Gaspare Castagna

Hengrui Jia
Ahmed Rosanally
Trevor Siow

Praxis Team R10

04/12/16
ESC101
Recommendation for Opportunity: Note-Taking in Lecture Halls
 Page 1 of 29

Introduction

The opportunity we chose to pursue was an issue regarding the desk sizes in many lecture halls. When
looking for opportunities during studio, our group discussed what could be improved on campus, as
well as which problems we had experienced as first-hand stakeholders. Much of our time during the
week is spent in various lecture halls, and it had been established that the desk sizes were too small
[1](Figure 11), causing items to be dropped frequently. From further research, divergence, and
convergence, it was decided that a pencil-case clamp [1](Figure 1) was the best choice to address this
opportunity. This report further explores the development of this outcome.

Reframing the Design Brief

The results of the original design brief called for a substantial reorganization of our evaluations
because our metrics lacked the necessary foundation in research and engineering standards [4]. Many
of our metrics involved arbitrary standards that were not drawn from existing literature (see Appendix
B, Metrics). Therefore, the major focus of our reframing effort was to remove, merge, and update the
metrics such that they would be both relevant to the objectives and have testable qualities. The
following changes were made to the original Design Brief:

Alteration Reason Outcome

M2, Speed of The original metric was The new metric granted greater freedom to assess
Access was too specific. Speed did the prototypes fairly, giving us a greater insight
replaced with not always imply ease into their true effectiveness. Overall, this decision
Ease of access and, more importantly, was founded in our assertion that ease is more
usability. important than speed in the scope of usability.

M7, No formal definition of Assessing using ergonomics included a much

Comfortability, comfort was present in wider range of factors that must be considered
was changed into the brief. Upon further when designing each prototype. This is because
Ergonomics. research, finding a ergonomics is more general than comfortability
[5].
definition proved to be
too difficult.

M6, Visibility Visibility deemed too
redefined as vague. Identifiability is
Identifiability more specific to fulfilling
our objectives.
This redefined metric allowed us to focus on how
the designs allowed to user to organize and
distinguish items rather than seeing them, which
is a vague and inconclusive observation. Thus,
this metric allowed us to directly assess a subset
of the designs usability.

M4, Portability: The arbitrary standards of The new general terms of size and weight
removed arbitrary this metric lacked any indicated a general need towards lightweight,
standards foundation in existing compact designs while avoiding any rigid and
research and literature. unfounded impositions.
 Page 2 of 29

Objectives

The ranked importance of each objective was determined by assessing each individual objective
against the rest using a pairwise comparison (see Appendix B). Values were designated based on how
directly the objectives related to the opportunity. We (our praxis team) reserved the judgement on how
closely related the criteria were to the opportunity.

The most important objective for our product is the ability to hold items in order to reduce the chance
of the them falling off the desk. This objective was ranked the highest because it relates directly to
solving the opportunity. If the product is able to hold items and keep them off the table, there is less
risk of the items being dropped. The metric for this objective is integrated with the metric for
identifiability. Outstanding describes the product having specific storage locations for each item,
which implies that the items are being held (not on table space).

The second most important objective was for the product to enable efficient item identifiability. This
was measured using a metric that incorporated the idea of storage sections for individual items.
Assessing out prototypes using this metric focused mainly on the aspects of each design (ie. presence
of storage compartments). Although having distinct storage sections for each item may make them
more identifiable, colours and contrast between items was not taken into consideration [2]. To develop
a metric for this, the contrast ratio between the product and items could be used to evaluate our
prototypes [3]. The criteria would state that a higher contrast ratio is preferred. Actually performing
the test however would require a device that is able to measure luminescence. In order to decide on
what colour to make the product in order to maximize contrast ratio, we would require information
about the colours of utensils that are used most commonly during lecture.

Another objective that could be deemed as more important is for the product to not hinder ones note
taking experience. This is because the product is meant to solve the opportunity; we do not want the
product to create another. Some direct objectives related to this high level objective are the
ergonomics of product usage, portability of the product, and ease of acquisition of items stored by the
product . The metric for ergonomics relates to how the consumer physically feels during/after using
the product. The metric for ease of acquisition focuses on the products placement options, allowing
the consumer to choose what is the most comfortable way to use the product. The portability metric
focuses on the volume and mass of the product. Measuring these aspects for portability were chosen
because the definition of portability used for the brief talks directly about ease of carrying. The shape
of the product however was not considered when designing for portability. This is an important factor
because the shape of an object will change how it is carried, and potentially the ease of which it is
carried. Research is required to find out what shapes are ideal for carrying. The criteria for shape
would state that certain shapes are preferred over others.

