Improving Elevator Button UX

Category: [Non-Professional] Product Design, UX

Project authors: Mahir Amer

Tools/Skills used: Product Designing, Research, Information Architecture, Figma, Adobe Illustrator

The story: It's common courtesy to hold the elevator for someone who might not make it in time for the automatically closing doors. The other day, I was in just this situation when, in a hurry, instead of pressing the button to open doors, I pressed the one that closed them. Before I could recognize my mistake, the elevator had actuated its rise and I was left embarrassed.

Now, I could have simply brushed this off as a one-off and gone on with my day, but no! As a designer, it is my job to look for things to complain about and people to blame improve upon! Elevator button layouts have plenty of other issues too, namely the confusing ways in which the buttons are arranged, half-hearted consideration for disability and so much more. So, I decided to do something about it.

The Problem: Elevator button layouts are confusing and need re-learning every time. #mildlyinfuriating

The Aim: To improve elevator button layouts to lessen the cognitive load and re-learning requirements.

Let's look at some elevator button layouts that we have all come across to better understand this UX plight. #MarketResearch

Example 1: The open and close buttons are right next to each other (highlighted in yellow), exactly where they need to be to maximize confusion.

If you happen to start scanning from the bottom, you realize that it corresponds to the floor chronology - meaning 2 is a higher floor than 1 and is therefore placed above - and so on and so forth. This correspondence, however, is broken just after 4 floors(highlighted in blue). You somehow end up at 15 and then...

The button placement is also done such that a quick glance isn't enough. Someone wanting to go to floor 23, for example, might be confused about whether to press the one on the right or the left. This is perplexing since I can see braille on the tags. This button layout will be doubly confusing for someone with visual impairment. This is what I mean by half-hearted consideration for disability.

Image 1: This image was collected from the reddit channel 'r/mildlyinfuriating.'

Takeaway 1: Button placement should be unambiguous - whether or not you have visual impairment.
Buttons that are likely to be mistaken for each other (open/close door button) should be placed separately.

Example 2: I can understand the appeal of a layout that is entirely vertical. Higher floors, higher buttons - I get it. However, for any building that has more than, say, 10 floors, it becomes a...well... tall order to fit all the buttons into a space that is reachable by someone who is short or is in a wheelchair.

Another issue is, again, with the open and close doors buttons- which, although placed spaciously, are too similar to each other in terms of design.

But hey, credit where it is due. The buttons seem to encase the numbers, which reduces ambiguity.

Image 2: Source. Vertical button layout.

Takeaway 2: Entirely vertical layouts are not feasible for the most part, despite making intuitive sense.

Example 3: The emergency call button should be reachable by someone who is on a wheelchair or is fainting. This would require the button to be one of the lower buttons, though this particular image does not provide a good idea of how high this panel is.

Similarly, the button layout should be informed by information architecture that factors in whether the function of a button is essential or non-essential and the quickness with which an action might have to be performed.

Image 3: Source. Lack of information architecture. The emergency call button (highlighted in yellow) should be one of the easiest buttons to get to.

Takeaway 3: Define button functions to be essential or non-essential and consider the scenarios in which they might be used.

Gathering these takeaways from traditional designs, I then drew further insights from UX resources online to come up with the following design. My design choices and the information that informs them will follow thereafter.

My Design:

Image 4: This layout was designed initially using Figma, and then edited further in Adobe Illustrator.

Design choices:

Numpad layout: I deviated from the typical button layout which places lower floors at the bottom and higher floors at the top. As shown in takeaways 1 and 2, a vertical layout is not feasible in most situations. If a vertical hierarchy is followed, it should be followed completely or not at all, especially in situations like in image 1 where floors 26-29 are all shown on the same level. Instead, I utilize Jakob's law which suggests that familiarity reigns supreme in the world of UX. Hence the use of the phone-numpad layout, which is largely universal. This layout complies with another one of our tendencies: the F scanning pattern. In combination, these two tendencies allow users to quickly glance and understand where any particular button might be, reducing guesswork and cognitive load.
Information Architecture: I defined the emergency call button to be the most important button that everyone needs to be able to reach. Hence it is at the bottom, and is distinct in design, according to the Isolation effect. It is also to be noted that I avoided multiple emergency buttons. Some elevators have a button for alarm and a separate one to call. In a moment of true emergency, I do not want to be making any more decisions than I have to, and Hick's law states that minimizing complexity will improve decision times. It is up to the building authorities to determine whether the emergency call button will activate an alarm or call someone in-charge. We, of course, do not the button to be pressed indiscriminately or accidentally to avoid situations like the "boy who cried wolf." The emergency button is, therefore, not larger than the other buttons. The "open/close door" buttons are also distinct, though not quite as striking as the emergency call button. These buttons are also pressed with urgency, but with abuse being less likely. Hence, they are physically larger buttons according to Fitt's law which suggests that bigger buttons are easier to hit. Of course, the two buttons are separated by a considerable distance to avoid the confusion that is the inspiration for this case-study to begin with!

Other areas of improvement:

Tactility: While this case study is primarily concerned with the button layout, tactility is an important area of consideration. This could include features like the buttons staying depressed until the called floor is reached. This will further help those who are visually impaired. It is to be noted that such a feature might impact the long-term durability of the button panel and hence requires more research.
Illumination: While not depicted in this case study, the illumination of the buttons is an important part of system-status identification - i.e. to let users know that their intended floor has successfully been called. While some elevators already do this, it the illumination should be encased within the button itself to eliminate ambiguity such as in the case of Example 1.
Design Standardization: Going back to Jakob's law and the power of familiarity, elevator button layouts should be standardized to minimize the time it takes users to learn how to use them.