1. Not understanding the nature of the Internet.  Too often, design teams think of the Internet as a pushing media such as television or radio. Users’ behavior on the Internet is different than when they are reading books or newspapers, listening to the radio or watching television. For example, when browsing, users have goals and look for information.  If they don’t find what they are looking for, they will leave the page after 8 to 12 seconds.  Users scan web pages.  They don’t read.  If something looks like an ad, they will rapidly look someplace else.
2. Forcing users to guess what is clickable or not.  Design teams expect that users will figure out what will be clickable on their page.   This is not the case.  In most cases browsing is non-mandatory and users do not put their full attention on a website.  In this context, it is very likely that they will not click on a non-visible link even if they understand that a cursor changing from an arrow to a hand means a clickable region. Blue underline hyperlinks are the most effective.  Users perceive such hyperlinks 50 milliseconds faster.   In the world of limited attention resources, loosing 50 milliseconds of user attention means leaving money on the table
3. Not understanding the interactive aspect of the Internet.  Too many design teams see web pages as a static entity.  They have design meetings with color printouts of web pages laid out on a table.  They get clients or management to sign off on a project with static pages.  When people talk about a book, they don’t talk about the front page but rather about the story.  Discussing interaction issues with static pages is like talking only about the front page of a book.  Since interaction is dynamic, this process results in poor design decisions where too much emphasis is put on superficial aspects, such as the look.  Never forget: user interaction with web site cannot be describe, written or verbalized, it can only be observe.
4. Using ads in the same way they are used in traditional media.  Internet is a goal-driven media with very limited user attention.  The bandwidth of user attention is similar the one we have when looking at a billboard on the highway: a few seconds.  Worse, on the Internet, users are not captive but in control of the interaction.  This does not leave much room to be pushing ads.  The only effective way to do that is to position related items at the right time and place.  This requires designers to understand the probable sequence of users’ goals (the path of attention) and to position related items for cross-sale or up-sale in the form of links inside the useful field of view (5-7 cm diameter on a screen).
5. Copying others.  Too often, designers start with the designs of others as the basis for their own design.  The reasoning is that because other companies use a certain approach, it must be good.  This lazy way of solving problems often results in solutions that do not solve the target user problems.  Instead, the focus should always be on solving the target user problems first.  Once the design team has a clear picture of the users and their problems, and only then, can they take a look at how others and the competition address those issues.
6. Cluttering pages with too much information. On home pages and landing pages, user attention is 8 to 12 seconds and reading speed is about 3 words per seconds.  This corresponds to a total of about 25 to 35 words.  The useful field of view is about 5-7 cm, leaving a space of about 4 to 5 groupings on a web page.   When reading a list, users abandon after 5 to 7 items unless the lists are organized in alphabetical or numerical order. 
7. No back button. Users expect to be able to use the browser’s back button.  There are so many websites that do not permit the use of a back button.  Often, IT (Information Technology) people bring security issues as a reason for the lack of a back button, but the fact is that its incorporation requires them to do more work.  Who should do the work, your millions of users or the programmers?
8. No concise writing.  On the web, users are not fully attentive and tend to scan a page.  This means that the comprehension capability of a user with a college degree will be equivalent to that of a user with a fifth grade education.  The writing must be simple, short and right to the point.  To achieve this goal, designers must reduce the quantity of text by 50% in the first review and reduce it again by 50% in the second review.  The text must be tested many times for clarity.
9. Pop-ups. They are annoying, disruptive and do not provide browser navigation capability.  In addition, they cannot easily be printed and are often blocked by pop-up blockers.
10. Small font size. This is the most commonly violated rule.  All sites should provide readable fonts.  With a contrast of 100%, the font size must be equal to 1/200th the distance of reading.  On a computer screen, this means a size of about 3.2 mm.  For a standard font such as Arial or Verdana, it is about 11 points.