Design Prototypes

Design Concept 1: Desk Extension

As shown in [1]figure 4 and 6, the Desk Extension is a piece of board, which can be attached (e.g. by
clamps) to the existing lecture desks so the consumer has a larger desk.
 Page 3 of 29

Key Feature: This design concept directly addresses the primary focus of the opportunity: the
insufficient space provided by the desks in some lecture rooms, by increasing the size of the desks.
Since this extension is designed so that the consumer can use it as part of a desk (e.g. take notes on it),
the Desk Extension is designed to add a flat and stable surface when attached to the lecture room
desk.

Verification: As shown in Appendix B, the Desk Extension scores well on metric 5a (identifiability)
and 6 (ergonomics), but it is always at the last two places for the other metrics. Since the key feature
of this concept is being flat and stable so the consumer will be able to use it part of a desk, identifying
writing utensils on it is similar to identifying a writing utensil placing on a desk, which can be
considered as easy to identify. It scores well in M6 since it provides consumer a larger space for
taking notes, which increases comfortability of note-taking significantly. However, to make the
product flat, stable, and being able to provide enough space for note-taking, the portability (M3) of the
product is sacrificed. Since its just like part of a desk, it does not have any functions protecting
writing utensils from dropping, which does not really achieve the detailed objective 1. Besides, the
cost (M1) of the product would be high comparing to the other concepts and manufacturing (M4) it
would be difficult. This concept also requires an existing desk with right shape so the desk extension
can be clamped on.

Validation: From student experience, this design concept is very practical and easy to use because of
its simple form and clip-on mechanism to the desk. Surrounding students are not bothered by the
product because it is always attached to the closest lateral edge of the desk to the user. However, the
user is often bothered by the unique placement of the product as seen in Figure 4 [1].
Another stakeholder, ACE, said the cost of the Desk Extension is too high and it is not allowed to
limit the 400mm travel space (Appendix A [13]).

Design Concept 2: Snap Back to Reality

As shown in [1](figure 5 and 9), Snap Back to Reality is a snapback which is adjusted so it is able
to hold writing utensils.

Key Feature: The benefit of having writing utensils besides the hat is that the consumers will be able
to find the writing utensil without moving their head (so they can find the writing utensils without
diverting their attention to the lectures). The design decision we made regarding this design was to put
the utensil holders at certain places so the writing utensils would be easy to identify by the
consumer without hindering him looking at professors.

Verification: The snap back to reality design score very well in terms of head movement M5b, and
was tied for the lead with the armband in terms of manufacturability [9](Appendix B). However, the
design did not score well in terms of identifiability, beating only the pencil case in the arm design in
that category. This was due to the items being stored outside of the users field of vision.

Validation: As stakeholders, the lack of identifiability in this model raised a major concern
considering that it is within the scope of our most important objectives to deliver a design that scored
 Page 4 of 29

highly in this category because it is essential that the user is able to quickly and efficiently access
needed items as facilitated by high identifiability.

Design Concept 3: Hanging Pencil Case

As shown in [1]figure 7 and 8, the Hanging Pencil Case is a pencil case that is able to be hanged at the
edge of the lecture room desks.

Key Feature: This concept is designed so that the pencil case wont occupy much space of the top
surface of the desk, so the consumer will get a relatively larger desk compared to those who place
pencil case on the desk. The design decision we made is minimizing the size of the attachment of the
product to the desk so the product rarely occupies space on the desk.

Verification: The hanging pencil score best on ergonomics and portability and score generally better
than other design concepts on all metrics. What makes this design so ergonomic is that it only requires
one hand, and short and easy movements made by the user to reach the item according to Figure 7 and
Figure 8 (Appendix 6). In terms of portability, the item occupies little space and doesnt weigh much
compared to other design. However the it is hard for the user to tilt his head downwards as the product
has the largest vertical distance to the users eyes (Figure 7, Appendix 6).

