Slashdot Mirror
Toilet Paper Algorithms
ziani writes "Computer science professor and ex-Apple technologist Don Norman posits a new "forcing function" in toilet paper use algorithms." Browsing through his website is a good way to kill a couple of hours.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I wonder if he was inspired by Snowcrash, and the long discussion of the issues related to toliet paper in the Fed Building in which yt's mom works? Sounds pretty similar, but less funny.
I would be interested to see statistics on toilet paper use vs. size of the roll. My bet would be that people will use more paper when the roll is full sized compared to when it is smaller due to the number of rotations and time involved to get the same amount of paper. This may be an argument to have a number of small rolls instead or one big one at commercial facilities where toilet paper use is a noticable cost.
Decided to take a look, see what kind of dual-roll dispensers are available, and voila... a sale!
Don't know if it was deliberate or not, but what a great way to utilitze the Slashdot Effect...
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
So, do they have a UPS on the toilet so they can drop a deuce while the power is out?
:)
Paper always works. Besides, it's good for starting fires.
I think I need a new sig here.
What kind of anal person wastes time on scheduling/queuing algorithms for TP?!?!
It may seem stupid at first, but it could make for an easy introduction to algorithms for young students. Just because it's a somewhat inconsequential topic to everyday life doesn't mean it's not something that's useless.
For example, in my macroeconomics class my freshman year of college, the professor attempted to explain many of the economic concepts in terms of beer and college students. Law of supply and demand: Price of beer goes up, supply of beer goes up, but demand for beer goes down (college students, of course, being limited in budget). Compliments and substitutes: Price of pretzels goes down, demand for beer goes up.
Yes, they are simplified examples, but I firmly believe the only reason I remembered anything from that class to this day is because of the examples she used.
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
This is one of the textbook examples of what people in several fields (such as economics evolutionary biology) have for some time referred to as "super-rational" behavior.
Th conventional definition of "super-rational" is taking into account the consequences of everyone (or at least the majority) following the strategy. It doesn't actually imply that the actors are rational (or even thinking). One of the topics where it has been used is the biological question of how altruism evolves. The best explanation so far is that a population that behaves altruistically among themselves has a survival advantage over purely individualistic populations.
The double toilet paper example is used as a clear way of illustrating this concept, in a way that doesn't impinge on people's social or religious ideologies. Very few people have any strong feelings about which roll you should use, so they are able to follow the argument without their beliefs causing distraction. And it's clear that a population could behave in a super-rational fashion in this case without being consciously aware that they were doing so. An irrational preference for the inner part of the roll would suffice.
If you ask google about "super-rational", you'll find a number of links to this concept buried among the silly and/or pretentious sites.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Furthermore, most homes have something nice and pretty called a "under-sink cabinet" in the bathroom, which is where you keep the extra toilet rolls when you have a one-roll holder. It solves the problem of which roll to take paper from (the one in the holder, not the one out of sight in the cabinet, in case you are part of the few percent of the population that doesn't get this). And that is why most homes don't bother with ugly, bulky, industrial-looking dual-roll toilet holders. People who have a separate room for their toilet and no under-sink cabinets usually install a little cabinet in that room, useful not only for holding toilet paper but also cleaning supplies.
Most normal people understand this. Most normal people know to look in the cabinet when they run out of toilet paper. (Most normal people also know not to keep any incriminating or unusual personal items there because they understand that other people will be looking there.)
I think the fact that one of the foremost HCI experts in the countries thinks it worthwhile to share his profound insights on this matter tells you a lot more about the state of HCI research than anything about toilet paper. Apparently, HCI researchers think that the rest of the country consists of idiots who don't even know what to do in the bathroom. In different words, I think a lot of HCI research is roughly at the same level of worrying about installing dual-roll toilet paper holders in the home.
One neglected aspect of this whole discussion is the all important physical placement of the roll holder.
One some toilets I've visited the arrangement fails to acknowledge that the distance to and / or placement of the roll holder relative to the actual toilet seat is an important design parameter.
On some of these poorly designed arrangements the roll is placed almost, but not entirely out of reach forcing one to leave the seat which we all know feels somewhat ackward. Others place the roll holder closely besides or even behind the actual toilet in such a way that you initially panic in search of it and - after discovering it - physically stress your body trying to find a way to get to the roll.
I think there's enough material in these observations for at least another paper on the subject.
naah sig schmig