Bad Design
|
10/11/18
The conventional hand dryer is certainly a viable candidate for a “bad design” blog post, but in this case Dyson deserves the attention.
Travelling back to Manchester this weekend I was reminded of an example of bad design that seems to be everywhere, and bothers me a lot. I took my usual break from the M6 at Tebay services, and head to the bathroom where I first noticed the fundamental flaw with the Dyson Airblade. |
Launched in 2006, the Dyson Airblade operates differently from traditional hand dryers. Instead of a flow of warm air provided by a fan and heating element, the Airblade forces air through long, narrow slots creating a 400mph jet of air which “wipes” liquid off hands rather than relying on evaporation. Friction generates heat which aids the process. When it came out, the Dyson hand dryer was different and exciting. It looked cool and had Dysons techy spiel behind it. It quickly spread. Before long, there were Airblades in airports, universities, shopping centres, and new office building toilets. I guess interior designers wanted to be seen as being cutting edge – what better way to do that than have the latest gizmo, from one of the coolest inventors at the time. I bought into it at first; it certainly was a better user experience than a lot of hand dryers. It was an improvement on gently blowing luke warm air into your hands in the hope of drying them sometime this decade. Most people who use hand dryers either punch the start button several times to evaporate residual moisture, walk out with damp hands, or complete the drying process by wiping their hands on their clothes. It seemed like another example of innovation on Dysons part. Then came my visit to Tebay services. I went to dry my hands and found the Dyson Airblade was blocked off, so I was forced to use the neighbouring Mitsubishi Jet Towel. The Mitsubishi was evidently a new installation and appeared to have replaced an old/broken Airblade. Odd I thought. Why wouldn’t they get another Dyson? Aren’t they the best? I started to look around for clues. The Mitsubishi certainly didn’t compete with Dysons aesthetic. It didn’t feel as powerful either. Then I noticed some writing explaining the key features of the Mitsubishi – ‘drain tank keeps floor clear and dry’. I looked to the Dyson on my left. Water was dripping down the wall culminating in a puddle underneath. The problem is there is no attempt to drain the water. No evaporation takes place due to the low temperature, high force airflow. Instead, water is scrapped from the users hands and left in the bowl underneath which soon overflows and dribbles over the edge onto the floor. |
I’m evidently not the only person that’s noticed this flaw. The people at Tebay have at least chosen a slightly improved solution. It bothers me that Airblades are everywhere. Seemingly the hand dryer of choice (although possibly not for the cleaners who deal with the mess). How can a fundamentally flawed product be so successful? Not to mention it's sugnificantly higher price tag than it's competitors. It is a triumph of marketing over engineering. Dyson is a hot brand that sells product based on perceived ingenuity.
I can’t help but look whenever I use public toilets. They almost all have Dyson Airblades, almost all of which are a damp mess underneath. The ones in the university library are reliably messy – perhaps an encouragement when I am engulfed in the stresses of studying that even the best design engineers get things wrong. |