|
|
|
|
|
|
by mc32
1014 days ago
|
|
|
So they took components from a previous system, didn't test properly on the new system and today we inherit a whole lot of regulation for medical equipment because of this. Not that it's a bad thing that we ensure proper testing has occurred but there are so many cases where legally this applies even if it's very peripheral (like say a UI change in a menu item of something not related to medical equipment but is never the less under compliance) |
|
|
I think regulating UI changes in medical equipment (or in other devices that could potentially kill people) is very much justified: Even if the software is nominally working as intended, if some update made unexpected ui changes that end up confusing the operator, this could lead to dangerous situations just as well as if the software had a bug.
I agree that this would be overblown for ui in non-critical places, but I didn't have the impression there is any heavy-handed regulation in those areas (otherwise, I'd expect we'd see fewer dark patterns and other "ux" redesigns that are clearly for "engagement optimizing" and not to make any task easier for the user)
Could you give some examples of non-medical situations where regulation gets in the way of ui redesigns?