Making Packaging Waste Sorting More Intuitive in Fast Food Restaurant

  • Yu-Chen HsiehEmail author
  • Yi-Jui Chen
  • Wang-Chin Tsai
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11584)


Consumers are accustomed to classifying garbage in front of recycling stations after finishing their meal at fast food restaurants. However, due to a lack of knowledge about the recyclability of the garbage items, and confusion caused by the weak design of the instruction system provided, many users are not able to complete the sorting task quickly or correctly. The low success rate of the customer’s garbage sorting subsequently results in employees having to spend more time and energy in the following rectifying work, which leads to extra and unnecessary costs for the corporation. Therefore, our researchers have attempted to explore the recycling process from a more cognitive perspective, and proposed a new concept for the sorting task, which is more intuitive and less confusing.

Our research was designed into two stages. The first stage is to summarize the criteria of intuitive design with literature reviews, and make adjustments to the current recycling instruction system. The second stage is to conduct simulation experiments to verify the efficiency and correct rate of the new instruction system. Our research is anticipated to verify that an instruction system based on intuitive theory is more efficient, and less confusing to users. The research results will not only be a benefit to the fast food industry, but also to the other recycling instruction systems used in our daily lives.


Intuitive Garbage sorting Recycling process Sorting Cognitive 


  1. 1.
    Bastick, A.: Intuition: How We Think and Act. Wiley, Chichester (1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackler, A.L., Popovic, V., Mahar, D.P.: The nature of intuitive use of products: an experimental approach. Des. Stud. 24(6), 491–506 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackler, A.L., Popovic, V., Mahar, D.P.: Investigating users’ intuitive interaction with complex artifacts. Appl. Ergon. 41, 72–92 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackler, A.L., Popovic, V., Mahar, D.P., Gudur, R.R.: Facilitating intuitive interaction with complex artifacts. Design Research Society (DRS), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 1–4 July 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eysenck, H.J.: Genius: The Natural History of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fullera, S., Carrascoa, M.: Exogenous attention and color perception: performance and appearance of saturation and hue. Vis. Res. 46(23), 4032–4047 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelman, R. Au, T.K.F.: Perceptual and Cognitive Development (Handbook of Perception and Cognition). Academic Press, Richmond (1996). ISBN 10: 0122796608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hsu, T.F.: Graphical symbols: the effects of information loads on recognition performance, Doctoral Dissertation. National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 63 (2010, unpublished)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johansen, M.K., Palmeri, T.J.: Are there representational shifts during category learning. Cogn. Psychol. 45, 482–553 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jung, C.G.: Psychological Types, Collected Works of C.G. Jung, vol. 6. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1971). ISBN 0-691-01813-8Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kahneman, D.: Thinking Fast and Slow. Penguin Group, UK (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein, G.: Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamberts, K., Goldstone, R.J.: Handbook of Cognition, pp. 183–184. SAGE (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin, Y.C., Guan, S.S.: A study on the relationship between color and form of product. Ind. Des. 28(2), 148–153 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markman, E.M. Callanan, M.A.: An analysis of hierarchical classification. In: Sternberg, R.J. (ed.) Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 325–365 (1984)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moggridge, B.: Naoto Fukasawa. Phaidon Press, US (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newell, A.: Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday. Perseus Books Group (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Otgaar, H., Alberts, H., Cuppens, L.: Ego depletion results in an increase in spontaneous false memories. Conscious. Cogn. 21(4), 1673–1680 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raskin, J.: Intuitive equals familiar. Commun. ACM 37(9), 17 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rasmussen, J.: Deciding and doing: decision making in natural contexts. In: Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., Zsambok, C.E. (eds.) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, Ablex, Norwood, pp. 159–171 (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosch, E., Mervis, C.B., Gray, W.D., Johnson, D.M., Boyes-Braem, P.: Basic objects in natural categories. Cogn. Psychol. 8, 382–439 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spool, J.: What makes a design seem intuitive? User Interface Engineering (UIE), 10 January 2005.
  24. 24.
    Zhu, J.Y.: Color Science and Match Colors. China Youth Publishing Group (2004). ISBN 957202731XGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyDouliuTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Creative DesignNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyDouliuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations