 |
A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it. By Mark Hurst. |
| About Mark Hurst | Mark's Gel Conference | New York Times Story on This Is Broken | Newsletter: Subscribe | RSS Feed |
Search this site:
Categories:
- Advertising
- Current Affairs
- Customer Service
- Fixed
- Food and Drink
- Just for Fun
- Misc
- Not broken
- Place
- Product Design
- Signs
- Travel
- Web/Tech
Previous: Insurancehotline.com form | Main | Next: Denver Post 'email article' option
December 16, 2005 12:03 AM
Broken: Audi owner email
Adam Bromwich writes in:
I received an Audi owner e-mail with the following news item, which I found to be incredibly amusing:
Non-Problem Problems
They have been called "faux problems" — a term used to describe customer problems that aren't really problems, but are actually part of the car's design. Examples include red lights in the doors that continue flashing (to show the alarm system is armed and operative) and the sound system that automatically adjusts the volume at various speeds to compensate for driving noise.
As an assist for new owners, Audi includes a list of frequently-cited "faux problems" and explanations in the owner welcome kit. This helps reduce unnecessary calls to the dealer and adds to the driving experience. So if you're a new owner and you think you may have a problem with your Audi, check the owner privileges portfolio that came with your welcome kit. It may be not be a problem at all.
I guess Audi has given up on designing these features and instead chalks it up to owner ignorance. I would have expected them to tell me something along the lines of, "Here are some common misunderstandings, and we're working to eliminate them."
Their examples can be addressed with design changes, even just by providing visual or audible feedback to the driver. Sad to see that Audi's approach to design problems is so broken.
At the very least, they should allow you to turn off those features as a preference. How much money is their company losing because of bad design? Well, on second thought, maybe the dealerships are making money because they are going to have to charge people who come in for their inspections of "faux problems."
I really don't care for the tone of that writing, either. "Faux-problems!" Can you be any more condescending?
Both examples cited don't even sound like something I'd see as a problem to begin with. It makes sense for the red lights to flash to indicate the alarm is activated, as does the volume on the stereo increasing with speed (I wish my car had that feature). I don't even understand why you think Audi should change these things. There's absolutely nothing wrong with their design; they make complete sense. MAYBE being able to turn them off could be nice, but not necessary, IMHO.
That's a pretty condescending message.
Most Audis I've seen are broken in some way, these cars have LOTS of electrical problems. I can't tell you how many times I've been behind one in traffic and have observed really odd tail light operation.
Good luck with your VW, oops I mean Audi.
Mr. G
Just shows that all those people who are not smart enough to buy a good car are not smart enought to understand it.
I am seeing a trends like this. Advancements in the ability of "intelligent" devices to anticipate the needs of their users has an upper limit where it reaches diminishing returns.
The thing about these non-problems, is that the users will likely see them as desirable features only *after* they realize *what* they're doing. I doubt customers are realizing WHY the stereo volume is going up and down.
"Both examples cited don't even sound like something I'd see as a problem to begin with."
You're completely missing the point! Your hindsight (the knowledge of *why* the devices are doing what they do) is something the users don't have the benefit of.
Stargate525
"Not broken, unless you want to call consumer stupidity a 'broken' thing."
Stargate525 is obviously neither *in* the usability industry nor knows the first thing about it (literally, the first thing, which is "lack of usability is never the user's fault, it's the fault of bad design").
In fact, I'll bet my paycheque that, if Stargate525 is in the s/w industry at all, it's as an engineer or programmer, who too often think "users are stupid if they can't learn my program".
The volume control might actually be a design problem. If the volume change is audible (it must be if people are complaining about it), then it would mean it's overcompensating for the road noise.
This _is_ a manifestation of user ignorance, the same applies in most every other industry I can think of including my own (telecoms). You cannot in all seriousness put every such instance down to poor design, can you? Since when did people have to stop thinking about their everyday lives? What gives you the right to be so darned blinkered [other than your own ignorance]? Audi's approach is to be commended for its honesty.
What's that you say? You shouldn't have to read the manual. Really? For a car? I see a Darwin Award with your name on it on yonder horizon...
"What's that you say? You shouldn't have to read the manual. Really? For a car?"
Not car. Radio.
The *critical* elements of car operation (such as not hitting other cars) require enough brain-cycles to operate without having cycles siphoned off for components that have had the benefit of 3/4's of a century of design evolution (such as radios).
A recent edition of NPR's "Car Talk" had a caller who was being annoyed by the automatic volume control "feature" on her car (I think it was the show that aired on December 10th or thereabouts, depending on your local NPR station's schedule). She apparently was unaware of it and had somehow inadvertently activated it.
While there are plenty of poorly designed systems on cars, complete with bad ergonmics, impenetrable icons and counter-intuitive behavior, but these two examples cited are not one of them.
I have an Audi. You can turn off the volume compensation in the radio's controls (whether that's well-designed is a different question). The alarm indicator light: how do you design that differently? Either it exists or doesn't, and I'm actually surprised that people in 2005 aren't aware that all alarm systems do that.