1. Experts cannot assess terminology choice and evaluate task compatibility. Terminology and task compatibility account for the majority of usability problems. To my knowledge, the only effective approach to evaluate terminology and task compatibility is through usability testing and field study.
2. The importance of heuristic (guidelines) depends of the context of use. For example, is the user going their once in a lifetime? Or is he a power user going there all the time on a mandatory basis.

As I always do, I complied telling the client I will do heuristic evaluation with the help of informal usability testing instead of pure heuristic evaluation. That way, I don’t loose time explaining clients why they are wrong. I asked a few colleagues or friends to act as subjects for the informal usability testing who could be representative of the audience.

Following the evaluation, I found the design of the portal was poor but I was not surprised, I have often seen bad design throughout my consulting practice. As usual, most usability problems were associated with confusing wording, task compatibility issues and funky use of interaction techniques. Up to now nothing unusual. I went on presenting my findings. But, while presenting, the client constantly interrupted me saying this or that; we cannot change it because it is a decision from the upper management. In some cases the minister himself got involved in the design choices.

Only later, after the formal usability testing where all users failed on all tasks, I got the client to admit the design was poor. At that point they had no choice but accept my recommendations. This situation is painful because it places the management in a bad position. They were involved in poor design decisions.

More recently, a client in the airline industry told me he does not want to hear about usability because everybody has a different opinion. They often end up asking the CEO to decide. Again, I will have a very challenging consulting project because it might show the CEO made the wrong decision. Of course, I will try to find ways around it but nevertheless, it is not easy.

For many organizations, design (user interface design, user requirement, and functional specifications) is a painstaking process involving fierce battle between stakeholders. When they do not agree, they escalate to upper management for decision.

Escalating design decision that otherwise should be taken by the design team is a sure recipe for politics. If decisions are wrong, it will be uncovered sooner or later. Then, you will be in serious trouble.

How to prevent this?
If you’re an executive, never get yourself involved in detailed design aspect. Keep yourself at the goal level and let your team design solutions. If your team tries to get you involved in design deadlock, it is because they have not done their homework or they lack expertise. Your project manager might say there is a deadlock; he needs your help to move forward. He will try to reassure you by saying he will fix the usability issues later. Don’t believe that, it will never happen and you will get stuck with a poor design for years. Stress it to your team you don’t care if the screens are blue, white or yellow as long as users were able to achieve their goals rapidly, without hesitation and errors. Get an external usability company to evaluate the design of your internal team so you will get an objective assessment of the design. Don’t worry about the susceptibility of your people, there is an easy way to manage that. If you don’t show leadership, you risk to be stuck with poor design for years if not forever.

Never forget, usability equals productivity. The first reason why we use technology is to improve productivity, so good design is extremely important.

If you are member of a project team, base your design decision on facts instead of opinion. How? Learn usability best practices, build a prototype and test your design with users with usability testing. If you do not have this expertise, don’t hesitate, get and external consultant in usability.

The current version at the financial institution is a Windows based GUI (graphical application based). The proposed version was totally web based. After a business review that included a field study and cognitive analysis, I discovered that both the current and the new software didn’t meet the business needs. In fact the current version required lot of manual entries and was highly error prone while the new version would not address those issues and would, in addition, require three times more user action.

I soon made my client aware of this. The project manager, who is from the information technology department, reacted by saying the project scope is to make the transition, respect deadlines and budget. Meaning he does not want to change the plan. Information technology department even contested my findings and required me to demonstrate the facts again. After revisiting my findings they realized that the situation was even worst than they expected it. In the end, the financial institution followed my recommendations because the facts were rock solid and we found a solution that would integrate existing technology already in use at the financial institution.

