Good idea. It also shows how clever design techniques so often _don't_ depend on having an 'academic' descriptor to be inspired in the first place. 'How dematerialisation adds value' is a great way of phrasing it, but was it ever thought of in those terms when the biscuits were designed? Of course not. Thanks to Mayo Nissen for the link
"Like interactions between people, every dialogue between user and product can be framed as an exchange of power as well as meaning. Products like erasers and hammers submit to our intentions, while cell phones, books, and subways make us submit, either by seduction or force. This seduction/ force dichotomy gives us a second dimension for mapping a product’s temperament. Some products are designed to be invisible (gentle), others to make themselves known (rough). So we have: Dominant, Gentle; Dominant, Rough; Submissive, Gentle; Submissive, Rough." This is a very interesting suggested classification method indeed – worth further investigation.
A major advantage of this – aside from the 'squabbling students' angle – is that only the compartment that's actually needed is opened when the fridge is used. That's going to to save a non-trivial amount of energy every year.