Usability

Complex vs. Simple Interfaces: Why I Dislike uWink

Posted by Patrick Neeman at 9:00 am

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine about automation and touch screens (I think something along the lines of a Microsoft Surface was on CSI: Long Beach Miami last night, close to that nifty technology in Minority Report), and the discussion about ordering food at restaurants came up.

She said something that was translated into, “you know, wouldn’t it be cool if there were touch screens to order food at restaurants.” At that point, I went off on a rant.

There are a few cases that I can think of where technology has improved customer service. Recordings starting the 411 process on most phone directories is one, some directory operations at government operations another, but for the most part, there’s nothing better than a human being when fuzzy logic is needed, or the questions undefined, like, “can I have my burger medium rare?” Self-checkout systems are gathering adoption momentum at supermarkets, but there’s always going to be a certain market segment that’s going to want to talk to Sally the checker.

Here’s why I think that touch screens will always have a low adoption rate at restaurants.

If it takes noticably longer for a computer to perform the task than a person, user adoption will never happen.

I ate at one of those uWink restaraunts, and they have touch screens at every table. You can order food, drinks, almost everything to order. The hope is that the server just brings it out to you.

The problem?

It takes forever to order.

We spent over 10 minutes trying to figure out the interface. That’s about 7 minutes longer than if a server comes over with a piece of paper, and writes down the order. By the time that server could have returned with my beer, we were still entering our order.

Anything that stands in the way of my beer getting to me quicker is a bad thing.

The technology is too expensive.

Each of those stations costs about $1000. Mutliply that by 40 tables in a restaurant, plus replacement costs for sticky fingers, crashed hard-drives, whatever. Do you think most restaurant owners want to spend an extra $100,000 in technology costs on top of the environmental design of the restaurant? And what happens when the system goes down?

Owners love to replace employees with computers when it makes sense financials. It makes sense for ATMs, because they’re open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without having to take a coffee break. But replicating the same technology at multiple stations isn’t the same thing.

People just want to be taken care of. 

Self-service technology has come along way, from support forums on most electronic websites to banking at ATMs and online (I still don’t understand why ATM service fees are so high when it’s cheaper for banks to do business that way instead of having human intervention, but that’s another rant). But in a few situations, people just want to have a sense of getting valu, for their money. Using a touch screen at a restaurant isn’t getting value for my money, but having a server wearing a tie is.

Your thoughts?

Similar Posts You Might Like

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Responses to “Complex vs. Simple Interfaces: Why I Dislike uWink”

fritzboyle | September 25th, 2008 00:59

I often need to reign myself in (before my wife does) when I get over excited about new technology and overlook the fact that we already have a system that works. Just because the big espresso machine makes fancy sounds and bubbles and has LED readouts doesn’t mean that the latte from my trusty french press tastes any worse (but it costs less, takes up less room and I get my java faster). Bravo to you for pointing out that “cool” technology doesn’t always make business sense, especially if it isn’t what the customer really wants anyway. If we are ever able to create sentient technology that can truly deal with the fuzzy logic that comes so easily to humans, our customer service industry will become something else we don’t need humans for. The danger is that we may continue to lose that direct human interaction completely. The more we find ways to replace interpersonal communication, the more we are at risk of isolation and despair.

Andrej | October 6th, 2008 02:50

I think your last heading sums it up perfectly:
“People just want to be taken care of”

No matter how advanced any new technology is or how much time something may save or how easier something has become, in most cases it comes down to: does it make you feel good? Do you miss something?

When face-to-face interaction becomes more and more something you have to pay for because of automated answering machines, that don’t understand you, automated online purchasing or even ordering food, the user might keep more money in his pocket however a great satisfying experience it won’t become in the long run.

And Amazon is trying very hard to avoid you from thinking you are alone on their site. You have recommendations, ratings, what other people bought when watching this item. It is almost as being taken care of…