There might be a problem with your business process if...

I promise I will not get into the UI issues of the ATM again. Well, not directly. Its prohibiting me from doing someting which I think I should be able to do. And, instead of prohibiting me, it throws an error after I have pressed 25 buttons and submitted little slips of paper. So, I'm annoyed. Its the one in the Hy-Vee (grocery) near the house. Maybe 15 yards (meters) away is a mini-branch. Its not busy, so I ask why.

No idea.

I mean, she was nice enough, but maybe I could get the question answered if I waited for the branch manager to get off the phone. I didn't wait that long. When chatting before I gave up I said something like "these new ATMs are much worse than the old ones, which were terrible."

Oh yeah, we hear that a lot.

So, in how many ways is this bank failing? 24/7 technology is emplaced immediately next to the face-to-face store, but:

• It has different business rules (not just technology limits) than the counter or website.
• The people have no idea how it works.
• And, they have no method of seeing what you did, or correcting it in any way (at least the terrible self-checkouts have an employee over-ride).
• The employees do get lots of complaints, and are aware there are problems.
• No one in charge of buying, specifying, customizing or installing the machinery has ever, apparently, thought to watch them in practice, or ask the people standing there every day their opinion.

Not to pick on my bank, I think this is totally typical of almost every technology implemented by a company. Even those heavily lauded for their experience, like Apple (ever tried to register the products online? and what is the point of dotmac anymore?). Netflix and Vonage are the only serious companies I know of that have any useful integration between their people, their product and their technology. And they are new, internet-only companies.

Error message of the week

The more I pay attention to ATMs, the more I am suprised at how tenuously the software is aware of the hardware. Entirely aside from the odd physical design (e.g. all the slots look the same) the software is often unaware what you have done, what peripheral hardware has done, or when its obviously broken. The other week, when depositing into one of those new-fangled ones the reader kept spitting my check out. Apparently, something made the reader unhappy. But, it never told the actual software that runs the ATM. So the GUI kept asking if I wanted more time. The sign above is similarly dumb. The cash acceptor device should probably be able to say its not working. But if not, why can't someone remotely load a message to the idle screen (and remove the ability to select "deposit cash" from the options menu) instead of forcing the branch to tape a hand-written note to the machine? It probably looks like I am picking on ATMs. And I guess I am a little. But I think they deserve it for being very common devices (economies of scale should negate "its too expensive" arguments), used by everyone (so the usability bar should be low) and with inherent trust and security issues. But mostly, I pick on them becuase their faults are nicely symbolic of the faults of many other systems.

Warning! Cool new feature!

Despite their best attempts to hide this sign on the filthy wall behind the ATM (is that a spider above it?), I noticed this the other day at the local Hy-Vee. Its pretty lame, but I unfortunately know what they are talking about. The Sprint campus had one of these, and its communicated even more poorly. Check it out: Danger, envelopes are prohibited. You jerk. Now, I know what they mean and why they are doing it. There's a not very new law that everyone is finally complying with to save money. Your checks are basically destroyed at the receiving bank; a scan (and a file of meta-data) flow electronically across the countryside to move the funds about appropriately. Scanning at the ATM probably means they can skip several steps, and just toss your paper check in the shredder. You do the scanning work for them, instead of the box of checks and envelopes going to a fulfillment center where they are opened, scanned and so on. Speeds payment also, which is always supposed to be good. Though I always like the delay in fund removal that giving someone a check affords me. In practice, to the end user, this is pretty cool, and you get to see your check on the screen before confirming everything, so its pretty clear the system worked correctly. But, as you can tell, I have problems with the way at least Commerce did this. I suspect most other banks did just as poorly, assisted with obtuse ATM designers.

1. As you can see above, the communications is awful. Take a feature, and turn it into a constraint. It practically reverses the standard joke to "its not a feature, its a bug." I am not a communications designer, but I am sure there's a way to communicate this technical requirement, without it being a prohibition on user behavior. Sure, it says please, but aside from the warning-like graphic, there's not a positive word on there; nothing about the new feature and just insert the checks alone. Its not even that close to the slot. Anyway, there are no envelopes, and I don't think they would even fit in the slot, so its not a huge risk.
2. Speaking of no envelopes, why not? No, I know its supposed to scan the check, but placing deposits in an envelope has been going on for...ever. Before ATMs, you were given little envelopes (or similar devices) for cash or check deposits thru the pneumatic tubes or power drawers at bank drive thrus. Almost anyone who has banked at all will be used to this system. So, why not a transition period? Provide envelopes, but encourage users to try the new envelopeless service. You have a full-color interactive system, so nifty interstitials or banners (better) can be loaded into the process. After 6 months, remove the envelope rack, and after a year remove the capability of accepting them at all.
3. And this envelope habituation brings up another real-world issue I, for one have. I never endorse checks going into ATMs. Its not required by law (I am very sure) and doesn't seem to be an issue in ATMs (never had one rejected). Also, I forget. I don't carefully prepare for my trek to the ATM, and they NEVER have pens on site. So, by the time I am there, its impossible to sign them. No, I am not a girl, so I don't have a purse with pens. Okay, see any pens on that Sprint location ATM? Neither do I. Yet, they seem to be scanning for endorsement, and get mad if its not present. This is just poor design. Provide a pen, or two for when it gets stolen. Provide a bucket of them like envelopes, and don't worry about the loss rate as its free advertising. Or, don't require it, and if some new anti-terror legislation does indeed require it, provide a way to authenticate in some other manner.