Core77

Hell in a Handbasket: Airplane Flight Attendant Button Design Breakthrough

By Rain Noe - June 21, 2011

in Object Culture

For e-mail interface designers, putting the "Reply" button right next to the "Reply All" button seems like a good idea, until you accidentally send something to 20 people that you only meant for one person to read. And airplane interior designers have typically placed the "Flight Attendant" button next to the overhead light button, clearly differentiating each with an icon of either a human being or a light bulb, and further differentiating it with distinct colors, and yet people will still summon Darlene when they meant to light up their copy of Newsweek.

Is this a failure of design, or a failure of the end user? Boeing is calling it the former, and trumpeting their new flight attendant button simply because it's placed farther away from the light button. They cite this ridiculous piece of design research which I really hope isn't true:

...Extensive research [has] shown...that many passengers avoid turning on the reading light for fear of accidentally calling the flight attendant, Boeing Director of Differentiation Blake Emery told Reuters from Seattle.

Let me get this straight—"many passengers" look at the two buttons, cannot work out which is which, and sit in darkness because they are too afraid to grapple with this problem? Are the flight attendants on these flights shaped like lightbulbs while the lightbulbs are made of glass blown into the shape of bathroom icons?

Maybe the Russians have it right, with this outdated and somewhat sexist flight attendant button:

via Flickr user Wayan Vota

In any case, here's a button I'd really like to see. You'd press it to settle disputes over just whose armrest that is between you and the sprawling person next to you:

o

Favorite This
Q
5

Comment

Comments

Andrew

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I was on a flight the other day that took off in the dark. The flight attendant announced that she would be dimming the cabin lights for takeoff and offered the passengers a chance to locate and turn on their overhead light before she did so. Inevitably, once she turned off the lights, everyone reached for their overhead light and at least ten people mistakenly pushed the attendant call button.
!Report as spam
James

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

>I've always wondered why they simply don't make it a toggle switch.

I actually believe that it is a toggle switch. After pressing it, the light is on/blinks so that the flight attendant knows who pressed it. They then toggle it off when they get there.

>I have also wondered why this is not the case with elevator buttons.

This. Please. I also particularly like the idea that if you call for an elevator, but don't need it anymore, you can cancel it.

I'd like to also see this applied to cross-walks. Often I find an opening allowing me to cross and then I feel bad stopping cars at the intersection for no good reason.
!Report as spam
Clay

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

You claim that it's easy to differentiate between the two symbols. This is true when the light is on. The problem is when the light is off (meaning you can't see the symbols) and you want to turn it on. Any symbol is going to be difficult to see for some people unless the buttons are backlit.
!Report as spam
Clayton

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I've always wondered why they simply don't make it a toggle switch. You press to call the attendant, and then if you accidentally press it, or suddenly decide its not needed, you press it again and deactivate it. Couple that to say a 5 second delay before any alert is made for people to change their minds and the problem is solved.

I have also wondered why this is not the case with elevator buttons. People often push the wrong floor and then are stuck with that option. Why not just be able to push again to disengage?
!Report as spam
Jake

13 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

"Press button to slice air marshal in half" "press other button to re-spawn air marshal"
!Report as spam