Validation: From student experience, the hanging pencil had a very nice impact on note-taking. The
student may very well and easily alternate utensil in short amounts of movement and time.
Surrounding students are not bothered by the use of the product. The ACE stakeholder will not be
affected by such a product because it hangs within the length limit of the table of 400mm travel space
(Appendix A [13]).

Design Concept 4: Pencil Case on Body

As shown in [1]figure 10, the Pencil Case on Body is a pencil case attached to a strap (similar to a
watch strap), so it can be attached to the consumers arm.

Key Feature: Since this product is designed to be attached to the consumers arm, it has high
portability. Furthermore, in order to increase number of writing utensils it can contain and make sure
consumers would like to buy it, it is designed to be a pencil case with an aesthetic appearance.

Verification: As shown in Appendix B, this concepts scores well in metrics of portability, appearance,
and ease of item acquisition/storage. It it designed to be attached to the consumers arm by a strap so
the consumer is able to walk with it, which leads to high portability. Since this product is a pencil case
with large range of possible placement (e.g. on the arm, desk, etc), getting/ storing writing utensils
would be easy. It also scores high when accesses the metrics about appearance, because when the
prototype of this concept was weared to the lectures, most of feedbacks about appearance are positive.
However, this concept is not good at identifiability since all the writing utensils would be contain
inside the pencil case and are not able to be seen by the consumer (A prototype of this concept was
made (Appendix C [1] Figure 10), and it is used to help the verification).

Validation: The prototype of this product has been used by a stakeholder for three days. Generally, the
stakeholder thought this prototype addressed the opportunity pretty well. He said that the
 Page 5 of 29

identifiability of the prototype is not really good, but normal pencil cases would have the same
problems, so he would definitely buy the product if it is produced.

Design Concept 5: Armband with Items

As shown in [1]figure 3, the Armband with Items is an armband with writing utensil holders.

Key Feature: Similar to Design Concept 4, this product is also designed to be arm-attached to increase
portability. However, to help consumers identifying writing utensils easily, a decision is made so the
product will contain utensils on its surface.

Verification: Having items located on the exterior of the product increases the identifiability of each
item. This aspect is desired because it will receive a positive score when assessed with M5a and M5b.
This metric is directly related to our second detailed objective (see Appendix A, DO2). The fact that
the product is located on ones arm limits the ease with which items are retrieved as well as
potentially the ergonomics of the product. M2 states that to receive outstanding the product must
have multiple possible placements and configurations, whereas the armband is restricted to ones arm.
Depending on user preference, having the product located on arm can potentially cause discomfort
qualifiers (see Appendix A, [10](Figure 1)).

Validation: The exterior location of each item complies with the first high level objective (see
Appendix A, HLO1). This objective is important for the student stakeholders because the product is
meant to hold items that can be easily switched in order to take notes during lecture. Having the
product located on ones arm complies with HLO4, product space efficiency. This objective is
important for the student stakeholders because the main opportunity is the fact that the desks are too
small. A product that takes up more desk space makes the current issue worse.

Tests

Although item security is the most important objective, no formal test was performed to test how
securely each product held each item. We could not decide on a way to rank security of an item, and
testing would require a physical prototype for each design concept. Instead the ranking of each
prototype was binary; does the product hold items or not? Further testing may involve applying forces
or accelerations to the product to test whether or not items will fall out, however deciding what values
are reasonable for metrics must be researched.

The identifiability metric focuses on how the product will store items. It does not however assess how
items are displayed to the consumer. A test was designed to assess how each prototype affected the
identifiability of its content by comparing their visibility from an imposed reference frame of being
seated. It was critical that the reference frame did not give an advantage to any prototype. From the
seated position we determined the relative identifiability of the items in the prototype and quantified
these largely qualitative observations in a pairwise comparison (see Appendix B). The results of this
test showed that the armband model surpassed the other prototypes in identifiability because each
item was stored in a distinct and separate location. Furthermore, the distribution of the items on the
users arm allows for a high level of proximity. Next, the desk extension scored second in this
category due to its ability to display all items clearly within the users field of vision; nevertheless, it
lacked the desired compartmentalization of items. The hanging pencil case achieved the third highest
 Page 6 of 29

score. Despite dividing items into separable compartments, this design lies parallel to the users field
of view [1](Figure.2), impeding the ability to identify items from the imposed testing frame. The Snap
Back scored poorly because the items are stored above the users line of sight. Furthermore, it was
almost impossible for the user to improve visibility because the items were located above the eyes and
beyond the human limit of peripheral vision. Due to the complete lack of item visibility for the pencil
case located on the arm, this prototype scored last relative to the alternatives.

