this: https://twitter.com/Ajedi32/status/953303114995597312

Very much agree with the redesign of the page. Simple, much better.

The confirmation box however might be dangerous:

If employee panics they might easily fail to get that right resulting in a failure to warn in time.

> If employee panics they might easily fail to get that right resulting in a failure to warn in time.

It's not like the box goes away. You have plenty of time to fix your typing. Not only that, but bad UI is a bad UI problem. Not being able to operate a system correctly under stress is a problem often solved with a combination of tactics, including UI, but also stress management, response, etc.

People who operate ballistic missile systems, defense systems, etc. on a daily basis are pretty well versed with how to handle the situation from a stress level. Anyone sitting behind an Iron Dome console is probably pretty cool under high stress in this exact situation.

> You have plenty of time to fix your typing.

By the time you are aware of an incoming icbm I guess every second matter to save as many lives as possible.

> Not being able to operate a system correctly under stress is a problem often solved with a combination of tactics, including UI...

I think we actually agree. I'm not saying training isn't really important. I'm just saying that reading more than one paragraph then typing (including case sensitive text) might be hard when you fear an actual icbm.

I don't agree, for critical actions such as this it needs some level of protection that can be handled by trained professionals. e.g. You do not want to make it easy to send a nuclear bomb, but you also need to make sure that if there's ever a need for it, it can be done quickly by trained professionals.

It doesn't even need that. It should start by grouping the options by severity - separate the real alerts from the test alerts via section headers and you solve 99% of the problem.

Indeed - something like this [1]. There's scope for further improvements, but this alone would be a vast improvement.

Given the cost of a mis-click, I'd also implement a Github-style confirmation box that can't just be subconciously clicked-through ("To confirm that you wish to send a PACOM Alert, type 'pacom alert'").

[1]: https://twitter.com/iamlucamilan/status/953201356545974272

My concern with severity groups is you have users and managers deciding which messages go in which severity groups. That ignores the impact of politics and short termism on the decision making process. (e.g. How severe is a missing child?). Before you know it, everything will be in severe, and your users will be asking for a "really, really severe" category.

Makes sense, but I would hope even the most inept manager could recognize that "AMBER Alert" and "Nuclear Annihilation Imminent" are different degrees of severity.

I think kemitche was saying was they would have two groups. One would be "Test Alerts" and the other would be "Real Alerts" not that we needed to have a philosophical break down of alerts by severity. severity may have not been the best word but He did explain his definition in the next few words.

The major problem with the UI is that various types of tests and actual alerts are displayed together on one list.

The system should start with two options: test vs. real alert, which open up separate menus. Those menus should be visually distinct (e.g., different color background, options for former all end in (TEST)".

ISTM there should be a phrase they have to type in that's specific to each option. Those "are you sure? [y] [n]", "are you _really_ sure? [y] [n]" dialog boxes are easy to blindly click through. Typing is a physical action. Or, even better—have it require _two_ employees.

Personally I'd go for a radiobutton list, with a submit button. That way there's time to double-check your selection. Furthermore the real alert should probably pop up a bright red page with flashing warning lights and siren sounds indicating that the user is entering a serious situation.

This all is assuming that falsely sending a test alert is no big deal.

I vote for a single big red button in a translucent plastic case hung on the wall.

The problem in this particular case is that almost anything would be better. Probably the only thing to make this worse would be to also mislabel things.

Which is why there are plenty ideas for a better design.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com