[eloisius]

This article had lots of echos from The Design of Everyday Things. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it. Before I did "design" was a word meant mostly aesthetics with a little UX sprinkled on to me. This is 100% a design problem, and we have to design systems for people that are stressed, in a hurry, confused, think they are smarter than they are, you name it. The part about differentiating markings for active and passive crossings is especially poignant for me. I ride bikes a lot and cross numerous passive crossings on smaller country roads. It's not that I don't understand how those crossing works, but I'll admit that I often subconsciously think to myself, "they designed this not to kill me if I don't disobey the bells and gates" as I tear past it after a quick glance.

[Gravityloss]

Styling is the word. It's different to design. It's only about looks. Design should be about functionality and ergonomics etc.

In my native language, they still haven't really found out a satisfactory way to differentiate those.

[ghaff]

One thing I remember from that book that drives me crazy is the bit about push vs. pull door handles. You see handles that you intuitively pull on both the push and pull sides of doors all the time. (Our HQ building is one of them. I'm usually only there once or twice a year and I can never remember to pull or push the handles on both sides of the elevator core.

[happysadpanda2]

In a sane (or well-regulated) world, all doors would always open outwards, in the direction of the nearest exit. In case of fire, you don't want a horde of people pressing an inwards opening door shut

[ghaff]

They usually do and I imagine they do open out of the elevator core in this case (because the stairwells are outside the core). It's just not mentally intuitive (to me) that going "out" in this layout means going from the elevators to the offices. I'm sure it would be natural if I worked in the office but I don't so I need to think about it--or just do it wrong first :-)

ADDED: And while "out" is obvious with an exterior door, it may not be with an interior door (and in fact there may not be a clear "in" and "out".)

[mratsim]

I would expect that it's actually a requirement and that you could get fined for that in an inspection.

146 people died in club in France due to inwards doors in 1970: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_Cinq-Sept_fire

I don't know the scale of the fine but using inwards doors are a big no-no.

And similarly, electrical door must unlock themselves when losing power (unless special buildings like military or dangerous laboratories).

[a3n]

I seem to remember the classroom doors of my elementary school (I'm in my sixties) opening in to the classroom, so that during an emergency they wouldn't be pressed closed by the panicking hords rushing by in the hallway, and so that opening them wouldn't injure those panicking hords.

[ghaff]

You also often see bathroom doors that open in; I had this random conversation with someone at a conference last year. I assume the theory is (assuming there is one) that there would rarely be so many people crammed in a bathroom that there'd be such a crush to get out that it would be hazardous. On the other hand, even day-to-day bathrooms are sometimes located such that someone quickly walking down the hall looking at their phone could fairly easily be slammed into by a door being swung out into the hallway.