From: boyd@apple.com (Scott Boyd)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Macs as POS terminals (was IBM SUCKS!)
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:52:04 GMT
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1992Sep27.122822.22820@NeoSoft.com>, peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter
da Silva) wrote:
> 
> In article <6051.2ac3aa51@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:
> > > Macs aren't suited for a lot of applications that PCs do today.  
> 
> > Name *ONE*.
> 
> Non-critical embedded applications: point of sale units, for example (cash
> registers, coupon machines, automatic tellers, etc), or bulletin board
> systems. In both cases the user interface is irrelevant (you can't use a
> mouse at a terminal, and a bitmapped display over a modem is problematic)
> and price is the overriding concern.

Funny you should mention this.  Over the past month or so, I've been out
shopping (the urge hits me every year or so), and I've been noticing just
how ineffective many point-of-sale (POS) interfaces are.

I watch as the high-school junior tries to figure out how to do a non-
mainstream operation (e.g. process a refund).  I watch as the middle-aged
clerk squints to figure out which number on the screen is the one she
now needs to type somewhere else on the screen (this was at Sears,
where they've recently installed a brand new POS system!).  The number
was in something roughly akin to 9pt Helvetica Narrow, and next to
impossible for me (with good eyesight) to locate on a screen filled with
numbers, only one of which was important at the moment - the sale price.
At yet another place, I asked for a small drink, and was charged for a
medium.  When I asked the server to correct it, she didn't know how
and couldn't figure it out from the POS terminal.  She had to get someone
who did, who then charged me for a large!  She finally charged me for
a small, and then proceeded to hand me 75 cents instead of the $4.50
I was entitled to.  The POS terminal got in the way so much that she
couldn't use it to do something as simple as correct a simple mistake
without causing a lot of grief.

The user interface is obviously irrelevant, but not in the way you are
suggesting.  It's obviously irrelevant to the designers.  The sad thing
is that
(1) the users don't know enough about design to be able to "see"
the shortcomings in the design of what they are using,
(2) the designers are using tools not well suited to excellent
interface design,
(3) many (most?) users are not in a position to give feedback to the
designers before it's too late to help improve the design,
(4) designers often don't try their stuff out in real-life situations
while still in the design phase, and wind up rolling out hundreds of
ill-designed POS terminals all in one fell swoop.  I felt sorry for
the Sears clerk.  I just had to experience the discomfort that one
time.  She'll get to do it many times a day.  Even learning where
to squint won't truly solve the problem.

Donald Norman's book "The Design of Everyday Things" provides many
excellent examples of "award-winning design" which frustrates the
users.  Don makes a good case that "looking good" does not equate
to "working good".  And to take that one step further, the fact 
that a job is a menial or ordinary one does not mean you should use
only cheap and ill-designed tools for the job.

> you can't use a mouse at a terminal

You may be right.  It doesn't matter, though.  A well-designed
Macintosh application can function quite well without a mouse
if necessary.  You might consider alternatives, as well.  For
example, I've seen some really nice P.O.S. interfaces done with
a keyboard and a touch-screen.  Of course, don't forget your
bar code and mag card scanners.

I'll stick my neck out and say that I believe that a great
designer can do a POS station with JUST a mouse (mouse, trackball,
or touch screen), a bar code reader, a mag card reader, and NO keyboard.

> bitmapped display over a modem is problematic

...and shows some confusion over the Macintosh programming model.
There's no need to ship bitmaps over a modem.  Much of the 
communication model could work as most systems currently work.  

For example, a few years ago, I worked on
Macintosh application which talked to an IBM mainframe.  A specialist
would sit in an office in one of three regions of the US.  An IBM
mainframe there would pull data off of a computer somewhere in 
the South, which in turn got all of its data from POS terminals
all over the given region via modems.

We pulled that data off of the regional mainframe (doing the
EBCDIC to ASCII conversion) and stored them in a database we wrote.
We then displayed those numbers on top of maps showing where the
numbers came from.  

The regional specialist who ran our program would then click on
numbers he/she wanted to change, and our program would record the
changes and send them back to the IBM mainframe, which would then
ship them back out to the stores which needed to change the prices
on their goods.

We never shipped bitmaps over modems.  In fact, we shipped very
little data at all (three numbers to each store).  Bitmaps wouldn't
have been appropriate because they were only important to the regional
specialist.  In the same way, the bitmap the sales clerk sees need
only be a local effect, with only ordinary byte streams being sent
over the modem (credit card numbers, authorization numbers, product
codes, quantities, discounts, etc...).

I'll bet most of the people in the field had no idea that the
specialist was using an appropriate, easy-to-use interface to
give them their new prices.

I do know that most of them hated the POS terminals they had to
use because the interface was so poorly designed.  Had we continued
to work with them (instead of hiring on with Apple), we were looking
at ways to put a better interface in the field.  While the cost of
Macs might be up there, it is a one-time, fixed expense.  Much of
the equipment they had in their stores was far more expensive, and
stuff having to do directly with the flow of money could easily
justify itself by offering to lower the number of mistakes, both
in setting the prices on the goods, and in charging and taking in
the right amount for goods sold.

Regards,

scott
boyd@apple.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy