Skip to main content

Well Designed Failure

So last night, while I was out for a social gathering and my partner was out of town, someone appears to have tried to break into our house. They did a moderately good job of disassembling the door handle on our front door, but didn't get any further than that, thanks to the deadbolt lock on the door and the two loud dogs in their beds next to the door. Last night I was pretty upset about it, and I was also being critical of the door handle, but the more I think about it the more I think I'm wrong. I am beginning to think that the door handle itself was really quite brilliantly designed -- it was designed not just to work, but to fail gracefully.

When I got home I found the front door handle had been jimmied somehow, and was loose in the door itself; in addition, the interior handle part had come completely off the door. So I was mildly upset about this, thinking that first, someone had tried to break into my house, and second, that I would have to replace the door handle (at 9PM on a Saturday, which did not sound like the best time to go shopping for door hardware). But actually the door handle did its job brilliantly, and here's why I think that:


  1. Most importantly, the alleged intruders were unable to get into the house. So when the integrity of the handle failed, it still managed (with backup from the deadbolt and the dogs) to accomplish one of its two main design goals: keeping the door shut (the other we'll get to in a subsequent point).
  2. After the alleged intruders departed, when I arrived home I was still able to gain entrance to the house via the front door. This, by the bye, is the other main design goal of the handle: allowing the door to be opened. 
  3. This allowed the handle to accomplish another design goal, which is often ignored: it failed securely, and kept functioning even in failure mode. This was accomplished by various parts all acting in concert even in failure mode (including the length of the haft of the knob, the length and placement of the screws, and the design of the latch mechanism itself). 
  4. In addition, after the failure mode, it was relatively easy to return the handle to full working order -- the recovery process was relatively simple and not time-consuming.
  5. It did all this without any damage to the door itself, the deadbolt, or even the handle and knob mechanisms, meaning it was designed for robustness in its application.
So here we have a really, really good example of designers not just designing for the stated goals, but also taking into account failure and recovery modes. This is also an example of how even old, complicated tech (and a modern lock/latch is pretty complicated) can be designed to fail gracefully and with minimal agita to the user. From an Operational perspective, this handle may be a nearly-perfect design: secure, robust, graceful in failure, silent in normal operating modes, and easy to recover. It is a benefit of having had door knobs and locking latches for a couple of hundred years, including the last 50 or so when CAD methods have allowed for much finer tolerances and more rapid iteration of incremental improvements.

To sum this all up: if you, as a software designer, think not just about the stated goals but about how the tool you're building will be used (and broken by users), you'll have not just a better starting point, but also a better idea of what you'll need to iterate towards for improvement. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What I Did This Weekend, And Why It Mattered

A while ago some friends of mine pointed out to me online that they were involved in a kickstarter that was live, so I went to check it out. And it was a kickstarter for a gaming convention in the Bay Area in October, and a whole bunch of people that I cared a bunch about were going to be involved and wanted it to succeed. And I was a bit flush that month, so I said 'fuck it' and I backed the kickstarter and that got me a ticket to BigBadCon 2018.

And so I had a ticket, and I made reservations, and bought a plane ticket, and everything was looking up. And then I broke my foot. And now I was mobility-limited. And then my mom died. And I had to go out of town and deal with all of that basically the week before the con, which included taking a bunch of unpaid time off from work. And I thought really seriously about not going, but then I was like: no, there are cool people there that you haven't seen in literal-years. And you've already spent the money. So I said 'fuck…

JoCoCruise: Remembering the Feeling

We drove up to Seattle, because there are no direct flights from Portland to Fort Lauderdale, but there are from Seattle to FLL. Here's the tricky bit: the nonstop Alaska flight from SEA to FLL is a redeye. It arrives at 6AM local time in Florida. Programming note: this was not a great idea.


I'm just too old to do redeyes; I can't sleep and I can't go without sleep and this makes me very, very cranky. Our next trip out to Fort Lauderdale will have to be done differently, for sure. The flight had several mechanical difficulties which resulted in us not taking off for more than two hours, including 90 minutes sitting on the tarmac at the gate while they double-checked everything to make sure things weren't going to break. That was actually fine with me; the longer we waited to take off, the later we landed. (I have a whole bit in my talk about Support about five nines and moving parts and the 737 so I'll spare you the repeat and let you watch it yourself here.) M…

Occasional Media Consumption: Swordheart, by T. Kingfisher.

I'm not sure how to say what I want to say without saying it wrong.

I don't think I have been this excited for a new author's work since I was in the rapid process of discovering and then chewing through the back catalog of C.J. Cherryh, who at that point had just published Foreigner and grabbed me by my whiskers and screamed (metaphorically) "Look! Here is an author whose style of prose and choice of character speaks directly and entirely to you!" Or that moment in my high school years when I stumbled upon Melissa Scott's Trouble and Her Friends and I suddenly knew, with a certainty that has still not yet left me, that I wanted to be a part of the future (and the culture) of technology. And yet that's not fair, because T. Kingfisher, nee Ursula Vernon, is her own writer, her own voice, her own authorial person, and doesn't deserve to be compared to others.

To say that Kingfisher's prose style and choice of genre (which is to say, a particularly dar…