90 percent of everything : Usability Blog
Written by Harry Brignull

Archive for November, 2010

A Titanic Design Blunder

November 26th, 2010 by 1 comment



If this is true, it has to be the most famous, most catastrophic UI design blunder ever:

“The error on the ship’s maiden voyage between Southampton and New York in 1912 happened because at the time seagoing was undergoing enormous upheaval because of the conversion from sail to steam ships. The change meant there was two different steering systems and different commands attached to them. Some of the crew on the Titanic were used to the archaic Tiller Orders associated with sailing ships and some to the more modern Rudder Orders. Crucially, the two steering systems were the complete opposite of one another. So a command to turn “hard a starboard” meant turn the wheel right under the Tiller system and left under the Rudder. When First Officer William Murdoch spotted the iceberg two miles away, his “hard a-starboard” order was misinterpreted by the Quartermaster Robert Hitchins. He turned the ship right instead of left and, even though he was almost immediately told to correct it, it was too late and the side of the starboard bow was ripped out by the iceberg. “The steersman panicked and the real reason why Titanic hit the iceberg, which has never come to light before, is because he turned the wheel the wrong way,” said Lady Patten…”
- from Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims By Richard Alleyne (21-Sept-2010)


It makes you wonder wonder what the hell was running through the engineers’ minds when they decided to have two steering systems with inverted controls, so on one system left meant left, and on the other left meant right. Maybe they shaved a few thousand dollars off the total build cost. Crazy.

Update 1: I stand corrected (Thanks Tony!) – what this amounts to is a catastrophic migration issue – the Quartermaster was used to sail ships where their orders and mechanics of steering worked one way. On the Titanic, the orders and mechanics were allegedly different, hence the confusion. You can read more about this in “That Damned Ship’s Wheel!” by Dave Gittins, quoted below:

“Until relatively recent times, naval seaman in particular had to steer vessels by at least five steering systems, not counting the obsolete whipstaff. Large ships had wheels. Small power and sailing boats had tillers and some boats, such as whale boats and some lifeboats, had steering oars. Rowing boats were often steered by a steering yoke controlled by short lengths of rope. In an emergency, large ships were sometimes steered by tackles attached to the tiller below decks. At a pinch, Titanic could be steered by connecting her warping capstans to the tiller. It simplified things if the officer in charge gave all orders with reference to a real or hypothetical tiller. It was part of a seaman’s skills to react correctly to the order.”


Update 2: OK, I’ve now had feedback from a few people saying that this story is not about the steering controls but about the orders from the officers in charge. Prior to the 1930s, officers used tiller orders (if you want to go one way, you push the tiller the other way) After the 1930s, they switched to rudder orders (you steer in the direction you want to go). The theory is that there was some confusion due to the switch over from one style of controls to another. However, since the Titanic sank in 1912, they are highly unlikely to have been in the middle of a rudder/tiller order switch over.

Trains, Planes and Dead Time

November 23rd, 2010 by 6 comments

The UK government is currently working on plans for a new rail line, called HS2, intended to connect London to Birmingham, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Glasgow. The overall cost for the lines and rolling stock is estimated at a staggering £20.5 bn – £34 bn. This is a huge sum considering the UK’s current financial situation.

It’s fascinating to look at the case that’s been put forward by Network Rail (see here) – you’d expect a carefully researched, well argued case containing a clear investigation of many possible alternatives. In fact, it reads far more like a sales pitch by the people who want to build the line. This is rather disturbing.

Here’s a interesting quote from page 5 (emphasis added):

New routes would need to connect the major economic centres and provide journey times to rival air travel to make it viable.


So, they’re arguing that in order to compete with air travel, train travel has to compete on speed, and that this is the main defining factor. Let’s be honest, a train is never going to beat a passenger jet in a race. Speed is only one factor. This reminds me of Rory Sutherland’s TED presentation, in which he talks about the vast cost of improving the rail line that linked London to the Channel Tunnel:

“The question was given to a bunch of engineers, about 15 years ago, ‘How do we make the journey to Paris better?’ and they came up with a very good engineering solution, which was to spend six billion pounds building completely new tracks from London to the coast, and knocking about 40 minutes off a three-and-half-hour journey time. Now, call me Mister Picky. I’m just an ad man… But it strikes me as a slightly unimaginative way of improving a train journey merely to make it shorter. Now what is the hedonic opportunity cost on spending six billion pounds on those railway tracks? Here is my naive advertising man’s suggestion. What you should in fact do is employ all of the world’s top male and female supermodels, pay them to walk the length of the train, handing out free Chateau Petrus for the entire duration of the journey. [...] Now, you’ll still have about three billion pounds left in change, and people will ask for the trains to be slowed down!” – Rory Sutherland


Of course Rory’s joking, but his main point is dead on. We’d all love to rebuild the UK’s aging rail network, but if we can’t afford it right now, what else can we do to? We need to think more obliquely about ways to understand and solve the problem. Here’s another quote from the Network Rail report (page 6):

“The analysis in the new lines study uses the latest government guidelines and modelling for calculating the benefits. It includes things like the value of the time saved by users [...]»


It fascinates me that they think it’s OK to assign a monetary value to time saved by travellers – but then provide no explanation, reference or link to their model. Besides, instead of trying to reduce total travel time, we should start thinking about how to reduce dead time (i.e. time when you are unable to do anything useful). Free, reliable, high-speed Wi-Fi, power points and table space would help a lot in this respect. And in terms of over-crowding – this is usually only a problem during peak hours. Why not incentivize travellers to use unpopular travel times? Airlines have aggressively used variable ticket prices to their advantage for years – why haven’t UK train companies?

To top it off, let’s consider what kind of time-saving HS2 will give a journey from London to Birmingham. It currently takes 1 hour, 42 minutes to get to Birmingham. After HS2 is built, travellers will save just 35 minutes. Is it really worth it?