Comments on: A Very Friendly ATM Machine

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:01:25 +0000

Thanks for sharing . This information is useful for me.

By: burdickrobert

burdickrobert — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:37:08 +0000

There is another link under the category of personal finance but it has nothing to do with finance. If you have difficulties in making payment, you can click the link named wachoviabank.com. You will have an expert helping you to fix your problems and you don’t have to go out of your home to get the service. What you need to do is to choose a button between the two “call us today” and “we’ll call you”. Don’t you think this service shows the attentiveness and consideration of the Wachovia? It’s really good in my opinion.

By: Microdermabrasion Machine

Microdermabrasion Machine — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:57:27 +0000

Very much user friendly atm machine. Recommended!!

By: Jason Robinson

Jason Robinson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:44:33 +0000

Regarding the two interaction models -

I know one of the reasons for including both is accessibility. The touchscreen (as currently implemented) is useless to a person who is blind or must otherwise rely on tactile feedback to make a transaction. The old-school keypad is imprinted with Braille, allowing sightless users to interact easily. Not to mention the fact that handicapped folks in wheelchairs (who can reach the number pad from a seated position) might have difficulty reaching the touchscreen.

So, in order to do away with the second keypad, I imagine a totally-reliable alternate system (voice recognition, or some type of tactile/auditory feedback for the touchscreen) would need to be implemented, and the whole ATM would need to be redesigned in a way that the screen was lowered.

Come to think of it, if the screen was lowered AND tilted (essentially moved down and replacing the touchpad), this would address Chris’ parallax issue as well… Because the range of angles at which viewers would see the screen would be significantly reduced.

Then I suppose the designers would need to figure out what to put in the old space the screen occupied… ATMs are a standard size and shape, embedded into a wall… So it goes.

By: jay

jay — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:51:47 +0000

Chris,

I completely agree on the interaction issues you mentioned. The two interaction models do not make sense at all and is very confusing.

I can not comment on the checks deposit issue but based on the flow you provided it sounds painful. Personally, I don’t use ATM to deposit checks — it is an opportunity for me to step into the branch and speak to a banker from time to time…

Is it possible that Diebold took the 80-20 approach and focused on optimizing the most frequently used actions, neglecting everything else?

By: chris

chris — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:36:37 +0000

Jay, you have done a great job of pointing out a few of the new "killer" features of the new Diebold ATM machines (actually calling the ATM machines is redundant… i.e. "Automatic Teller Machine machines"). Unfortunately when evaluating the overall usability of these ATM’s the sum of the new features doesn’t quite add up to "a very friendly machine". Let me explain:
Split interaction pattern (touch and key)
Older ATM designs put the user in the pattern of looking at the screen while interacting tactiley with the keypad. Maybe not the best interaction pattern, but it was consistent. I believe a good touchscreen interface should put the user in a consistent pattern of interacting with the screen itself. This new design has adopted an interface that forces the user to interact with both the touchscreen and the old school keypad. Why not print the keypad on the screen on do away with the 2 interaction models?
Problems with the Parralax Effect
My next gripe with the touchscreen model is the problem that arises due to the the parallax effect. The parallax effect causes different users to perceive the same button in potentially different places. For example, tall users standing to the right of the touchscreen will tend to perceive the button as being above and to the right of the actual button position, so they will tend to touch high and to the right of the button sensing region. Analogously, short users standing to the left of the touchscreen will tend to perceive the button as being below and to the left of the actual button position, so they will tend to touch low and to the left of the button sensing region. At my local BofA ATM, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that there is only one machine to be shared by both drive thru and walk up customers. The screen is positioned low, optimized for the driver of a small compact car. Standing users, or drivers of larger trucks or SUVs are almost sure to struggle with the parallax effect, especially when the buttons are stacked vertically on the screen. I often see walk up customers slouching over or bending down in order to interact with the screen correctly.
Extremely painful deposit process
I agree that the fast cash feature is nice and cuts down on the number of steps it takes to get through the transaction. BUT, have you tried to deposit multiple checks and cash into these new machines???
Steps to deposit 3 checks and cash with the old machine:

Choose "deposit"
Type in $ amount
Choose "OK"
Put money in envelope
Slide envelope in

Steps to deposit 3 checks and cash with the new Diebold machine:

Choose deposit cash and checks
Insert check 1
(wait for machine to process) approve check amount
Insert check 2
(machine kicked check back out, wrinkled?) Re-Insert check
(wait for machine to process) – Choose "OK" to approve check amount
Insert check 3
(wait for machine to process, couldn’t read check amount) type check amount
Choose "Ok"
Choose "Continue" (glance over shoulder at line of scowling customers)
(wait for cash slot to open) Stack all of the cash into the tray ($600)
Wait for machine to count the cash in the slot
Message: "We could not count all of your cash" – Have heart attack
(wait for cash slot to open) Remove uncounted cash ($200) – recover from heart attack
Choose "Deposit Cash"
(wait for cash slot to open) Re stack the rest of the cash into the tray ($200)
Wait for machine to count the cash in the slot

Extra deposit interface
Not only are there significantly more steps involved, but the waiting between steps is painfully slow. The main problem with this is that they have split the depositing of checks and cash into separate steps with separate physical slots on the machine. Each check needs to be inserted manually into the machine, scanned by the machine, printed on the screen, and then the check amount needs to be approved or corrected by the customer. Cash is piled into a tray and is counted by the machine. This is a cool idea, but after making 4 separate deposits, I have seen ATM successfully count all of my money only once. If any money is even slightly wrinkled the ATM will fail to count it. Users end up trying 2 or 3 times before giving up, which slows down the process significantly. If I could put all of my checks and cash into a single tray, wait for the machine to count the cash and print my checks for approval in 1 shot, with a higher success rate for cash counting then I would be happy with the change. But they totally miss the mark.
It could be argued that by removing the need for envelopes, BofA is reducing paper waste. But this is offset slightly by the fact that the receipt comes with a printout of every check that was deposited, using many times more paper than the old receipts.
Slower process equals longer lines
Since the new machine was installed I have noticed significantly longer lines at the ATM in my neighborhood. This is either because of all the new customers that have started new accounts so they can use the friendly new machines or maybe it’s because the new machines are just plain slow and hard to use?