4 ms·
You completely miss the point of what he is saying. There is nothing intuitive about "1", "2", "3". Your proposed solution requires everyone to build expertis
by jaxn 9y ago
You completely miss the point of what he is saying. There is nothing intuitive about "1", "2", "3". Your proposed solution requires everyone to build expertise at throwing things away.
You also open the system up to folklore about what the numbers mean and what should go in each bin. And that folklore is impossible to control and correct.
It's fine if you want to build systems that way. They may be good and work well enough. But a more intuitive system will prevail at some point.
- et1337 9y agoJeesh, take it easy. I took the numbers to be rhetorical. Of course you'd want to use intuitive icons instead of just numbers. What I'm curious about is what kind of prevailing more intuitive system you had in mind.
- maxerickson 9y agoPlastic recycling uses numbers.
- carwheel10 9y agoIt doesn't have to be "1", "2" or "3" necessarily, it could be A, B or C or any other marker or some other icon. This system could be adaptable as well. So suppose, you have only 2 bins, say bins: #1 and #2. The article to be thrown is marked as #3. So, in the absence of the relevant bin, throw the article to the closest matching bin, in this case: #2. The system would be composed of simple rules that people can remember in obvious fashion. > You also open the system up to folklore about what the numbers mean and what should go in each bin. And that folklore is impossible to control and correct. I don't know what "folklore" means here. This efficiency of the system comes from standardization. It seems no different than rules at a traffic light intersection. One could argue that color of traffic lights could open up the system to folklore then?