Menu Innovation
Tried and tested. These items sure are available and are happily provided upon request. An innovative way to expand the menu.
Text from above picture: At Mainland China, we believe nothing should come in the way of your dining pleasure. That’s why we have available for you reading glasses in a range of powers, a sewing kit, contact lens cleaning solution, woolen shawl, safety pins, ear buds, band-aids, sanitary napkins. Should you require any assistance, please ask the washroom attendant or the Captain.
I wonder who decided which items should be on the list of those stocked for guests and how they decided.
Add comment March 8, 2010
One door. Two genders. Four handles.
Man. Woman.
Boy. Girl.
A new way to indicate the unisex toilet?
One door. Two genders. Four handles.
We started the week by taking product design into the toilet. Let’s finish it off by walking out of the toilet. But which handle will you use?
2 comments March 5, 2010
Capital new cap
Have you seen this new kind of bottle cap?
It is simple.
It is easy to open without a bottle topper or crushing and tearing up your hand.
It can be easy replaced atop the bottle after opening, to keep the bottle sealed between gulps.
I am excited about this new kind of top. Not as much because I think it’s the greatest bottle cap I’ve ever seen, more because I love when people begin to innovate in products that have been stagnating for a long time.
Kudos to the folks over at Kingfisher!
2 comments March 3, 2010
One flush or two?
Many toilets are designed with a dual-flush system. One flush lever meant to be used for liquid waste (which requires less water) and one flush lever meant to be used for solid waste (which requires more water).
Here are a few examples:
In these two designs (as well as most others I have seen) the smaller button is for liquid waste (less water) and the larger button is for solid waste (and more water).
So here is the design challenge:
Given that this device is meant to be energy / resource saving, by helping to conserve water, how can we resolve the following paradoxical situation?
We prefer that the user use the smaller button (expending less water) as often as possible, and only use the larger flush when necessary. However, the larger button is easier to use, simply because it is bigger.
The current design allows the user to quickly intuit which button releases more water (bigger button = bigger flush), but it does not address the fact that people will tend to use the easier option (bigger button) more often, which is counter to the design intent.
How can we redesign the flush levers such that we still know intuitively which button releases which amount of water, while making it clear that the less water option is the preferred option if possible?
This last picture is actually a single-flush option, but I provided the picture to perhaps provide some design inspiration.
2 comments March 1, 2010
Can you afford a light?
This packet of fifty matches costs 1 rupee. The exchange rate is about 45 rupees to $1 USD. So the packet costs just over $0.02.
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?
Sure, they are small and made from wax; nevertheless, the materials alone for fifty matches and a box must cost something. Then figure in the costs of time, overhead and shipping.
Yet, there they are, on sale for 1 rupee a box at every corner store.
6 comments February 24, 2010
