[62617] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Worst design decisions?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (steve uurtamo)
Fri Sep 19 17:02:09 2003
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:58:59 -0700
From: steve uurtamo <uurtamo@arttoday.com>
To: Shawn Jackson <sjackson@horizonusa.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <EA4A7785EECF644493D88EB58A80992D8F7760@hzmail.horizon.lcl>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> It's usually a legal risk deferrer decision to buy the ATM
>casing with Braille. Someone pointed out that Drive-Ups and Walk-Ups are
>the same, which it true for the internals but not Drive-Ups casing and
>moldings, which are adjusted for the average eye level of a person in a
>car, plus recessed, tiled monitors, etc.
>
> Basically, it costs x,xxx.xx to get the casing with Braille, and
>legal risk is valued at xx,xxx.xx (i.e. someone suing them because it
>doesn't have Braille).
>
> Better safe then sorry in risk management. I wouldn't view this
>is a lapse in deign decision, more of an obscure design decision.
>
>
overdesigned rather than poorly designed. even if nobody
can use it, it's just an extraneous feature. an atm built
into the concrete that you'd have to stop short of and
get out of your car to use. now that would be poorly
designed.
s.
