The Worst Ideas. Updates every Monday!

Your weekly source for terrible ideas.

Category: Design

Stop missing out on life because you’re wearing headphones and playing music, and your comrades have all gone off to experience something truly incredible, but you are abandoned because you didn’t hear them leave!

The issue:

If you’re wearing headphones, it can be difficult to hear when someone is trying to get your attention.

(Similarly, it can be heard to get the attention of someone wearing headphones without startling them.)

Proposal:

Headphones could have a small microphone on them with a processing unit that could listen for certain words.

When the headphones detect a specific trigger word (for example, the user’s name, or important phrases like “free food in the break room” or “someone’s breaking into your car”), the headphones would temporarily reduce playback volume.

headphone

Fig. 1: These headphones have a microphone that listens for certain user-specified key phrases that will cause playback to be temporarily muted.

The user would need to specifically configure a set of phrases of interest. For example, a user would most likely want their own name to mute the headphones, but probably they wouldn’t want their a co-worker’s name to also have this effect.

 

 

 

mute-action

Fig. 2: Here is an example for a headphone-wearer named Joe. The headphones would most likely incorrectly reduce the volume in situations F and G, unless sophisticated linguistic processing was performed to determine that they do not actually refer to the user “Joe.”

Conclusion:

This seems like a product that could actually exist. It might be annoying to configure the headphones for your specific name, however.

PROS: All of them!

CONS: If you have a name that shares syllables with common words, this set of headphones might not work too well. It is recommended that you change your name in such a situation.

Never be unfashionable again, with these five amazing 3d-modeled clothing tips! You’ll never believe tip number three!

Background, part 1:

Clothing catalogues occasionally provide a summary of the clothes that a model in an advertisement is wearing; usually this will be a piece of text that looks something like Get this Look: Jeans $100, Shirt $40, Weird Socks $10.”

This is a good system: the company can sell you more clothing this way, and the purchaser gets a pre-vetted complete outfit that (presumably) looks good.

Background, part 2:

“Open world” games often allow the player to customize the look and clothing / armor / random accessories of their character.

One example of this is Grand Theft Auto, where a player can buy hundreds of distinct clothing items for their player character.

Proposal:

Strangely, no games have yet implemented the (seemingly obvious) step of adding an in-game “Get this Look” button that would:

  1. Confirm the player’s clothing measurements
  2. Generate an order online for correctly-sized versions of the clothes that the player’s character is wearing at the moment.
  3. Mail those clothes to the player’s home address.

This could be made even easier if players could set their clothing sizes in a common interface (Figure 1), which would be shared between games.

get_this_look

Fig. 1: “Clothing Size” (bottom left, highlighted in blue) could be another system setting for a user, next to “WiFI settings” and “Sound.”

Conclusion:

This seems like it’s almost an inevitable feature of games in the future. People will probably wonder why it took so long!

Since it’s already profitable to sell virtual cosmetic items in online game, the sale of actual clothing (which can be printed / ordered on-demand) for human beings should be a simple extension of that idea.

 

Fig. 2: When selecting a shirt for one’s avatar in a game, a “BUY IT NOW FOR YOURSELF” button will appear next to it.

 

dark-souls

Fig. 3: Some games—particularly ones in futuristic or medieval settings—would be more difficult for designers to adapt as modern clothing.

 

duck-head

Fig. 4: Strange novelty outfits are a staple of character customization. Now it’s easier than ever to bring those options into the real world.

PROS: Adds new and amazing fashion options, just a click away!

CONS: All your old clothes will seem TOO UNFASHIONABLE now. May not work for 2D games.

Do you know of a company that offers rebates by check and is also unethical and hates its customers? Here’s one weird tip for that company that is ACTUALLY USED IN REALITY and is incredibly annoying!

Background:

When a company offers a rebate (“buy this widget, get $50 back”), only a fraction of customers will actually deposit the rebate check.

If customers don’t deposit their rebates, then the company can keep the money.

So it would be useful if there was some sort of dirty trick to reduce rebate deposit rates. Read on for details!

(Note: this is not a novel idea—it was inspired by an intentionally bizarre rebate check I received that could not be deposited online by at least two different banks.)

Proposal:

Normally, when a customer receives a rebate, it’s standard-format check (Figure 1). The customer’s banking app certainly knows how to read this format, so it is deposited with no problems.

good-check

Fig. 1: The BankApp online deposit system has no problem reading this straightforward check.

