Read More »
There are so many cases where we see customers having trouble with befuddling and legalistic user agreements that get them into trouble. Perhaps a customer reveals more personal information than she realized to an advertising aggregator. Perhaps he ceded the intellectual property rights for something he created while using a development environment. Perhaps I agreed to transaction fees and automatic services I never intended to.
In a later call from emergency services made to Bernstein directly, the driver denied all knowledge of any accident. The driver told the dispatcher that “everything was fine,” before the dispatcher said, “Ok but your car called in saying you’d been involved in an accident. It doesn’t do that for no reason. Did you leave the scene of an accident?”
This is a real win for human factors!!! Apparently, the Supreme Court got sick of complex, jargon-filled writing that was being delivered in most of the briefs they were getting from attorneys and ordered the attorneys to stop.
UX Matters had an interesting article some time ago that recently came back across my desk. The article makes a number of points, but the one I want to highlight today is the challenge of creating a single design for two very different sets of users.
People engage with our legal system in the US to achieve some goal—usually one relating to some form of risk mitigation or conflict resolution. Because legal services involve both interactions and goal-directed behavior, one might expect the legal system to have been designed on principles of usability…