The ease of item acquisition was the metric considered for testing the prototype for one of our high
level objectives. The reason is because it scored third on the pairwise comparison (see Appendix B
[1]). The test was divided into two parts. The goal of the first part of the test was measure how well
the items are configured on the product. The test ensured that all design concepts undergo an equal set
of circumstances. The variables taken into consideration for such a measure were completion and
duration of note-taking by a student. A control scenario was set where the student copies lecture
content using different utensils on a large flat desk. The student alternates utensils as indicated in the
text. The total time taken to copy the content as well as the time taken per utensil exchange. Then the
student repeats the same process for each prototype with content completion being measured in
addition. Then a comparison analysis is made to assess each prototype. The second part of the test
aimed at evaluating the possible placements of the product. Hence, all design concepts were carried in
five different locations on campus to see how many possible placements each one could have. It was
concluded that pencil case on body was the best for this metric. Generally, all designs performed
almost equally in the first part of this test and in the end pencil case on body did better than hanging
pencil case as it had a larger range of possible placements (e.g. different places on the arm, on the
waist).

Recommendation

The product we (Praxis team 10) recommend to solve the opportunity is a modified version of the
hanging pencil case [1](Figure 1). The pencil case is a box shape that closes using velcro. When
opened, the user has access to the storage box space as well as specific holders for pencils or pens (the
product wont close automatically, so the consumer is able to keep it open all the time so the writing
utensils will be easy to identify). The box is attached to a clamp-stand by a magnet, and the clamp is
able to attach to a desk. The box can be removed and attached to an armband, also connected by
magnets.

Justification of Recommendation

Throughout the process of convergence, it became clear that, despite the superiority of some
prototypes over others, no design stood out in all categories from the rest. This sparked much
deliberation over which design would be used in our final recommendation. Therefore, it became clear
that a merging of different design elements would yield a finalized model optimized in terms of the
metrics we defined. Design elements were therefore drawn from both the hanging pencil case and the
armband with items, combining their advantages while working to cancel each others faults. While
the hanging pencil case offered superior utensil security and comfortability to the unsatisfactory
performance of its counterpart (see Appendix B, [10]), it did not score well in terms of ease of access
 Page 7 of 29

to utensils and utensil identification. The armband with items however excelled in terms of item
identification, due to its elevation capabilities, and ease of acquisition/storage, again due to its
selectable usage orientation (see Appendix B, [10]). Therefore, it was decided that the finalized design
for recommendation should employ elements from both designs that would enhance identifiability
without impeding ease of access and vice-versa. This merging process allowed the final product to
receive a better assessment with our metrics because it converges onto the advantages of of two
prototypes.

Compared to the original design, where the pencil case is hanging, keeping the pencil case above the
desk allows items to directly face the user. This was a desired aspect that was present when assessing
armband with items. This aspect augments how the items are displayed to the user, and would excel
when evaluated using our test for identifiability.

The modified prototype allows the user to attach the pencil case to their arm. This is another aspect
that was originally found in the armband with items, and is desired because it allows selective
elevation when using the product. This aspect gives our recommended product a higher score when
assessed with M6, Product Ergonomics. Giving the user the choice as to where the product is located
decreases the chance that the user may experience any discomfort qualifiers (see Appendix A,
[10](Figure 1)).

The recommended design surpasses the pencil case on the arm because it provides a greater degree of
identifiability by being open while in use [1](figure.1). Furthermore, it outperforms the hanging pencil
case in terms of identifiability because it places the items in a position in line with the users line of
site without requiring head movement. In addition, this design is more comfortable than the armband
prototype because its position on the desk does not impede the joint movement of the user; moreover,
the clamp ensures that the free surface of the desk remains maximized despite this design being
attached to it. Therefore, this design meets the important objectives as outlined above.