Sounds familiar? Many IT (Information technology) projects are planned and scoped before analysis or field study is done. In many instances, the justification is a technology replacement or and upgrade. Over the last twenty years I devoted my consulting practice on project turnaround and I encountered hundreds of similar situations.
Last year I attended a three day PMI (Project Management Institute) training camp. What amazed me the most was the widespread acceptance by the PMI community of the irony of planning and estimation for software projects.
Here is the problem:

To estimate a project, you must first know the amount of work required to complete the project. To build two (2) kms of road will require twice as much work than building one (1) km.
In a software project, the amount of work is defined by what (the functions) you will build. You will have a good idea of the functions you will build after the functional specification phase. Since the functional specification is usually done after the planning and estimation, you get the information you need to estimate the project after the project is started. It is a bit like if you have to plan and budget the medical treatment before the diagnostic is done.

I can assure you that in physics, my previous career, you would get fired or put aside fairly fast if you come up with something like this.

What is more, estimation at the planning stage is guesswork. In PMI methodology, they mention arcane techniques such a point of function method or historical data or some other combinations but again, this is, in my view, a sophisticated cover up for guesswork. Yes, there are calculation methods but the input assumptions are based on human judgment (guess). Those judgments vary from one person to another. Often, the estimator does not have any ideas about the business and operations. For example, in the Government of Quebec, software architects estimate after meeting user’s representatives that previously met business analysts who never met end-users.

Typically, once estimations are done, budget, scope and timetables are established. The board approves the budget, people are hired and project execution begins. If you discover in the course of the project that real business needs differ from what you planned, the story above is repeated. The project manager will tell you it is out of scope. Or he might say your new findings could be filed as change at the end of the project. Remember, he is hired to execute the plan even if proven wrong. Isn’t he?

There are solutions:

1. Do you ask yourself if the application you are using (email, office application etc) is in Java, PHP, C Sharp, etc? Most of us will answer “I don’t care”. In fact, 100% of the user experience (UX) is provided by the user interface (UI). So why not start the project by the end. Why not design and test the user interface before the project is established and a budget is set. Then you will know what to build.
2. Look at other industries, such as automotive or aerospace. They all start by verifying their biggest risks first. When Airbus or Boeing want to develop a new airplane, they build a large-scale model, display it at Bourget salon and take orders even if the plane does not exist. If there is not enough order, they will cancel the project. Car manufacturers, design clay models, present those models in a show room to verify if the client will buy it. Then they will plan production. So both automotive and aerospace start by the end.
3. Remove red tape and bureaucracy. Allow direct communication between developers and users
4. Invest in continuous business analysis processes where field study (ethnographic study) is part of the culture. To my knowledge, the best approach to do business analysis is the cognitive approach.
5. Budget business analysis and diagnosis throughout the operation on a continuous basis.
6. When executing verify risk by simulation, experimentation or calculation.
7. Allow information to circulate though project by keeping project size small

This graph shows the evolution of George W. Bush’s approval rating over time. His approval rating rose to 68% in March 2003, at the beginning of the Iraq war, and declined steadily after that. It is now at 26%. Not only did the war not proceed the way he had told people but there is a growing number of Americans questioning the idea of going to Iraq in the first place.

How to lead?
First: be right
No matter how good you are at executing and communicating, and how much charisma and resolution you have, if you are wrong, you will fail. Churchill was resolved but he was right. In the hiking story above, the leader was sure of himself but wrong. He overestimated how lost we were.
To be right, you need facts.
In real life, we do not know with certainty the actual situation. In the context of uncertainty (most real life situations), the more certain you are the more likely you will be wrong. Facts are even more important in uncertain situations. Why? What you know and what don’t know are facts. ”I am lost in the forest” is a fact. If the leader in the hiking story would have admitted the true level of uncertainty about how lost we were, he could have proposed a series of tests. For example, he could have propose a short walk in a different direction to gather more facts about the current location. A negative result would then have been seen as new information on where not to go instead.
Second: Communicate facts (reason for change)
It is very difficult to convince people to change something if they are not convinced about what the problems are and their urgency, see John Kotter. Two economists might disagree even if they use the same economic model. By separating fact from opinion, we might understand the input or assumption and understand why those economists disagree. Whenever you make a decision where people must follow your lead, facts are the essence of getting people agreeing on the current situation and the course of action.
In business transformation (change Management), facts are more than data “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.” (Sign hanging in Albert Einstein’s office at Princeton), facts are like an observable situation that can be described and shared.

