The architecture of human error

"Take a look at the picture above. Countless dials, each presumably conveying critical information about the health of a nuclear reactor. Is this well designed? From the "functionality" perspective - yes, it works. It does what it is intended to do. But from a perspective of human error it couldn't be worse. The design makes it almost impossible to detect changes, to identify critical components, and most importantly, to make decisions based on the information. The result will be an inevitable catastrophe."

"Ask an engineer and she will tell you that functionality, that the thing does what it is intended to do, is most important. Ask a UX designer, and they may tell you the customer experience is most important. These two opinions make up the lion's share of beliefs when it comes to design considerations. But is that all that makes for good design? Or to rephrase the question, are there other dimensions of design that should be taken into consideration,"

Good design requires more than functionality and customer experience; it requires consistency, error reduction, and robust recovery mechanisms. Systems must be built to reduce human error and provide safeguards when errors occur. Dense, information-heavy interfaces can function yet encourage mistakes and poor decision-making. Safety-critical contexts demand design that highlights critical components, makes changes detectable, and supports clear decisions to prevent catastrophic outcomes. Human error often emerges as a consequence of poor design. Types of mistakes depend on the user's mindset at the time of failure, so designs must shape behavior and reduce error-prone conditions.

Read at Medium