By the way, the automatic volume adjustment systems do need more work. They're better than they used to be, but they're still not subtle enough, and they still execute on a staircase-like pattern instead of incline, meaning I can hear the distinct points at which volume changes (on my car, 20 mph, 40 mph, 60 mph).
quote: "Most Audis I've seen are broken in some way, these cars have LOTS of electrical problems. I can't tell you how many times I've been behind one in traffic and have observed really odd tail light operation. "
heh, that's a feature, it's called rear fog light
VAG, that is all I can say. You don't like these issues, learn how to use a VAG tool and turn them off.
I've driven an 2005/2006 Audi A6 several times and most functions can be adjusted to your preferences in the MMI (Multi Media Interface) system. If you have ever used a computer, it's not hard to figure out.
The speed sensitive volume could be annoying, but that can be adjusted. Also, in the higher end audio system, there are actually microphones built into the cabin that adjusts the sound level, not based on speed, but actual amount of road noise.
I understand the whole usability thing, and mostly it is a good thing.
But I do believe that sometimes you just have to think, even a little bit; use that large round thing on top of your neck, it's there for a purpose.
I am admittedly in engineering which, I am sure, contributes greatly to my opinion.
But if you are going to buy a higher end vehicle that has all the bells and whistles, don't be surprised when it starts whistling.
I have owned and rented a number of German cars including Mercedes, BMWs, and VWs. The only exception is the Audi. All of the cars that I've driven during the last seven years had a stereo that automatically adjusted the volume. Even my Ford Mondeo had that feature. And in all of the cars (except the Ford), it was easily adjustable. First, you figure out which button to push to adjust the bass and treble. You push that a couple of more times and you pass the balance and fade. Finally, you will come to the adjustment for the auto-volume compensator (each mark calls it something else). And if that's too complex, maybe these stupid people should read the flippin' manual. It's plainly stated.
Don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the usability-first camp, and there are plenty of things to complain about in the car world (BMW iDrive, lack of a decent cupholder in any European car) but the things cited here are just silly. As someone who sits on the front lines of user support on systems that are supposedly famous for ease of use, I can tell you there are always going to be people who "just don't get it." Some tasks are just not able to be simplified to the no-thought necessary, 3yr old child level. It's just not possible. So the best alternative in these situations is to create systems that are easy to learn. However, if your user doesn't attempt to learn anything (RTFM - which in the car industry, I've yet to see a decent one - start your usability studies there) then there are going to be questions. Unavoidable. Somethings just have to be learned, or else we wouldn't have schools.
"You're completely missing the point! Your hindsight (the knowledge of *why* the devices are doing what they do) is something the users don't have the benefit of."
Which is pricisely the point of the e-mail Audi sent to owners, Dave: to inform the unaware consumer. But I get the feeling from your comments that you'll find something to nitpick anyway.
"Most Audis I've seen are broken in some way, these cars have LOTS of electrical problems. I can't tell you how many times I've been behind one in traffic and have observed really odd tail light operation."
But what does that have to do with the topic at hand? The items cited in the e-mail aren't electrical problems, they are features of the car and not just for that make/model in particular. These are fairly common features on many cars. For someone to imply that if it's not simple enough for a two year old to understand then it must be poor design is ludicrous. It's up to the individual to be responsible enough to investigate something they do not understand. If it's something that doesn't make any sense, I could understand being upset or feeling like the company is being condescending, but in this case, I don't see justification for that. So shame on the consumer for blaming their ignorance on the manufacturer.
And hey, I take offense to that VW remark. I happen to love my Jetta, Mr. Goodwrench. :)
If you just bought a vehicle as is the case that we are discussing. I hope that the dealership is friendly enough that you would think to call them with a concern if any of these faux problems came to your attention. And would not the dealership be happy to handle these calls? After all they could be handled quickly. Why offend your customers by taking an offensive approach like emailing them? Is there really a risk of losing material revenue due to a few minutes spent on the phone with a few concerned customers? I think not.
josephc4
First off, the salesperson should cover this stuff on delivery. Second, as someone stated, it is possible to defeat the speed sensitive volume. Third, I am on my 3rd consecutive A6 and they ALL have had the alarm status leds. This is part of a larger problem...people won't take any responsibility for themselves any more. If they don't choose to read the manual or investigate, their lack of knowledge is automatically the manufacturer's fault. If the manufacturer writes a comprehensive manual, it is deemed too long/heavy/complicated to deal with. If they abridge it they get sued because they omitted some detail. What is broken is the failure of too many people to be responsible adults.
Comments on this entry are closed
Previous: Insurancehotline.com form | Main | Next: Denver Post 'email article' option
Here's my non-comment comment. It has been called a "faux comment" -a term used to describe comments that aren't really comments, just me failing to be funny.
Posted by: gmangw at December 16, 2005 12:24 AM