Once facts are gathered and separated from opinion, they can be shared during working sessions. Those sessions permit the group to agree on problems. Consequently, it will be much easier to get the group to agree on a course of action once they have agreed on the problems. During those working sessions, the focus is first on the current situation, not the course of action. Ensure everybody that they are respected and never discard people expressing bad news (don’t shoot the messenger). Often they might be your best source of facts. To ensure the free flow of information, remove red tape, formal presentation and favor a more informal organization with a high degree of respect, see ‘‘The Death to Bureaucracy” from Jack Welch.
Third: gather more facts
Often, you need to collect more facts. Creativity and imagination are required to gather facts. For example, in the above story, a series of short walks in different directions is an approach to gather more facts on the current location. Gathering facts is boiled down to: observation, experiment, calculation and simulation. Fact gathering is not a consensus driven process. You are collecting evidence. Never rely on opinion. Humans are biased and opinions rarely correlate with facts.
In business transformation initiative, the best sources of fact are field studies. The field is rich and wild; people develop very sophisticated tactics in real work environment. Knowledge lies in the field, not in meeting rooms. The worst source of facts is the traditional hierarchy : line manager, director and executive. Facts gathered through this path will surely be altered, trimmed down or hidden.
Fourth: prevent bias
Facts may be distorted. When relying on human sources, multiple independent sources are required. Be careful with surveys or focus groups, they do not gather facts but opinions. They provide the tip of an iceberg. Avoid group meetings. Groups are only good to solve problems, to brainstorm or share information.
Objectivity does not exist; you have to cope with that.
No matter how good the information is, if you are biased, or already convinced of the answer, you are in danger. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or deny the truth of a claim, discard evidence or look for evidence that confirms a preconceived idea (confirmation bias). In the hiking story, the guy seemed so sure of himself that we trusted him even if the direction he gave did not ring a bell to us.
To reduce bias, observe yourself to see if you feel emotional. You need to detach yourself. It is well known that a lawyer should never defend himself or a medical doctor should never diagnose himself. Ask different persons in a one on one session to interpret facts. Don’t give them your thoughts. Observe the difference in their interpretation. Try to think as fresh as you can. Gather all facts prior to a decision. In order to avoid bias, good investigators will collect evidence and then conclude. After all this work, let the decision emerge naturally. If you still do not feel not comfortable, your instinct will tells you there is something wrong, listen to it. It means there are still uncertainties that you have to work with, or simply wait.
The four steps described here relate to making the right decision and communicating that decision (vision) to a group of people. Once you have the right direction and a group of people agreeing with you on the course of action, executing change is a piece of cake.
Leading people in the right direction requires hard work, time, experience and wisdom. You can get there faster by practicing the right thing. For more on the subject, I suggest reading John Kotter on this subject and “Engineering psychology” by Christopher Wickens.

Say a lot with less!

2. Avoid having wrong design goals. For example minimizing the number of clicks. To ensure having the proper design goals, know the users, their goals and the context of use. If users are going to your site once in a while on a non-mandatory basis (online banking, news, shopping…), you have to treat them as a novice. They have to understand instantly how to use the site. In this context, it is preferable having a few more clicks and pages with less information. On the other hand, for power user, speed is more important. In this context, less actions, pages and clicks are more important.

3. Do few things and do them well. For example for an e-commerce site, ease of finding the product, having the right information on the product and trust are the key success factors. For a search engine, ease of entering queries, speed and pertinence are the key success factors. Don’t spread your energy on other features unless you master your key success factors better than any others.

