Rider Interviews
Field research transcripts
Priya had spread six transcripts across the conference table like evidence at a hearing. Sable sat across from her and Rafa, reading the same phrase for the third time: "I must have done something wrong."
RIDER 4 (commuter, age 34): I use the kiosk maybe three times a week. Every time I buy a day pass, it asks me to pick a zone first. I don't know what zone I'm in. I just want to ride to work. [pause] I usually guess zone 2 because that's... the middle? I figure if I get it wrong, that's on me.
RIDER 7 (tourist, age 52): I stood at the kiosk for probably four minutes. The screen had — I want to say twelve buttons? I didn't know which one was for a single ticket. I pressed "Fares" thinking that was it, but it showed me a table of prices with no way to actually buy anything. I had to go back and start over. I almost gave up and took a taxi.
RIDER 11 (student, age 19): The worst part is the map screen. You tap on a station and it highlights, but nothing tells you what to do next. Is it selected? Do I confirm somewhere? I tapped the same station three times thinking it wasn't registering. My friend figured it out — you have to scroll down to see the confirm button. It's below the fold. Who designs it so you can't see the next step?
RIDER 4 (follow-up): Honestly, every time I mess up at the kiosk, I feel a little stupid. Like everyone else figured it out and I'm the one who can't. But then I look around and other people are having the same problems. So maybe it's not us?
A recurring pattern in these transcripts: riders blame themselves when the kiosk confuses them. Rider 4's assumption — "that's on me" — reveals how people internalize design failures as personal failures. When the designer's intended structure doesn't match what riders expect, the gap between those two models creates confusion.
The designer's intended explanation of how a system should be understood — the logic, structure, and relationships they embed in a design so users can form an accurate mental model. When the conceptual model is clear, users build correct expectations. When it's opaque, they fill in the gaps with assumptions.
- The conceptual model lives in the design itself — layout, labels, and flow all communicate the intended logic
- A mismatch between conceptual model and mental model is the root of most usability failures
- Designers can test whether their conceptual model is working by watching how users describe the system in their own words
In the studio: The Meridian kiosk designers organized the system by fare type — zones, passes, single tickets. But riders think in tasks: "I need to get to the airport." The kiosk's conceptual model doesn't match how riders actually frame the problem.
The total mental effort required to process information in working memory. Every label to read, option to evaluate, and decision to make adds load. When the total exceeds what a person can hold in mind at once, they slow down, make errors, or give up entirely.
- Intrinsic load comes from the task itself — buying a ticket is inherently simpler than planning a multi-transfer route
- Extraneous load comes from poor design — confusing labels, unnecessary steps, and hidden actions that force the user to work harder than the task demands
- Working memory holds roughly four to seven items at once; exceeding that limit causes information to be dropped or confused
In the studio: Rider 7 faced a screen with twelve buttons. Even before reading the labels, the sheer number of options created a cognitive burden — too many choices competing for attention. Rider 11's invisible confirm button added extraneous load by forcing a hunt for the next step.