The rebate-issuing company may really want the check to fail the depositing process (Figure 2), which adds hassle and inconvenience for the check-depositing customer.

rejected

Fig. 2: If the customer’s banking app can’t read the check, then the check is much less likely to be deposited: now the company will never have to pay out the rebate! (Unless the customer actually goes to an ATM or bank branch.)

So the solution is simple—tweak the format of the checks a bit (whatever is still allowable within the law and/or banking agreements) and try to make a new check that is:

  1. Legal!
    • This is the most important aspect—the company’s checks definitely need to be 100% legal, so the company can later blame the customer instead of taking responsibility.
  2. Acceptable to the banks and/or conforms to whatever check-format specifications exist
  3. Difficult for a computer to read (so it can’t be deposited online)
  4. Superficially OK looking to a human, so it isn’t obvious that the check wasn’t intentionally made to be difficult to deposit
    • Also, this gives plausibly deniability to the whole business: if the company is called out on its actions, a PR person can go online and post “Oh, we didn’t realize that our rebates couldn’t be deposited online. What an unintentional—yet profitable—oversight!”

Popular ways of doing this may include:

  • Weird check sizes
  • Strange watermarks leading to odd contrast
  • Superfluous extra characters in the deposit-amount field (like “AMT: ****123.45 $” instead of just “$123.45”)
  • Irregular size (some checks are more square-shaped than “check” shaped)
  • Odd or elaborate font choices

Conclusion:

Although the specific checks depicted below (Figs. 3 & 4) probably violate the “check” specifications somehow, they may be useful for inspiration.

weird-check-purple

Fig. 3: This check looks vaguely legitimate to a human, but an online deposit app is unlikely to be able to read it.

weird-check-orange

Fig. 4: Can a check be a weird futuristic hexagon? Probably not! Customers will definitely know they’re being scammed if they receive weird checks like this one.

PROS: Saves money on rebate checks! Rebates can be made more generous, since it’s now extra-difficult for anyone to redeem them.

CONS: Customers might find out about it and get slightly annoyed and call the company’s customer service line to complain. If each rebate-receiving individual wastes 20 minutes of customer service time complaining, this check technique might no longer be profitable.

With these five amazing steps, you can stop stumbling about in a mad and fumbling rage while you try to determine which light switch controls each light in your house!

The issue:

In many houses, certain rooms—especially kitchens and living rooms—have a half dozen or more light switches that control a wide array of lights and other accessories.

Often, even after many years, the house’s occupant never learns which switch is which.

Proposal:

Instead of just randomly picking a switch to toggle until the correct light is activated, light switches should be labeled. Easy!

Ideally, this should be done when the house is built, so that the labels can be laser-cut and/or printed onto the switch panels in a way that matches the overall interior design.

But in a pinch, you can just use a piece of white paper and double-sided tape.

Label your switches 1

Fig. 1: An example of a standard confusingly-designed set of light switches. Each switch toggles a seemingly random set of lights. But now that they are labeled, it’s clear what each switch does.

Conclusion:

You should label your lights if your house has confusing wiring (which is probably the case).

Label your switches 2

Fig. 2: Some switches may have a non-light-based effect, such as starting a gas fireplace (far left) or performing a mystery function that only the original electrician understands (far right).

PROS: Probably a sensible suggestion!

CONS: Labels may negatively impact your home’s minimalist aesthetic.

Don’t let “BIG COFFEE” trick you into buying their overpriced coffeepots and carafes—use this one weird toothpaste tube trick to save time and promote a harmonious work environment and never unexpectedly run out of coffee again!

 

Background:

If you have a communal coffee carafe at work, you will undoubtedly have encountered the situation where someone poured the last cup of coffee and didn’t make a new pot.

With a standard coffeepot or carafe, there’s no possibility of getting “just one more cup” out of an empty container—it’s just empty.

But! There’s one thing that always seems like you can get one last use out of it, no matter what: a toothpaste tube.

Proposal:

The main issue: since it’s so easy to pour coffee out of the coffeepot, it’s easy to pour the last coffee and then walk away (Fig. 1).

regular

Fig. 1: A coffee carafe, like one you’d see in an office or at a hotel breakfast, can be operated by pressing the lever at (a), dispensing coffee out of the spout at (b).

To fix this, we simply need to make it more difficult to extract the last few cups of coffee. It if became progressively more difficult to get coffee from the communal container, then people could recognize that they were taking the very of it, and would (hopefully) be more likely to start a new pot of coffee.

The proposed container (Figure 2) is essentially a huge toothpaste tube in a support frame.

stand

Fig. 2: Instead of a traditional carafe or coffeepot, coffee can be placed into a squeezable toothpaste-tube-like bag that fits into a support frame. To dispense coffee, simply squeeze the bag!