Next Steps

Although the pencil case clamp constitutes our finalized recommendation for this phase of
development, it is clear that further adjustment is warranted for this design because in optimizing
identifiability and ease of access, the current model fails to completely address concerns regarding
portability. While several changes were made to the frame in order to reduce its size and bulk, this
product remains a large and somewhat obtrusive design. With the exception of the desk extension, all
alternative prototypes would have provided an enhanced degree of portability over the conventional
pencil case due to the emphasis on attachment to the users body. However, since the clamp design
remains attached to the table and is fixed by a fastening mechanism, its properties constitute a
regression in portability when compared to the base reference design of the conventional pencil case.
Therefore, more research, experimentation, and modification is needed to increase portability. This
may be addressed in terms of the materials used, the configuration of the components, and the ability
of the model to be compacted into a more portable form when not in use.
 Page 8 of 29

Appendix A - Original Design Brief

Note-Taking in Lecture Halls

Introduction
During lectures, students may take notes using a computer or a combination of pens/pencils and
paper. The amount of available space to place one's belongings in some lecture halls is sometimes
limited [1] (Figure 4, Figure 5). For those who use writing utensils, using more than one piece of
writing equipment requires using two hands, or an improvised method to keep these utensils
available [1] (Figure 1). Potential solutions include any method of keeping desired utensils accessible
as well as out of the way.

Stakeholders:

Direct
1. Academic + Campus Events (ACE)
There is a standard for classrooms [6] which states the required size of tablets of seats produced
by Academic + Campus Events. However, all the buildings in use are built before this standard
existing [7], so some of the desks in these buildings does not reach the requirements. ACE is
planning to replace these desks in a 15 - 20 classrooms in a summer and they have limited budget
[13].
2. Lecture Room
Each lecture room is a campus service provider for students, Professors, TAs, etc. The service it
provides is a place in which one can perform a presentation to a select audience an environment
which allows students to see/hear anything presented free from noises and distortions, and be
physically comfortable [12] (Figure 1). During lectures it is common that students take notes.
Being able to keep pencils/pens easily accessible would improve the experience provided by
lecture rooms.
3. Students at U of T
According to most of U of T students use pens/pencils to take notes during lectures. Because
some of our professors (e.g. Prof. Collins) dont recommend taking notes by laptops and other
devices, most of U of T engineering students use pens/pencils to take notes during lectures.
However, because of the limited space for each students in most of lecture rooms [1] (Figure 4),
many students think its bothering to look for a place for placing writing utensils; besides,
placing writing utensils at inappropriate places may cause them to drop and disturb the class.
4. Professors
If students can switch effectively between note taking equipment, notes may be taken faster.
Thus, the Professor/TA may not have to slow the lecture to accommodate for those who struggle
to keep up.
4. Teammates and Engineers
 Page 9 of 29

All executive decisions made by the team, reached by consensus/vote/imposition will make a
lasting effect on the product. Therefore, every individuals input/contribution will shape the
development and therefore impact the outcome.

Indirect
1. Stationery companies
A company's number of usual clients may be affected by the benefits development of the design,
especially from U of T.
2. Janitorial Staff
Organizing writing utensil placement reduces the stakes of leaving them behind for the janitor to
pick them up.

Reference Designs:
Shirts with Pockets [1](Figure 2 )
Weaknesses:
-As a reliable solution, one is required to wear a shirt that posses a pocket every day -Assuming
the pocket is a breast pocket [1](Figure 2 ), it may require uncomfortable twisting of the head to
see contents of the pocket

Putting Pens on Watches [1](Figure 1) Weaknesses:

-One is required to own (and wear) a watch each day
-The watch must be loose enough to fit pencil-sized object in and tight enough to ensure items
are secure
-Having objects in watch may impair wrist movement or comfortability

Binder with Pencil Case [2](Figure 1) Weaknesses:

-Binder requires surface on which to be placed
-when closed, a binder occupies approximately 840 cm2 . When open, the binder can occupy up

to 1860 cm2

Using Sleeve to hold pencils[1](Figure 3)

Weaknesses:
-Items will not be secured reliably if sleeve is too loose
-Potential for items to fall farther into sleeve

Objectives
High Level:
1. Access to all desired writing utensils.
2. Product is space efficient
 Page 10 of 29

3. Writing equipment that is not in use is kept out of the way

1. Consistent access to all desired writing utensils. (Direct Stakeholder 3)
2. Product keeps equipment that is not in use out of the way (Direct Stakeholder 3)
3. Using product will augment note taking experience 1 (Direct Stakeholder 2 and 3)
4. Using product will augment note taking experience Product is space efficient (Direct
Stakeholder 1, 2, and 3)

