"Sorry,  I neglected to state any possible changes to the second device in previous post...  Replacing dot with wording (ie,  cup here)  is effective but only in a single language and to the literate user.   To allow for cup repositioning via experimentation without spilling,  a slight delay in the dispense of coffee when pushing the lever coupled with a visual stimulus which appears during this brief delay which confirms the stream path.  This is similar to laser line indicators on saws where a two step trigger pull first shows the alignment prior to blade engagement.   "

"The point made regarding the number and/or placement of hands while using the two designs is more to the point of usage effectiveness.  The original design is not ideal regarding visable indicators but does give the impression of sturdiness.   Someone observes another person dispense coffee from a distance,  also wants coffee and investigates the device.   There is less indication of what to do to pour,  but there is little worry that the device is fragile.  Ultimately,  using two hands to feel the units features someone determines that a pump action with one hand and a "catching"  action with another hand holding a cup yields coffee.   The two hand approach is common to other pouring solutions and allows for immediate correction in placement of the cup.   This appeals to our nature.  (Mike's point? )The new design in contrast is less inviting to experimentation.   Choosing to place the cup in a recession (albiet designed to be obvious)  requires a commitment to knowing how the product works before pressing the lever.  As a gravity fed dispenser,  the flow is instantaneous which allows little to no time for realignment of a cup which required prepositioning.   Imagine the spillage of the first device if you where forced to preposition the cup on the surface below  and initiate the pour (pump)  without the benefit of a second hand to correct the location of the cup.   I would fathom it would be significantly worse than the second design which tries to force a reduction in the cup/spout gap and uses various indicators.   But the first design is not typically used this way.   It's ambiguous yet sturdy design invites investigation, action and correction in a manner that is slower, more deliberate.   Unfortunately,  this first design inherently will be harder for the disabled or one handed.   The second design circumvents all of these hardships through pre-planning, but will make more of a mess if the more ingrained uses of experimentation are used first. Just my thoughts. "