Figure 3 shows the progression of the tube from a full state (left) to a nearly-empty state (right).

green3brown3

Fig. 3: Top row: illustration with a transparent liquid. Bottom row: extremely unappealing illustration with coffee. A full coffee container (leftmost column) would look similar to a 2-liter soda bottle. As coffee is squeezed out of the tube, the dispenser would gradually come to resemble the rightmost column.

Conclusion:

Don’t buy another regular coffee container for your workplace—this new dispenser is the way of the future.

PROS: Prevents you from being shocked and dismayed at your coworkers’ refusal to make more coffee.

CONS: The “squeeze to dispense” method will probably spray nearly-boiling coffee across the room on a regular basis.

sketch-carafe

Bonus Figure A: In the initial concept for this idea, the carafe lever would become more difficult to operate as the liquid level lowered, but the “toothpaste tube” idea was only metaphorical.

 

Stop using barbaric and antiquated combination locks and escape the tyranny of the rotating dial!

The issue:

It’s quite slow and annoying to unlock a regular rotational combination lock.

Also, it’s easy to overshoot your target number and have to enter the combination all over again.

There are alternative types of locks, but few of them have the same form factor as the ubiquitous rotating-dial combination lock.

lock-rotate

Fig. 1: This combination lock is straightforward but annoying to unlock, usually requiring you spin the dial around completely at least 3 or 4 times.

Proposal:

So if you want to secure a locker with a faster and less annoying lock (and you don’t want to carry a key), what can you do?

Answer: we can design a lock where the combination is actually a series of motions on the shackle, rather than on the dial of the lock.

A normal lock only has two positions for the shackle: open and closed.

But this new lock could have a series of notches on the shackle to allow the person unlocking it to precisely enter a combination, as seen in Figure 2.

lock-pull

Fig. 2: A person unlocking this type of lock will just appear to be angrily fumbling with it, but they’re actually inputting the code: for example, “up one notch, up one notch, down one notch, up two notches.”

(The dial remains, but it’s just a decoy.)

PROS: Works as a drop-in replacement for any existing combination lock.

CONS: Might cost more? But otherwise, none.

Seven deadly sins of dieting: save yourself from the deadly sin of GLUTTONY by making use of the deadly sin of SLOTH. Finally, two wrongs make a right. Plus, you’ll never believe these 7 adorable animals that made their way home after beating unbelievable odds.

The issue:

For most snack foods, it’s easy to eat a HUGE quantity of the food in question.

This is no surprise—snack foods were specifically designed to be easy to eat. Plus even after you’ve eaten a bunch, it takes a minute or two to feel full.

Proposal:

Here is a technique to eat fewer snacks that—amazingly—requires no self control whatsoever!

First, an observation: it’s easy to eat a large number of individually-wrapped tiny chocolates (Figure 1), but much more difficult to over-eat on an inconvenient food like the lobster in Figure 2.

choco-drop

Fig. 1: It’s incredibly easy to eat like a million of these chocolates.

lobster

Fig. 2: Foods that are more difficult to eat, like this boiled lobster, are generally not in danger of becoming an easily-devoured “casual snack” food.

Therefore, a solution presents itself: we can make snack foods extremely inconvenient to eat, as shown in Figure 3.

chocolate-kiss

Fig. 3: By repackaging the chocolate (eft) in a giant ball of thick foil that takes a whole minute to unwrap (right), we have saved the eater from the perils of casual snacking.

As an added bonus, this might allow the “serving size” on snack foods to be realistic (e.g., a box of Nabsico Oreos lists the serving size as only “3 cookies”—that might be accurate if each oreo came inside a hard carapace that you’d need to open with a lobster cracker).

Conclusion:

A short list of foods that come in both “easy” and “difficult” forms:

  • Easy: shelled peanut halves. Difficult: whole peanuts with the shell still on
  • Easy: pitted olives. Difficult: olives with a pit
  • Easy: crab cakes. Difficult: an actual crab with a shell
  • Easy: a hamburger. Difficult: a bull that you have to defeat in one-on-one combat as a matador, while thousands of Spaniards heckle you.

PROS: May reduce over-eating and increase general health and welfare.

CONS: Increases cost of food. May generate additional waste products and be less environmentally friendly.

Bonus suggested follow-up science experiment:

It would be interesting to see what the rate of calorie consumption is for:

  • Easy-to-eat shelled peanuts
    • vs.
  • More labor-intensive unshelled peanuts

That might be a good science fair project and/or low-impact-factor-journal publication, if it hasn’t already been done!