Thinking of including people’s movement in designing objects for public places, we wanted to create something that could be approached from different directions, and that could be installed in different ways depending on thesite.
The form of the Hive machine originated from the cylinder - a form that is fully approachable from all sides. A disadvantage of the cylinder, however, is its limited storage space. To solve this we extended the cylinder, transforming it into a super ellipse. The new form faced multiple directions while also allowing a larger storage space.
We split the shape in two: one part became the machine, and the backpart could serve as another element - such as a bench, or, if the demand is high, another machine. If the back part would serve another function valuable for the citizens, the machine could more easily be placed freely in the middle of a square or street. The Hive machine alone, without the extra module, could also stand up against a wall.
To choose an appropriate material, I experimented with different options through renderings made in Keyshot. I explored visualizing the machine in3D-printed clay to match the city's common brick houses. Clay is a very interesting material since it can be locally resourced and is often a by-product when building new roads. However, since the machines needed to be emptied frequently, a heavy material like this would not be suitable.
Another material I looked into was recycled plastic, to make use of already extracted resources and avoid further exploitation of our planet.However, the parts would likely be too large to produce in plastic and could become weak.
We then saw an opportunity to help the machine blend into the city by resembling the standardized street furniture of Aarhus. A suitable material for this concept would be recycled, anodized aluminum, which could be given the same color and texture as other street elements around the town.
What were we actually improving with our new design concept?
The problems we found when analyzing the existing machine - and the ones we aimed to solve through a redesign - were that its form isn't well suited for placement in the middle of a square or street. The already narrow sidewalks of Aarhus become even narrower when the machine is placed on them. With its distinct front, back, and sides, it essentially becomes a barrier – an obstacle for pedestrians. In the fourth picture above, it is awkwardly placed, almost becoming a bike stand.
One evening at Festugen, we also observed how two machines, ironically, seemed to have turned into a spot for a lot of people to get rid of their disposable glasses. But not everyone can reach the roof of the machine – or even to the interface to use the machine in the intended way. The interface’s height is inaccessible to some people.
These form explanations summarize how Hive tries to solve these problems.With its round front, Hive faces in more directions and is an attempt to become less of an obstacle in the city picture. The supplementing module on the back of the machine enables free standing. For more people to use the machine in an ergonomical way, the interface is placed at a lower height than on the existing machine. The roof is angled for water to drain off and to help discourage littering. Communicating what the machine is and how to use it in a clear way was another challenge. In order to do this, we believe the surfaces should be kept clean and free from graffiti. Even though graffiti is important for people of the city and their expression, it could confuse users and hinder the machine from communicating what it is. Because of this, along with resembling Aarhus other street furniture, we chose the dark, textured metal. The inlet in which to return the Reuseable items is small, in favor of a large screen that could share information.
How to use the machine:
We wanted the machine’s user flow toresemble the existing machine, to not confuse the existing users. The flowwould work like this:
- User scans their credit card
- Lid opens and inlet lights up
- User inserts their reuseable items
- User presses “Finish” on screen whenfinished
- Lid closes, and machine processesthe items you have inserted
- Screen informs the user that theprocess is done, and that the fee will be transferred to their account
Back to user testing
Hive could be a step in the right direction, but it also raised manyquestions. How would it actually be like, walking up to a machine to return notonly takeaway cups but also food containers? On top of that, the user could becarrying a mix of waste.
We built a mockup to test different scenarios on and flows off the screen. The main source of information on the machine would be the screen, and therefore we wanted to achieve simplicity, with an encouraging tone in the digital design. There had been requests from people regarding more information about the Reuseable system, such as why the plastic Reuseable cup is better for the environment than a paper cup. This became the main challenge in designing the HMI (Human Machine Interface): to communicate the right things among all the information it could share.
Christoffer, UX designer at Design-People, and I created a flow which he later made a prototype on, using Figma.
Like described above, the user flow was only optimized and not changedmuch from the existing machine.
Separating waste from the valuable product takeaway packaging
As expected, we identified new needs after testing the mockup. For example, when the user would approach the machine with many things in their hands, they could be in need of a shelf. A waste bin could also be necessary for all the waste the user might have. We discussed and made several different waste bin options which we tested on the mockup. Input fromEmma Hallgreen from Aarhus Municipality was to make it as easy as possible for people to dispose of trash, for them to do it correctly. At the same time, its would not disturb the purpose of the machine - a machine that handles a valuable product rather than waste. We tested a scenario with an inbuilt waste bin, a waste bin on the side of the machine and a waste bin further awayfrom the machine. Understanding that building the waste bin into the machine could fill the machine with waste instead of the items the machine was intended for, along with involving more stakeholders for waste emptying led to the decision to separate it from the machine. The earlier mentioned risk of people littering around waste bins also motivated this decision, since littering could destroy the purpose of the machine.
.svg)