Interaction design

A while ago we wrote about the poor usability of parking meters. We now would like to share two alternatives for operating a parking meter.

Challenge

The challenge in designing the interface is to keep the existing information and to present it in a way that is more understandable and intuitive for users. After analysis of the existing parking meter the choice between two parking fares caused a lot of confusion among users. The fare depends on the location of parking; the ‘meeuwerderweg’ (street name) is more expensive then other streets, and to complicate things even further you are allowed to only park there for 30 minutes while the maximum parking time at other streets is 2 hours.

Alternatives

Two interface alternatives have been developed. We have tried to incorporate a clear hierarchy and mapping that helps users achieve their goals. In both concepts the users works from top to down and can abort / stop at every moment.

Display feedback

In both alternatives users can see how long they want to park through the fields ‘duration’ (e.g. 30 minutes) and ‘valid tilll’ (14:30). Users determine how long they want to park in different ways. Some check their watch to see till what time they want to park (I have to leave at 16:00), while others approach it from a duration point of view (I need 30 minutes to do my groceries). Now feedback is provided for both approaches.

Choosing parking duration

By rotating a wheel the parking duration can be set. It is friction free so there is no end or start. In the old parking meter users had to push for each fifteen minutes.

Over confirming

We have left out the options ‘payment confirmation’ and ‘balance request’ of the chipcard. We do not see the added value and if the user has chosen the parking time (and thus price) he can choose between two payment methods. If he enters the chipknip card the amount will be charged and the ticket will be printed. Why would you want to confirm your payment? You just did by entering the chipkinp card. No confusion about having to confirm anymore!

Alternatives

The first concept is a bit more descriptive while the second concepts uses more icons. Both have its pro’s and cons; icons get recognized quicker, but only if the icon is well designed and commonly used in society. Otherwise they only complicate things even further. Descriptions give more guidance to users but requires more effort and can be ignored if the cognitive load becomes bigger.

Descriptive alternative

The descriptive alternative aims to ‘talk’ the user through the process. By giving numbers to the four steps and describing what they should do we expect especially first time users to profit and run into less problems and frustration.

(revised version: gradient in ‘days’ and ‘hour’ bar at the top have been replaced with a plain color)

(Click for larger size)

Iconic alternative

The iconic alternative uses less text and aims to provide a clean and quick interface. If the icons are well designed we expect users to get their parking ticket faster and with less frustration.

(revised version: gradient in ‘days’ and ‘hour’ bar at the top have been replaced with a plain color)

(Click for larger size)

Your input

We would like to hear suggestions and ideas for both interface alternatives. Which one do you like best? Would you be able to work with this interface?

In the near future we will design the interface in 3D and share it on this blog.