Today Dad and I went to the transfer station. "What is a transfer station?," you might ask. Well, it is the dump. Except not really, because we live on a small island and all of our trash is taken to the mainland. Here you take your trash to the transfer station and then it is taken to the landfill/ dump/ incinerator elsewhere. Here I could digress into an argument for composting/ recycling/ no impact, but we know those arguments and I hope that everyone is doing what they can in those arenas. Anyways our conversation turned to the magazine bins. The recycle bins are large dumpsters, I think about 7ft. by 20ft. They are mostly enclosed boxes. Occasionally there is a dumpster that has what are like mail slots that you are meant to deposit your magazines in (pictured left) and sometimes there is a dumpster with what appears to be sliding doors, which are left open and provide a large space to put complete bundles of magazines in simultaneously. Dad and I prefer the later(pictured right).
Our audience poll, meaning the two of us, reveals that consumers prefer the larger opening 100% of the time. Why would this other design exist? So naturally, "What do you make up about that?" is the next question. I propose that the mailbox-esque design is older and based on a solution that worked well for a different problem. The adequate design that allows for maximum load drops is a newer design that was actually thought of for this product. Dad went along with this answer. The mailbox style still exists because they are not going to get rid of these dumpsters until they have rusted apart, which means that every so often we are going to be faced with a poorly designed object. Let me know what you make up about it!