Detailed
1. Placement of writing utensils can be reached with minimal movement (HLO1)
2. Utensils can be obtained and stored with minimal effort (HLO1)
3. Product decreases the chance of dropping utensils (HLO1)
1. Product securely holds utensils to reduce chance of dropping (HLO3)
4. Product does not require table surface (HLO2)
2. Utensils can be identified, obtained and stored with minimal effort (HLO1, HLO3)
3. Product does not take up table surface space (HLO2, HLO3)
4. Product complies with definition of portability [11] (HLO4)
5. Product does not hinder comfortability [11] (HLO4)
6. Each utensil is visibly distinguishable (HLO1)
7. Product fits in backpack (HLO2)
8. Product is lightweight (HLO4)

1
This goes back to the service provider. The students are guaranteed that their utensils and other
belongings will remain in a fixed place throughout the lecture.

Metrics
1. Cost in Canadian dollars to own a product [4] [5][13]
2. Speed at which one is able to attain or store writing utensil. (DO1)

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Exchanging utensils takes Exchanging utensils takes One is able to exchange

>10 seconds between >3 seconds but (store and attain) desired
<10 seconds utensil within 3 seconds

3. Amount of movement required to access utensils (ergonomics/usability) (DO2 and DO7)

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

User much reach below User must reach to

the knee in order to access approximately waist level User can access utensils
utensils in order to access utensils by solely moving his/her
arm
around torso level while
sitting
 Page 11 of 29

2. Ease with which the items are retrieved from the device (usability) (DO1, DO2 and DO5) [9]
Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Device placement is not Device is fixed,however Large range of possible

adjustable. Device
configuration is fixed.
Complicated storage of
items. [9] Fig.1
configuration allows for placements and
simple and unobtrusive configurations allows user
access by the user to optimize item placement
according to needs. [9] and retrieval based on
Fig.2 preference.
[9] Fig. 2, 3

3. Portability of product [11]

O3)
a. Space occupied by the product (DO4 and DO9 D
b. Weight of product (DO11 DO5)

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Weighs > 1000 g 1000 g < weight < 200 g[1] Weighs < 200 g.

Volume > 4000 cm3 4000 cm3 < Volume < Volume < 1000 cm3
1000
cm3 2

4. Product Manufacturability [3]

a. Number of pieces required to assemble product [3] (Figure 1)
b. Amount of time required to assemble product [3] (Figure 2)

5. Visibility of utensils carried by the product (DO8)

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Utensils are all stored in a
single space. The user is
required to search for
desired utensils
5.
a. Identifiability of utensils carried by the product (DO2) [8]
Elementary
Utensils can be categorized
in separate sections
based on tool features,
i.e. pockets according to
its type, e.g. pens,
highlighters, etc.
Satisfactory
Utensils are clearly
distinguishable. Each
item has a specific
storage location.
A method of isolating
utensils is used to ease
user access to desired
utensil.
Outstanding
 Page 12 of 29

Utensils are all stored in a
single space and may not
be visible. The user is
required to search for
desired utensils
[8](Figure 2)
Utensils can be categorized
in separate sections
based on tool features,
i.e. pockets according to
its type, e.g. pens,
highlighters, etc.
Each item has a specific
storage location and is
distinguishable from
other items (implying
visibility). [8](Figure 3)

b. Angle at which head must be turned in order to see items (DO4)

6. Comfortability[2] of the product (DO7)

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Utensils with sharp points User must be careful when User may reach the utensils
e.g. sharpened pencils, accessing utensils as to in any way and will
poke and harm the user. not neither harm himself nor
injure oneself bother anyone else.

