Hacker News Reader

Comment by kzrdude | Hacker News Reader

I'm still not sure about the design with a big and small button.

Honest confusion:

Does the big button correspond to a big amount of water? Or is it for a little water, with a big button because this is the most commonly used button?

View on HN

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this confusion, my friends mock me relentlessly based on past discussions we've had.

Since on some designs the smaller button cannot be pressed separately and therefore corresponds to a big flush, since both parts of the button are depressed at once; it stands to reason small will always be bigger flush, which I rationalise as urination being the more common operation and therefore deserving the larger button in order for the user to press more easily. However it's actually the case that big is usually the larger flush, which suggests there's some magic button size ratio at which their meaning crosses over.

I think this goes to show how difficult UX is.

I refuse to own toilets with this misfeature for a number of reasons:

- Complexity is bad, especially in plumbing. I also refuse electronics between me and waste removal.

- It's confusing.

- I don't think the difference in water usage matters _at all_. Talk to me about irrigation (both urban and agricultural) instead.

When going out and using such horrible devices I'm quite certain I pick wrong more than half the time.

> I don't think the difference in water usage matters _at all_. Talk to me about irrigation (both urban and agricultural) instead

Yes. And the insane amounts of water leaked from our ancient pipes

In California, 89% of the state's water usage is agricultural; only 11% is consumers. Thus, of course you would force consumers to use only low-flow shower heads, and... problem solved.

Low flow ends on things like hand washing sinks are almost a free win. The aerated water washes your hands just as well. Even if its not the biggest improvement, a free improvement is still welcome.

But it washes your hands just as well because you turn the faucet up to the point that you can wash your hands just as well. You use the same amount of water, only the position of the faucet and the amount of time changes. There is no magic.

i remember a study about how aeration introduced more room for bacteria growth; and subsequently a hospital had to revamp again to remove all the water saving faucets...

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/hospital-water-ta...

I've never had a complaint about those in bathrooms, but I hate them at laundry and kitchen sinks where I almost always actually want some quantity of water and these just make getting it slow. And my usage in such circumstances is a couple tens of gallons per month, whereas my neighbor waters a hobby vineyard and consumes 40x the water that my household (which also irrigates for landscaping) does.

Wow, I'm astounded this comment got a negative score without a follow-up from those doing the downvoting.

Here's your UX. Make the big flush button brown and the little flush button yellow. Maybe even use and emojis.

In the US, I've seen toilets like this with two buttons distinguished with icons. One had a single water droplet, the other had two droplets.

This just saved my day :-)

Even worse, different brands can be the opposite of what you are use to.

I had one where the big button was for more water. Now I have one that the little button is for less frequent use.

It's probably installed wrong. On my toilet the mechanism is the same for both, so if you happen to flip the button or the mechanism then they will work the opposite of how they are intended.

I've literally wondered this for years.

We have a least one leaking system like this in our house - and it's in a nice tiled wall so doing maintenance is like keyhole surgery. From what I've seen so far I'm pretty sure both buttons on our toilets do the same thing (mind you they are the same size).

> and it's in a nice tiled wall so doing maintenance is like keyhole surgery.

That is the main reason why I went with plain old toilet without embedding it in tiles. I've seen too many half-working embedded toilets at my friends' houses to have one too, I prefer to be able to easily repair it myself when required.

I've got two toilets in my apartment that have the mechanics hidden in a sort of half wall, that is maybe a meter or so high. It has a stone "lid" you can lift and reach all the piping and mechanics and what not from the top. This seems like a pretty decent compromise to me, and also the lid is really useful as a shelf for toiletries and what not.

> "...I'm pretty sure both buttons on our toilets do the same thing..."

from what i've seen, that's by design. you push both buttons at the same time to get the double flush.

to me, the water-saving option that makes the most sense is a vacuum toilet along with a greywater system and a biotank for recycling the waste locally (though it is more expensive of course).

No, piped sewerage systems are safer and better for the environment

How much fuel alone is used checking the biotank? They have to be checked quarterly once you get the bureaucrats involved.

Expense is a good approximation for resources.

The point of the post is also simplicity over moving parts.

We moved into a home that had dual-flush toilets with different sized buttons. I assumed that the big button was for more water, but in reality it didn't make a difference. We were told these were high-end toilets, and they looked fancy, but the dual-flush thing seems to be more for show than anything else.

I've seen some where there were two buttons, but it was a circle where one was a crescent moon shape and the smaller button was just the remainder.

I assumed that you were supposed to push both buttons down if you wanted more water.

I don't really understand them though, so who knows.

Huh, that could have been it! But each button depressed a different lever, so I assumed it was an either/or. We don't live there anymore, otherwise I would go try this right now!

I managed to tune my regular drop valve system so that a short press gives a small flush and a long press gives a full flush. It was a delicate matter of balancing the chain length so that the flapper doesn't get pulled high enough to stay open when you give a short press, but will stay open when pressed insistently.

Very convenient, except for having to explain to guests.

best design would be the 1 drop vs 3 drops

I agree. This is a great design. Seems pretty universal to me; doesn't rely on choosing a language.

I admit the 'big button for most frequent operation' was a good idea.. but a failing one.

Does anyone else feel like the press button design on these modern dual flush toilets has to be wildly unsanitary?

Your hands are at their dirtiest when you go to flush the toilet. The button design seems very difficult to clean, particularly the wall of the button hole.

In most public restrooms, I kick the lever with my foot to flush the toilet. Not possible with the recessed button design.

Mine is literally marked "1" and "2." (In Roman numerals, however.)

There's no standard afaik, every manufacturer is free to implement it as they see fit.

I guess you could read the manual, print out the method of operation and put it on the wall/door/wherever.

Are both conventions actually being used? Could anyone link to an example of a small button being used for more water?

Only anecdotally. I've definitely run in to that in the wild.

Depends on the manufacturer.

The smaller button is for a smaller amount of water, the larger button empties the whole tank. It's pretty simple to get used to them, once you use one.

That is not always the case. Some toilet have the big button for the smaller flush, I would assume because that’s the one you need most frequently or to assume if you just press blindly you’d use the least amount of water.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com