quikchange: Usability engineering applied to the law

Tony (

quikchange) wrote,
@ 2007-10-02 07:19:00

Current mood:	pensive
Current music:	Sunrise/Sunset - Jill Sobule
Entry tags:	geeky, philosophy, politics

Usability engineering applied to the law
While designing user interfaces at VMware, we take great care to ensure that all the text we display is succinct, clear and relevant. We do this because people simply don't read long swathes of text that aren't interesting or entertaining. Wouldn't it be wonderful if legal text was held to the same standard? ...if the entire body of tax law had to fit within a few thousand words instead of several million? ...if product license agreements were restricted to a few hundred words instead of being dozens of pages long?

If ignorance is not going to be accepted as an excuse for violating the law then it seems only fair that the law ought to be redesigned so it takes human cognitive limitations into account.

Update: evidently the Brit gov't agrees with me.

(Post a new comment)

Maybe

hyperlysdexia
2007-10-02 05:18 pm UTC (link)

Perplexing complexity is a tool used to befuddle the ignorant masses into quiet submission under the duplicitous guise of innocuous, fairness with intent to deceit.

-OR-

Complexity is a dirty trick.

Examples:

i. Cell phone contracts
ii. Credit card user agreements
iii. End-user license agreements
iv. Intellectual property law
v. Traffic court
vi. Financial markets
vii. Enron

Typical script:

A. Consumer visits a Producer.
B. Producer produces product for inspection.
C. Producer provides a befuddling legal document.
D. Consumer thinks "Ow, it hurts to think."
E. Consumer thinks "Okay, I guess."
F. Consumer signs contract.

time passes
. . .

G. Producer knocks on Consumer's door.
H. Producer proclaims "Gotcha! You owe me XXX.XX dollars! It says right here in the contract!" :D
I. Consumer complicity, grudgingly hands over money.

Solutions:

1. Refuse to sign unintelligible contracts.
2. Mandatory peer-review of all laws for correctness, wording and applicability.
3. Vote with your feet.
4. Vote with your wallet.
5. Let's say consumers, en masse, stopped handing over money to certain companies. The court system wouldn't be able to handle it. "Consumers of the world unite." ;)

Further Reading:

a. many works of Chomsky
b. "Nonsense" by Gula
c. "The Stuff of Thought" by Pinker

"You control yourself. Others merely try to influence your actions. You make a conscious or unconscious choice to obey or not."

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Maybe quikchange 2007-10-02 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	Your excellent comment makes my original blog entry look skimpy ;-) Thanks for the reading suggestions, especially Gula, of whom I had been hitherto unaware. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Maybe hyperlysdexia 2007-10-02 06:36 pm UTC (link)
	i always thought vmware's clear interface and doc is what made the entire product. ahh... but what about a presentation layer that adapts to different user's models of cognition? example: give them a test to determine their most natural modality for communication. or do all people work basically the same way? im no expert, just curious. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Maybe quikchange 2007-10-02 06:46 pm UTC (link)
	Sounds like you might enjoy reading Steven Johnson. He writes about precisely that sort of thing in some of his books! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Maybe hyperlysdexia 2007-10-02 09:52 pm UTC (link)
	Cool, thanks! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Maybe paulschreiber 2007-10-02 09:47 pm UTC (link)
	we've had some court rulings in our favour recently. many such "contracts" have a clause requiring consumers to go to binding arbitration instead of court -- preventing you from suing. (and preventing you from forming a class action, so you can afford to sue.) this type of clause has been declared invalid. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…