4. Design for user limited attention. On the web, many users have little patience and do many things at the same time (they might go on your site while at work). Within 10 seconds, they will abandon if they don’t find what they are looking for. Since the reading speed is about 200 words per minute, you can provide a maximum of 35 words to read before a user abandons. So minimize the quantity of text. Contrary to TV where the full screen is in use, on a computer, only a small portion of the screen is viewed simultaneously (roughly 6 to 7 cm diameter). This is due to the useful field of view, which corresponds to the subtended angle of the fovea vision. Information must be grouped within this diameter. That’s why banners are so ineffective. For most page layout you can afford about 4 to 5 groups. Avoid long lists of items, users read only the first few items at the top of the list. Organize according to the natural eye path. Remember users start from the top left corner, go to the center and if they don’t find what they are looking for, then they try to go to the left expecting a menu. For this reason, avoid menus on the right. The bottom right is the worst real estate of a page.

This sketch show the typical eye pattern on a web page.

5. Avoid relying on branding. Users do not remember seeing your ads, brochure and other corporate information. Keep your brand simple and name your entire product line in relation to a user goal. If you already have a brand for a product, provide a prompt matching the user goal. This also help SEO (Search Engine Optimization). For the same reason, you don’t need to be that consistent between corporate brochure and web site.

6. Users don’t read, they scan. Users will scan text and when they find something that is likely to meet their goals, they click on it. You better to expect that users won’t read your text. A good approach is to provide just a list of hyperlinks with a large font. You can also provide a small description with a maximum of 15 words with smaller lighter font under the hyperlink. This technique is ideal for a newsletter. Users will scan the list, if they are interested, they will click on it and read the description under it.

7. Ensure users understand your text and graphics. At least 50 % of the usability problems are related to the wrong choice terminology. Users get easily confused between concepts such as events and news, schedule and time table…. Minimize the number of concepts. Don’t worry, users mix apples and oranges. Test and test again your site with real users to find the right terminology.

8. Don’t reinvent the wheel. Use basic web controls. You don’t need to create complex navigation structure. A simple menu and the browser’s back and forward button are Ok for most of the cases. Once users have a successful behavior, they continue to us it for other goals. For example, if they find something through the menu, they will try this method again for another goal. Limit your design to familiar controls. Use straight hyperlinks to select a page. You will make more money with blue underlined hyperlinks because the users’ reaction time is about 30 ms less.

9. Use readable font. If users find the information and can’t read it, it’s zero. Why using small fonts? If your fonts are too small, only younger users will be able to read it. With the right size, everybody will be able to read it. Fonts must have a size equal to 1/200th the distance of reading for proper readability. On a computer screen, fonts must be at least 3 mm. For example MS Sans Serif or Verdana at a minimum of 11 points are Ok. Font adjustment controls don’t work because most users that would need them never use them. Those having serious reading problems already have special adjustments on their browser.

10. Be permissive to errors. Users make errors. The best way to manage errors is to allow them. For example, be permissive to various date formats. On the other hand, if users make errors, ensure proper detection, recovery and simple messages. Messages must have two items: the status and the corrective action.

For more information , you should check the Top 10 Web Design Mistakes of 2003 from Jacob Nielsen

On this Montreal picture, you can barely see the streets signs.

Montreal street names are poorly located and the font size is way too small.
How many car accidents happened as a result of this?
I wonder why city planners do not seem to known the law of font size.
n Montreal, this rule is violated everywhere: billboard signs, parking signs, print documents, etc.
How the heck can someone read the Montreal street signs?
What should be the font size for normal readability?

The answer is: 2 X Tan (0.3 degrees/2) X reading distance

The angle that provides good readability for 95% of the people is 0.3 degrees. For a reader at a distance of 60 cm it results in a font size of 3 mm. For a reader at 50 meters, it is 25 cm or one foot. A good approximation is roughly 1/200 of the distance. Montreal city road planners should learn from SanFrancisco.

On this picture, you can see there is a much bigger Mason street sign on a green background.
Note that this sign has been added over the small one.
The legibility rules are respected: Mix and San Serif fonts on green background and a size above one foot enough for 50 meters distance readability.

