tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post8751059077260072631..comments2024-03-25T22:17:35.616+00:00Comments on Public Transport Experience: The One Part Threefatbusblokehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06833340546527596517noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7432323264902617108.post-11856525827516595182012-12-23T16:30:28.976+00:002012-12-23T16:30:28.976+00:00"You can either be comprehensive or comprehen..."You can either be comprehensive or comprehensible but never both."<br /><br />I'm not sure that's entirely fair. The network in this case is fairly complex, and to my mind, First haven't really helped by using '1' for journeys to both Helensburgh and Balloch. It would surely have been more sensible to use the suffixes more consistently, and possibly one more suffix - since there are of necessity suffixes. <br /><br />However, you cannot blame the use of a single database for that problem. Avoiding repetition lies at the root of good database design, and that includes not storing the same information in multiple databases, so in that respect First are 'doing it right'. <br /><br />I do agree that the way First present the timetables on their website is not easy to read. However here again, there are plus points - the existence of an HTML database driven version is useful, although the PDF versions do seem to be reasonably quick to load as well. I shall be interested to see what you suggest they could do to improve, but I would suggest individual tables for the various routes, plus an 'all journeys' Dumbarton-Glasgow summary. These practices were commonplace in similar situations, and I very much doubt that it would be impossible with the current electronic systems. It just needs the appropriate management decision to create them.<br /><br />I'm sure the problems are the result of inconsistent human activities - the computer only does what a human tells it to!RC169https://www.blogger.com/profile/03921368833118123055noreply@blogger.com