CMU Trash: Brief Case Study of Effective and Ineffective Design
In an attempt to become an eco-friendly campus, Carnegie Mellon University categorizes its trash in 3 or 4 bins, which usually include trash, recycling, and compost. However, not all receptacles on campus follow the same format; some trash bins have better design than others.
Effective Design
The new Tepper building provides a relatively simple experience for throwing trash away after a meal. Users are instructed to separate their materials into 3 categories: compost, bottles/cans and other plastic, and anything else should be thrown in the trash. The use of icons on white circles that are outlined and separate from the text portions of the label helps the user quickly identify examples of items that should be placed in each slot. In addition, the oblong shape of the slot allows users to place their items in the correct slots with increased accuracy, especially if users decide to toss their items quickly. The contrast of the signs could be improved with a change to a darker color, as the light-colored surface of the bins makes the labels a bit difficult to read. As this trash receptacle is in the new Tepper building, site of a visitor center and many business professionals, the designers may have intended to impress important people with the details of the building, including the atrium’s trash organization. They appear to achieve their goals of sleek garbage disposal bins and reduced confusion as to where different trash items should be placed.
Ineffective Design
The recycling bins in the Morewood residential hall have poor design. There is redundancy because both of these receptacles accept the same type of material. Although this may seem like the bins are providing the user with extra convenience as they do not have to discern which bin to deposit their recyclables in, this may also lead to some confusion as to the purpose of having a second bin. In addition, the 3 sets of signage on the bins produce contradicting messages. The tape labels on the top and side of the bins specify that both bottles and cans are allowed. However, the sticker in between the bins appears to say that only cans are allowed, as the other 2 stickers are peeled off. The clarity of the masking tape labels is also reduced, as the width of the sharpie text is not very bold and reading the labels may take some squinting on the user’s part — they are barely readable in the photo itself! The size of the holes are also relatively small in relation to the entire top surface; speaking from experience, I have about a 30% accuracy rate of making the bottle into the bin on the first try when I throw from about 15 ft away from the bins. Furthermore, the trash bin is closer to the residents of the floor than the recycling bin. This positioning may cause some residents to simply toss everything into the trash. If the designers’ goal was to increase the ease of recycling for Morewood residents, they are not achieving their goal, as the ordeal of recycling in this building is not as smooth as in buildings such as Tepper.