“Whitman says: “Despite its controversial reputation, nuclear is efficient and reliable.” Yet since 1950 there have been 20 nuclear accidents. One was major (on Mar. 28, 1979, at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor) and one catastrophic (on Apr. 26, 1986, at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant). How can we say a major nuclear accident will not happen again?

Here’s the reality: Accidents occur because humans make errors. Those errors can be hidden at the design, maintenance, management, operation, and even the regulation level. In addition, there are conditions that increase the likelihood of human error such as fatigue, stress, attention and memory overload. The risk of another catastrophic nuclear accident exists. While the risk is low, the consequences could be disastrous.

You have to ask yourself: On what do you want to bet your future?”

The levels at which impacts of change are major are not understood while the levels at which impacts are minor are easily understood.

Why?

Most managers believe people resist change because humans have a natural desire to keep the status quo. They believe that resistance to change is a defense mechanism caused by frustration and anxiety. With this diagnostic, executives belief that good change leadership comes with a strong message from the top, effective communication plan, mandatory training and sometimes, removing undesirable parties that are labeled as strong change resistant.
In fact, Individuals aren’t really resisting the change, but rather resist the loss of status, loss of pay, or fear they will not be able to achieve the same level of performance. While causes of losses of pay or statuses are visible, causes impacting performance involve factors at the unconscious level that are difficult to communicate.
We observe that in many business transformation initiatives those fears were justified. New processes would not permit anymore efficient tactics evolved over years of trial and errors.
How can we distinguish between fear and facts?
First, let’s look at the nature of change in human work, the impact of business transformation initiatives and to finish, what to do about it.

Why change is difficult in work setting?

Change happens on an individual and organizational basis. Change is everywhere: mergers, new policies, new technology, new management . . .
Employees resist change because they have to learn something new. They fear the unknown future and their ability to perform.
The unknown comes from subtle and nonverbal aspects of human work that are difficult to communicate.
The nature of work
Jens Rasmussen observed that human work is either at: the skill level, rule-based level or knowledge level. Don Norman also came to the same conclusion.
When driving a car, turning the wheels is at the skill level while letting the other car passes at the intersection is at the rule-based level. Deciding to choose a route over another one is the knowledge level.
In addition, we observe that there is a fourth level, usually called “meta-cognition” but I prefer to use “wisdom”, which involves self-awareness about our own limitation. For example, if tired or drunk, hopefully, we might decide not to drive.
Any human activity: tasks, sport, arts or leisure lies within those levels.

The impacts of change

Changing something at the knowledge level is relatively easy. If someone shows you a better route to go somewhere, you only need to understand the advantage and good indications and voila, you can execute the change.
At the rule-based level, it is a bit more difficult but manageable. For example, if the state decides to change the law and permit right turn on red light, an action previously forbidden, at first you need to pay a little bit more attention to apply the new rule. You may even forget to apply it but with little time and patience, turning on the red light will become natural.
The real challenge is at the skill level. Let’s say the car manufacturer decides to invert the position of the break pedal and gas pedal. It will take you months of practice and you might make many errors that might event kill you. Change will be very difficult to accept and you might express a high degree of frustration. You will certainly not use this car if you have the choice.
Those examples show that: efforts to execute a change at the skill level are much higher than at the rule-based or knowledge based level. The level of energy required is dependent of the level of work affected by change: being at the skill, rule-based or knowledge based level.
Convincing a golfer to change his swing is a much more difficult challenge than convincing him to change club number to reach the green. It requires much more energy to acquire the new swing.
The proposed law of change:

“The effort to execute change will be equal to the amount of energy required to execute the same level of performance.”
“The amount of energy required to change is the highest at the lowest level of wok affected”. Skill based being the lowest level while knowledge based being the highest level.

