Looks like it could be the same person, but wouldn't that make more sense? If it's different people then you're not just changing one aspect, the glasses in this case.

The worker presumably has to do the same work many times. So he isn't doing the work in the video for the first time regardless. It's something he does regularly. They could do the work with glasses a couple of times and compare it with non-glass work times. I think this is (as in the video) is the best A/B test way.

If the worker did the Glass test after he did the non-Glass test, his productivity/efficiency increase could be attributed to memory and not just Glass.

Yeah. Hopefully they would do it multiple times. To not have memory be much of a factor.

This is aviation work, you always always always check the work you are doing with the manual. One mistake could be someone's life. The entire aviation industry is checklist and procedure driven.

They even have a specialized English dialect called simplified technical English to help eliminate confusion.

Have they done any studies on the benefits of using the simplified language vs the time investment it takes to produce the manuals to spec?

I'd imagine most of the gain comes from companies with a high number of ESL workers - but it sounds like it may be a tool that a bureaucratic, control obsessed, management culture likes but is largely just busy work parading as productivity gains.

It could also make the technical manual writers lazy or use less editing because they lean on the language instead of investing real thought into making their communication effective and easy to understand.

As machine translation of english continues to improve, I'm curious how useful it will be. And the feature of "Reducing ambiguity" (according to Wikipedia) is something that can be solved in many different ways without having to invent a whole new simplified language subset for all communication.

Either way that's an interesting example of how serious they take this stuff.

I'm not sure.

I don't work in aviation, but you can produce much better documentation by following at least the spirit of this vs. the specific grammars and vocabulary.

Engineers and IT people are often not very strong in writing ability, and there are many non-native speakers in technology. I've seen situations where "Cute" documentation with TV references (infrastructure placement was captured by types of disney vs. looney tunes characters) and lots of implied context. Having a style guide that forces simplicity can be a high value.

Given what I know about the aviation industry, it's extremely unlikely that this was the first and second time he has done this task. We might be looking at the millionth time and million-and-one time. Memory is probably not a factor.

I suppose if those technicians are meant to go step-by-step through a checklist, and not to just work from memory, then this video still makes sense as an A/B test.

You'll still anticipate the next step which will speed things up. Pilots must follow a checklist but they also memorize the steps have have their hands in the right spot when it's time to call off an item.

Fair enough. Though as 'skinnymuch points out, if they're doing this regularly, then memory shouldn't play any role in the speed.

Yup. If it's an experienced technician, then memory is a factor for both tests.

I assume this wasn't the first time that person has done this task, with or without Skylight. And maybe the statistic is based on an average of them doing this task multiple times, both with and without Skylight? And the video we see is just showing an example of each?

"A/B test" was clearly the wrong phrase yes, but I don't see how that reduces it to a "marketing spot". Demonstrating a products effectiveness through a meaningful comparison that shows it actually working in practice is a fair representation.