Speaking of fly-by-wire… William Langewiesche is one of my favourite technical writers. He finds a way to explain complex aviation aspects really well, and then add a certain amount of beauty and poetry on top of that. His style was a big influence on my book, and I like him so much I once compiled links to his writing so that others could find it more easily.

Here’s Langewiesche’s essay from 2014 about the 2009 Air France Flight 447, where an implementation of fly-by-wire – which means disconnecting the flight stick and attendant levers from immediately controlling flight surfaces via physical linkage, and instead putting motors and software in between – caused a fatal accident, as the pilots’ mental model of the system diverged too far from what was happening:

The [Airbus] A330 is a masterpiece of design, and one of the most foolproof airplanes ever built. How could a brief airspeed indication failure in an uncritical phase of the flight have caused these Air France pilots to get so tangled up? And how could they not have understood that the airplane had stalled? The roots of the problem seem to lie paradoxically in the very same cockpit designs that have helped to make the last few generations of airliners extraordinarily safe and easy to fly.

It’s an interesting read today in the context of robotaxis and self-driving, but also AI changing software writing:

This is another unintended consequence of designing airplanes that anyone can fly: anyone can take you up on the offer. Beyond the degradation of basic skills of people who may once have been competent pilots, the fourth-generation jets have enabled people who probably never had the skills to begin with and should not have been in the cockpit. As a result, the mental makeup of airline pilots has changed. On this there is nearly universal agreement—at Boeing and Airbus, and among accident investigators, regulators, flight-operations managers, instructors, and academics. A different crowd is flying now, and though excellent pilots still work the job, on average the knowledge base has become very thin.

It seems that we are locked into a spiral in which poor human performance begets automation, which worsens human performance, which begets increasing automation.

I was devastated to discover, while writing this post, that Langewiesche died last year. Rest in peace.

As a Mac user I naturally focus on that platform, but Windows 11 has had its own share of problems – and that list has grown so vast it’s hard to know where to start.

So let’s pick it up at random, with a post by Thom Holwerda with a great title “You can actually stop Windows Explorer from flashbanging you in dark mode”:

One of the most annoying things I encountered while trying out Windows 11 a few months ago was the utterly broken dark mode; broken since its inception nine years ago, but finally getting some fixes. One of the smaller but downright disturbing issues with dark mode on Windows 11 is that when Explorer is in dark mode, it will flash bright white whenever you open a new window or a new tab. It’s like the operating system is throwing flashbangs at you every time you need to do some file management.

I find the videogame-inspired nickname darkly – I’m sorry! – funny, but the problem is real. It looks like this (video via windowscentral.com):

It’s not a problem unique to Windows 11 – just the other night I saw this on Wikipedia on my iPhone, exacerbated by the delayed reaction of Liquid Glass buttons spastically adapting to the changing background:

But there is something about this that feels a notch more important than other visual and layout issues.

I think this is because dark mode is a contract – we’ll lower the brightness, and we’ll let your eyes rest. There’s a physiological part to it: a sudden flash of light when your eyes are not expecting to it can be actually physically painful. I think it’s worth thinking about it and futureproofing and sanding dark-mode views especially at their edges: loading states, error messages, signing in and logging off areas. The “flashbang” analogy is very apt, and especially so on bigger screens.

A 2021 article by David Hall about shape coding:

Chapanis began interviewing pilots who had crashed B-17s and B-25s and a pattern emerged that turned his attention to the controls within the cockpit. As Fitts said ‘the intense effort to produce new weapons, the race against time in industrial production, and the magnitude of the program required to train men to operate these new machines resulted inevitably in many instances in which the final man-machine combination failed to function effectively.’

What Chapanis found when inspecting the cockpits of these planes were two identical toggle switches side by side, one for the landing gear, the other for the landing flaps. These controls were also similar in size and shape. […]

He modified the landing gear control by adding a wheel-shaped knob and a wedge like shape to the wing flap control. Now pilots could feel and easily map the shape to the intended purpose. […] Chapanis had solved a real life and death issue with one brilliant insight.

Chapanis was a contemporary of Fitts of Fitts’s Law fame.

I forgot this was called “shape coding,” or perhaps I never knew that? I have employed and sometimes pushed for a similar thing, but I called it making sure things have “distinct visual signature” or something like this. I think “shape coding” would be a more appropriate term.

The article shows one simple UX example – I would love to learn more about who’s employing this deliberately. It is, after all, the opposite force to consistency, and I’m always interested in negotiating with consistency.