upvote
I used easypark to pay for parking in different cities and countries very happily.

It is vastly preferable to "find a parking meter, sort out rules, find a way to pay" which was the previous experience, I'm a bit concerned they look like a sort of monopoly but I'll take that over every city having their own system.

reply
It is vastly non preferable for non riffraff individuals (eg me).
reply
iOS has App Clips which theoretically are supposed to do this - just tap on NFC, app clip opens up and lets you pay, and sticks around to allow you to re-up while your meter is going.

Agree tho, parking is not a world where we get really good UX developers.

reply
The app was only necessary as a one click bypass for the original bad UX. Im not the author but would likely develop an automation of sorts for such a pointless daily friction. And it doesn’t really matter what’s bundled as (app, script, etc) as long as it gets compressed/reduced to one click.
reply
I think GP was responding to "navigate to a webpage (there is no mobile app)"
reply
An app is more convenient for something you do every day.
reply
It’s paying for parking.

It was a solved problem long before smart phones.

Technology is supposed to improve the experience not make it worse.

reply
What’s your actual point?
reply
There's absolutely no need for an "app" / "website", a phone, and everything that comes with using that choice, i.e. original posters 10 steps, to pay for parking.

The design choices added more friction than walking past a "pay and display" machine.

The design choices added more friction than displaying a monthly/anual pass that you purchase for regular parking at places like universities.

The design choices added more friction than driving through a boom gate with camera recording license plate, and auto charging you on the exit or taking payment at exit.

You now need your phone with you, fully charged, to complete a transaction for what used to be a quick, simple process for at least 50 years.

reply
> There's absolutely no need for an "app" / "website", a phone, and everything that comes with using that choice, i.e. original posters 10 steps, to pay for parking.

Making a proper app for it makes it not take those 10 steps.

> The design choices added more friction than driving through a boom gate with camera recording license plate, and auto charging you on the exit or taking payment at exit.

The one instance of this I have seen used an app to connect your licence plate to your payment method.

> You now need your phone with you, fully charged, to complete a transaction for what used to be a quick, simple process for at least 50 years.

With a proper app, it’s a quick, simple process if you have a phone that is just “not completely discharged”, no need for it to be fully charged.

reply
why? you can save the website to your home screen and should be able to get the same user experience for launching the thing. everything that happens once inside the app or website is just normal UX design - no reason to do it 'worse' on a website.
reply
> why? you can save the website to your home screen and should be able to get the same user experience for launching the thing.

Except saving that to the Home Screen isn’t the same user experience as downloading an app via an qr code, and you’ll be expecting some pretty technically incompetent people to be using the parking space.

But I do agree with your general point about the UX inside the (web|mobile) app.

reply
the complaint wasn't about the 'discovery and install experience', it was about the UX of paying for parking every day. There are definitely things that the app store experience brings to the table for distribution of apps - trust being the main thing I think. I really don't like the barriers that iOS specifically puts in place for web apps - they're intentionally making it harder than it needs to be, in order to protect their walled garden and the $$ that brings them.
reply
I was clearly replying to your comment about how “saving a webpage to the home screen is easy”.

Yes it’s easy…if you’re technical. But most people who drive are not good with technology.

reply