Amazing stylised rant about ‘other people’s incompetence’ interacting with a ticket machine in the Paris Metro…

…inspiring this wonderful riposte. I have some sympathy with both points of view, but fundamentally, I’d rather design a system that people can use, than make them feel stupid for not understanding it.

So this results in a prison sentence. What would be the legality of using a mirror against the kind of temporary blindness-inducing helicopter-borne light mentioned here http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/28/countercontrol-blind-pilots/ ?

“The person calling in is a person, a customer, potentially a blogger, potentially the CEO of a company you might want to sell to tomorrow, and yes, the person you’ve spent all that time and money marketing to.”

Incisive review by John Ozimek of the arbitrary, FUD-laden approach to public photography in Britain today.

A well-thought-out, realistically doublespoken 1st April story linked from the Register article, with (unfortunately) more than a little scent of truth about it.

From one of the comments: “Any system, like Oyster, can only hope to have a finite life. They need to expect to have to do a thorough review every couple of years to see whether the system needs to be replaced. Obviously this review needs to be independen

“While I’m perfectly happy with incentivising customers to achieve required behaviours, I’m not sure I’m so keen on FUD being used to achieve lower costs.”

This is (I think) a perfect example of Fred Reichheld’s ‘bad profits’ concept (http://www.netpromoter.com/netpromoter/bad-profits.php ). In the short-term, Luton airport will extract more value from their customers. In the long term, their customers will

Successful Shared Space implementation: “Officials wanted to test the theory that the 13,000 drivers who use the town every day would take extra care and show each other greater consideration if they were not told what to do.”