Let’s take a look at some of the most common forms of cognitive tax users are forced to deal with.
Guess Which Slot
 |
| 50% chance of success. Check out the notches at the top where users hit their card trying to insert it. |
A number of credit card terminals provide a set of virtually identical parallel slots, forcing the user to guess which slot is real and which one is fake. To be fair, the designers did add a picture of the device with a card being swiped, but what they failed to realize was that:
1. Most people don't pay attention to anything on the screen other than the amount being charged.
2. The picture of the credit card being swiped is tiny, at an angle, and lacks contrast.
The designers also made the real slot's edges slightly rounded, to aid the user in guiding their card through the slot. Unfortunately this may not map well to a user's mental model of more traditional credit card devices, which employ a parallel channel with straight edges for the card slot. If rounded entry points become the norm, then eventually this factor will become a stronger visual cue and the odds of swiping successfully will be significantly increased.
Proposed design improvements:
1. Make all joints seamless so that there is only one slot to choose from
2. Standardize on rounded entry points for easier card entry and exit
3. Allow swipe in any direction (left to right, right to left)
4. Allow swipe with card stripe facing in any direction (another common limitation of current designs).
Signature Required
1. Most people don't pay attention to anything on the screen other than the amount being charged.
2. The picture of the credit card being swiped is tiny, at an angle, and lacks contrast.
The designers also made the real slot's edges slightly rounded, to aid the user in guiding their card through the slot. Unfortunately this may not map well to a user's mental model of more traditional credit card devices, which employ a parallel channel with straight edges for the card slot. If rounded entry points become the norm, then eventually this factor will become a stronger visual cue and the odds of swiping successfully will be significantly increased.
Proposed design improvements:
1. Make all joints seamless so that there is only one slot to choose from
2. Standardize on rounded entry points for easier card entry and exit
3. Allow swipe in any direction (left to right, right to left)
4. Allow swipe with card stripe facing in any direction (another common limitation of current designs).
Signature Required
When I first started using credit card terminals I naively thought there was some sort of real-time, back-end database validation of my signature, calculating discrepancies and chomping at the bit (pun intended) to deny my transaction as potentially fraudulent. Alas, that is not the case.
The fact is that your signature is not checked at all! Rather, the signature requirement is simply a risk reduction strategy imposed on the merchant by card providers (they must have a signature– any signature– on file, corresponding to each transaction). Of course, this comes at the expense of a laborious user experience.
On the bright side, I get a kick out of my kid's reaction every time I scribble some odd lines or doddle a smiley face on the LCD. And the stylus comes in handy for smashing those worn out, germ infested buttons.
 |
| Try doodling for fun |
The fact is that your signature is not checked at all! Rather, the signature requirement is simply a risk reduction strategy imposed on the merchant by card providers (they must have a signature– any signature– on file, corresponding to each transaction). Of course, this comes at the expense of a laborious user experience.
On the bright side, I get a kick out of my kid's reaction every time I scribble some odd lines or doddle a smiley face on the LCD. And the stylus comes in handy for smashing those worn out, germ infested buttons.
Proposed design improvements:
1. Card providers should extend the ceiling to $100 (from the current $25) for the amount considered as small transactions. Amounts under that ceiling shouldn't require a signature from the customer, nor should those transactions impose an increased processing fee on the merchant.
2. For amounts over $100, require a signature, and also require that the clerk validate the signature against the signature on the user's credit card or driver's license (more secure, but imposes yet another step in the payment process).
1. Card providers should extend the ceiling to $100 (from the current $25) for the amount considered as small transactions. Amounts under that ceiling shouldn't require a signature from the customer, nor should those transactions impose an increased processing fee on the merchant.
2. For amounts over $100, require a signature, and also require that the clerk validate the signature against the signature on the user's credit card or driver's license (more secure, but imposes yet another step in the payment process).
Cancel for Credit
This last cognitive tax imposed by credit card terminal designers is perhaps the most insidious of them all. In case you hadn't already guessed, I'm referring to the unintuitive process involved in charging your debit card as a credit card. With few exceptions, the procedure involves pressing a big red button, an action which on its surface one would expect to result in the cancellation of the transaction. Except that instead of cancelling the transaction, this operation instructs the device to process the payment as a credit transaction, rather than as a debit one. Oh, and god forbid you encounter one of those few devices that actually do have a credit button, and you automatically hit the red button that you've repeatedly been trained to press. You'll be rewarded for your ability to adapt to the quirks of card terminals with a cancelled transaction!
 |
| Cancel means Credit. Duh! |
Just think about the scenario that we have grown so used to:
Customer: Swipes card
Device: Please enter your PIN!
Customer: "Um, I want to run this as credit, not debit"
Cashier: "Just hit Cancel"
Customer: "Uh, I don't want to cancel my transaction. I just want to charge as credit!"
Cashier: [Rolls their eyes.] "Cancel just means credit."
Doesn't it sound ludicrous when you write out the user story? Cancel, usually afforded through a big red button with an X or the words "Cancel" written on it, really means something completely different?
You might be thinking one of two things at this point:
1) Why not just run it as debit and quit your complaining?
2) Don't you realize that the merchant gets dinged for credit card transactions, thus they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to run your DEBIT card as credit?
1) Why not just run it as debit and quit your complaining?
2) Don't you realize that the merchant gets dinged for credit card transactions, thus they want to make it as difficult as possible for you to run your DEBIT card as credit?
To that, I reply:
1. I work in the security industry. I read about what happened to Target, Home Depot, TJ Max, and many others. The vast majority of these credit card devices are vulnerable to tampering and PIN theft, and I prefer not to take any chances by running my card as a debit card.
1. I work in the security industry. I read about what happened to Target, Home Depot, TJ Max, and many others. The vast majority of these credit card devices are vulnerable to tampering and PIN theft, and I prefer not to take any chances by running my card as a debit card.
2. This is probably the truth of the matter. The designers can't be that stupid, so I can only assume that making it hard to run your debit card as credit must have been a design choice. I just rebel at the idea of purposely placing a cognitive tax on millions of users just because you want to save the merchant (or card companies?) a few pennies per transaction. Why not make the process crazy simple, so that I can just swipe, choose a credit button, and be done with it?
Proposed design improvements:
1. Have dedicated buttons for credit, even if the default mode continues to be debit.
2. Alternatively, when prompting for the pin, provide text that says "Just press Ok for credit". If the user fails to provide a bin and presses the green button, the card is ran as credit, without requiring the user to simulate cancel.
Isn't it amazing how something as ubiquitous as a credit card terminal can have so many different incarnations? Go to Target, and you'll observe one brand of device, with its own unique hardware controls, software user interface and payment sequence. Go to Home Depot, and you'll encounter a completely different set of controls, UI, and payment sequence. I suppose that would be okay if they were all idiot proof, but they undoubtedly aren't.
Proposed fix:
Impose a standard for the credit card terminals that must be adopted by all manufactures of said devices. They could deviate in their design slightly, so long as they met the mandatory set of design requirements.
In Closing
To close this rambling post, I would venture that the advent of NFC capable payment systems and NFC capable mobile devices makes this rant purely academic and even a bit trite. Of course, the process implied by these technologies means using my fingerprint to purchase goods, which opens up an entirely new can of worms...something to do with a beast and the inability to transact commerce without his mark on your hand and head. But that's a topic for a different kind of blog.