Business Transformation

In business transformation initiatives, people only understand impact of change at the knowledge and rule-based level but not the ones at the skill level. Skill level is mostly non-verbal and unconscious.
For example, during a word processing task, users might select backspace to delete few letters or they might select the mouse to delete a paragraph. The choice is usually unconscious. This is a good example of a natural way humans optimize energy. According to the keystroke model, it takes 1.2 seconds to delete 6 letters with backspace and it takes 2.6 seconds with the mouse.
Now, let’s say a vendor convinces management to adopt a new word processor. While nicer and with more features, it doesn’t permit using backspace anymore. It is likely that this subtle change would be unnoticed even during a demonstration. Only after implementation employees will complain and express their frustration. As good performers, employees will be frustrated because they cannot achieve the same level of performance. They might even express anger.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. In fact, in a real work setting there is a myriad of such optimizations tactics: being a particular noise, a visual clue, a physical arrangement, a specific sequence…

What to do about it

There is a science, Cognitive ergonomics (called Human Factors in USA), which permits the understanding of human work at all levels including the skill level. Cognitive task analysis permits gathering both verbal and subtle non-verbal operations such as eye movement, cognitive processes and unconscious manual movements. Understating work at all levels permits the understanding of the impact of change at all level of work.

Managers can stop managing change with brute force.

First: stop doing endless meetings and politics and go in the field. Wake-up and forget the meeting rooms, the real world is in four dimensions.
Second: do a field study and cognitive task analysis to fully understand the current situation. Field is rich and wild; people develop very sophisticated tactics.
Third: select a solution or design a new system that will permit skill transfer, keep efficient tactics and strategies and remove problems.
Fourth: before any implementation and at the earliest stage possible, design mock-ups, simulate and test them in the most realistic manner as possible. This is even truer with physical devices because there are so many subtle interactions with the environment.

Easier said than done but at least try to change the change management practice if you want to bring change in your organizations.

Sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Almost all users of the classical stove design, as showed in figure 1, activate the wrong burner at one time or another.

Why? It is in the human nature to associate objects that are side by side. As showed in the figure 1, the controls of the back burners are closer to the front burners. We cannot tell witch control activates what. This layout is highly error prone. To ensure we activate the right burners, we need to pay attention and look at the instructions. See also Don Norman’s Design of Everyday Things.

Fig.1 Classical Stove Design

Fig 2. New Stove Layout

With the layout presented in figure 2, there is no confusion. Association of control with the burner is now easy because the layout of control is compatible with the layout of the burner.

This example demonstrates design can play an important role in preventing human errors. A design that respects human’s nature and limitations will reduce the likelihood of errors.

Human error in managing human error

After having done hundreds of interviews with managers, we observed when discussing employee’s errors, most managers:

1. Blame employees for lack of attention or for lack of training (practice).
2. Overlook the possibility of preventing errors by a redesign of workstation or processes.

In our highly advanced technological society, we are still at the Stone Ages in term of human errors management

The stove example is the tip of the iceberg. Human errors are everywhere; from day to day errors such as trying to pull a door that should have been pushed to high impact errors such as: being attentive on the wrong signals and crashing a plane killing hundreds of people, having the wrong information and making bad investments, forecasting the wrong economics figures, misjudging intelligence report and brining a nation to war, making the wrong medical diagnosis, underestimating a budget for a project and being insouciant of consequences of our action on the environment.

Most of those errors, boils down to a combination of human errors that are at the cognitive level. They are errors of detection, attention, planning, estimation calculation, judgment, decision, comprehension, discrimination and execution.

Although aircrafts are still crashing, the safety record of the aviation industry is impressive when compared to other industries. At the end of World’s War 2, the aviation industry realized, following the pioneer work of Alphonse Chapanis and Paul M. Fitts, that human errors were caused by subtle inherent human cognitive limitations. The Aviation industry stopped blaming pilots or maintenance personnel for human errors decades ago. They tried to understand the inner cause of human errors.

This demonstrates it is possible to move away from the stone ages in a few decades. Managers need to stop limiting explanation of human errors to the lack of attention, lack of training or poor personnel selection and expand their analysis of to the real nature of human errors.