Passenger engagement in airport checkpoint queue spaces

Design research

Background

Queue spaces provide a method of organizing crowds waiting for services such as passenger screening at airports, when available facilities and staffing levels are not precisely matched to demand. At London's major airports, these spaces commonly take the form of switchback-style queues defined by movable stanchions and ropes.

Definition of problem

As a result of increasing diversification of airline services such as online check-in and VIP lounges, passing through the queue space is often the only experience shared by all passengers. In this sense, the queue space acts as a locus for the passengers' airport experience and thus affords a unique opportunity to improve the airport environment in ways which directly impact all passengers' journeys. Currently, long waits at airport checkpoint queue spaces are often the subject of passenger complaints (Department for Transport, 2010), and passenger anxiety experienced in checkpoint queues in anticipation of security screening procedures is an acknowledged barrier to effective behavioural profiling as practised by checkpoint personnel. Although the deployment of reassuring messages has been proposed to calm anxious (but harmless) passengers (Sharon H., 2011), I propose that engagement, when facilitated by useful information, can more efficiently accomplish the stated goals. Engaging passengers in an intelligent dialogue regarding security procedures may be a more effective strategy for identifying those with criminal intent who may be less inclined to participate in this process of engagement, preferring to remain isolated.

Existing practice

Strategies employed in other fields for increasing satisfaction among individuals waiting in queues rely primarily on the psychological principle that "occupied time feels shorter than unoccupied time" (Maister, 1984, p.3). Solutions employed in theme parks, for instance, include distracting guests with multimedia shows and interactive activities. At public transport hubs, electronic signs display real-time updates while static posters provide recent performance data. These feedback mechanisms answer the question 'why' and demonstrate a respect for passengers as engaged participants. Recent user-centred design interventions in airport queue spaces such as the U.S. Transportation Security Administration's Checkpoint Evolution programme and liquid-sorting stations at British airports attempt to decrease anxiety by providing timely information and the affordances to act on that information. Often, though, they fail to fully consider the assumptions which underlie the standard checkpoint queue space and the qualitative experience of passing through it.

Proposed solutions

The concept of engagement does not dictate specific outcomes. The following proposed solutions should not be considered authoritative; all methods for engagement must be contingent on the context in which they will be interpreted and the audience who will draw their own conclusions from them. Manifestations of engagement may take many forms and need not require complete re-engineering of queue areas. Signage could be incorporated into existing messaging systems, or installed on stanchions in switchback areas. New queue designs could incorporate strategies for engaging visitors currently employed in theme parks and science museums, with immersive, interactive queues engaging passengers while conveying information in ways which respect the limits of working memory (Sweller, Merrienboer & Paas, 1998). Exhibits placed throughout the queue could explain the inner workings of screening equipment, the justification for prohibiting certain items, and the number of confiscations and arrests that have been made at that location in the past days or months.

Conclusion

Research confirms a widespread desire among the travelling public for explanations of the rationale behind security procedures. Given that most of this 'deep information' is publicly available on the internet (Wikipedia), there are few legitimate security reasons for withholding it from passengers in situations such as queues when it might be of greatest use. This feedback is acknowledged in a wide variety of other fields (Norman, 1988), and can only occur when the user - in this case, the passenger - is provided with enough facts to reach an informed conclusion. Krippendorff (as quoted in Birk, 2010) describes this design approach as dialogical, with passengers as active members of the network of stakeholders, not simply end users. This study is situated in relation to the wider field of Information Environments and proposes a manner in which information can be delivered to create a normative, engaging experience for users and a desirable outcome for authorities. I argue not simply for cosmetic changes to queues, but rather for a process of reflection about the quantity and quality of information presented.

References

Birk, K. (2010). Designing Dialogue in Media Architecture. DCC10 - Fourth International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition.
Explosive detection. [Internet]. Wikipedia. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_detection. [Accessed 9 April 2011].
H., Sharon. (2011). Communicating security to the travelling public. 13 January 2011. Presentation. Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
Maister D. H. (1984). The psychology of waiting lines. Boston, Mass, Harvard Business School.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Questionnaire of Public experiences of and attitudes towards air travel (2010). [Internet]. Department for Transport. Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/trsnstatsatt/attitudestoairtravel. [Accessed 1 April 2011].
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F.G.W.C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review 10(3).
TSA Checkpoint Evolution. [Internet]. IDEO. Available from: http://www.ideo.com/work/tsa-checkpoint-evolution. [Accessed 1 April, 2011].