Boeing right's a wrong: The flight attendant button | Hacker News Reader

Boeing right's a wrong: The flight attendant button

reuters.com

"rights". It was even right there in the headline of the article!

Yay.

Now can I have a similar button in a restaurant? So I don't have to have my conversation interrupted by people coming by to ask me how dinner is going, and do I can get issues (like running out of water) addressed promptly.

They're pretty standard here in Japan. They look (and work) like wireless doorbells. At first it can be hard to get used to the fact that the waiter won't come over until you've pushed the button but after a while you really start to appreciate it.

Also, in the US I always felt slightly guilty calling a waiter over as if I'm calling him out on not doing his job. Here, if they don't have the doorbell thingy it's expected that you'll shout すみません！ when you're ready to order.

The other major design issue with airplanes is putting the buttons on a remote and then jamming it into the armrest next to your butt so you can accidentally hit it when you're sleeping or shifting around. It's the airplane equivalent of pocket dialing.

Japan-themed restaurants in London too, like Yo! Sushi.

A restaurant the runs like an Amazon warehouse? Where the staff are controlled by a little robotic handset.

"turn left and pick up credit card terminal. Then go to table 32." "say: 'how was your food today sir?'

Sounds fucking awful even if it does get you 10s faster service.

You basically just described Manna: http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Welcome to The Culture.. er.. I mean The Australia Project.

I once read a poorly-written sci fi based on that exact premise. The system was called "Manna".

Come on, it wasn't that badly written, and the ideas and insight more than made up for it. I'd definitely recommend it.

Agreed, it was pretty good.

Of course once I read it, I started to wonder if I could code mana.

The author has already patented the idea.

Many restaurants in China do in fact have such a set of buttons at every table. As an added optimization, wait staff there typically use some kind of mobile devices to order food instead of using paper. I haven't seen many other countries, but I'm surprised both of these innovations aren't more prevalent here in the States.

I have seen several restaurants in Germany try those mobile gizmos but they tend to disappear after a short time: Too slow, too unflexible. Their UI is just horrible as soon as customized orders come up. Well, their UI is probably horrible in general but extra horrible when you leave the path.

As for buttons, why not follow Larry David's lead and put a bell on every table?

Slowness of the interface isn't really a huge problem, because it can still speed up service and improve efficiency.

Just last week I was sitting at a terrace located a little ways away from the restaurant itself. The waitress punched in our drink orders, but we stopped her from turning around and asked her about the specials. Our beers arrived before she finished describing them.

This place had one order-taker and one or two 'runners' who delivered and bussed. Increasing latency while taking orders isn't nice... but in this case it completely obliterated message delivery time (and a whole lot of legwork).

I guess that's the problem. The restaurants I like are rather small. They have only two or so people. I guess there is apoint when the restaurant is large enough when those mobile devices pay off.

Most restaurants in the US aren't as big as some of the chinese restaurants I've been to. The cost/benefit of having a mobile device for each waiter rather than a waiter station with a terminal would be minuscule. One thing some of the busier restaurants are doing is use pagers when there is a waiting list.

That's what you get when designers feel obliged to uniformize a user interface, thus, that buttons must look very alike, irrespective of their purpose, and be placed in a group.

I bet quite a few websites and softwares have similar problems.

Bad design comes in many ways, mainly along the two axis of aesthetics and relevancy. This is a great example where the designer dismissed relevancy to improve aesthetics easily.

You've seen this in many average products, but I feel I have to insist that it is not due to design in general, but more due to the average designer lacking the talent to solve the two axis equation properly.

Aircraft must be the antithesis to Agile work and continuous iteration. It's a completely different mindset to anything I've done. Imagine it: 'I pushed a new flight yoke to 737 v2.199. It crashed so I've fixed the bug in v2.200. '

It depends on the type of aircraft, it's intended purpose, and how mature the design is. My current work involves developmental testing of aircraft, and one of the programs I'm working on is using spiral development. The iteration isn't continuous, and it's not nearly as fast as software, but it's pretty fast compared to other programs.

Also, even the more stable and mature aircraft designs get relatively frequent software updates, and there is a lot of software in aircraft these days. The interesting part is where the faster iteration process of software development meets the slower process of aircraft development. The software developers are constantly iterating just like you would expect them to, and then every so often spin off a version for release on the side. That release version goes through extensive testing (mostly regression testing to make sure nothing that used to work is now broken) before it ever makes it onto an aircraft. Usually a few fixes are required as well. While all of that is happening, there are still people working on the next version.

I have always wondered why it doesn't work like this: Press the button once to call. Press it again to cancel the call (if it was pressed by mistake).

With a firmware update, this solution can even be retro-fitted to existing planes.

On most planes I've flown on that is exactly how it works. The flight attendant comes by and presses it again when he gets to the row.

Some others have call and cancel buttons separately in either remote controls or armrest built controls.

They could also stick a red sticker around the press-to-call button to mark it as being different.

And to turn the light on you could push the light itself.

The last time I was on a plane, I remember there being a "cancel call attendant" near the "call attendant" button on the remote. I believe that was on a 747.

It's (still) in an awkward position for some of the people who might need it the most. My elderly mother, for example, doesn't have the range of motion in her arms to reach up that high.

Wow. Interesting that I was downvoted. I wonder why?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com