Surrounding personnel User must be cautious when Using the product does not
suffer from risk of harm using product to avoid disturb surrounding
by disturbing surrounding personnel in any way
usage of product personnel
6. Ergonomics of product usage (DO4) [14] (reduce operator fatigue and discomfort; improve
appearance; include factors of accuracy, strength exertion and displacements)
Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Consumer experiences a Consumer operates the After usage consumer does

form of discomfort after
using product [10] Fig. 1
Forceful activities with
large displacement [10]
Fig. 3
product within some not experience any
level of comfort [10] discomfort qualifiers due
Fig. 2 to product [10] Fig. 1
Frequent movements Fine manipulation of
between targets, usually objects, with little
with some accuracy but displacement and force
little force [10] Fig. 3 [10] Fig. 3

7. Appearance of the product [16] (DO4)

Constraints

1. Cost of parts and manufacturing product must not exceed $30 when assessed with M1.
21. Must score at least satisfactory when assessed with M2, M3, M4a, M4b, M5a, M6, and M7 3.
Assembly of product must not exceed 1 hour of work time (M5b)
 Page 13 of 29

Criteria
1. Prefered lower cost (M1)
2. Preferred less elapsed time when accessing utensils (M2) Preferred higher ranking when assessed
with M2, M5a, M6
3. Prefer higher grading lower volume and lower mass when assessed with M3.
4. Preferred higher grading when assessed with M4.
4. Preferred less pieces and less time required to manufacture when assessed with M5a M4
6. Preferred less time when assessed with M5b
7. Prefered higher grading when assessed with M6
5. Preferred smaller angle when assessed with M5b

[1] 200 g is approximately mass of an empty pencil case. 2 1000 cm3 is approximately volume of a
pencil case.
[2] The product covers the utensils points such that the utensils do not prod the user. Comfortability
implies softness of the product and its influence on flexibility of the user. It also includes that of
surrounding students.

References

Provider Item Date Source Location

Recover
ed

[ Students of U of T Photographs Oct 25, St. George

2016 Campus

[ Walmart Picture of pencil case in N/A www.walmart.ca

binders

[3] G. Boothroyd, P. Dewhurst, W. A. Knight, and G. Boothroyd, Product design for manufacture
and assembly, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2002.

Figure 1
 Page 14 of 29

Figure 2

[4]"Living costs," 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.studentlife.utoronto.ca/hs/living-costs.

Accessed: Nov. 22, 2016.

[5] G. of Ontario, M. of Labour, and E. P. Branch, "Ministry of labour," Government of Ontario,

Ministry of Labour, Employment Practices Branch, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/minwage.php. Accessed: Nov. 22, 2016.

[6] DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CLASSROOMS UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 2012, Office of

Space Management of University(renamed as Academic + Campus Events) of Toronto,at the
 Page 15 of 29

St. George campus, for use by all three University of Toronto campuses, 09 July, 2012.

10 16 = 0.254 m 0.406 m = 0.103 m2

[7] "List of University of Toronto buildings," in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2016.

[Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Toronto_buildings.
Accessed: Nov. 22, 2016.

Average of Built 1937.859

Year

Median of Built 1931.5

Year

Newest Built 2009

[8] D. Mahoney, "The best Toolbox," in The Sweethome, The Sweethome, 2015. [Online].
Available: http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-toolbox/. Accessed: Nov. 22, 2016.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

[9] Researchers Submit Patent Application, "Hipband Pouch", for Approval.

Politics & government week. 2013-03-21.

Figure 1
 Page 16 of 29

Figure 2

Figure 3

[10] K.H.E Kroemer, K.E. Kroemer-Elbert and H.B. Kroemer, Ergonomics: how to design for ease
and efficiency, c1994 ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994.

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3
 Page 17 of 29

[11] H. Dongwook, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED,

4th ed. Design Society, 2015.

Figure 1

[12] DIVISION N CLASSROOM AND LECTURE HALL DESIGN INDEX, University of

Pit

tsburgh, 2003.
Figure 1 (Page 2)
 Page 18 of 29

Figure 2 (Page 19)

[13] Andy Allen (from Academic + Campus Events) (2016, Nov. 23). About desk size and
"DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CLASSROOMS UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 2012 ". Available
email:andy.allen@utoronto.ca
 Page 19 of 29

[14] Farlex, "Ergonomic," TheFreeDictionary.com, 2003. [Online]. Available:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ergonomic. Accessed: Nov. 24, 2016.

[15] Researchers Submit Patent Application, "Ergonomic Wristband for a Watch Or Piece of
Jewelry", for Approval. (2014, November 5). Mergers & Acquisitions Week. Retrieved
November 24, 2016, from http://getit.library.utoronto.ca

[16]M. E.H. Creusen and J. P.L. Schoormans, "The Different Roles of Product Appearance in
Consumer Choice," Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering,
Delft, The Netherlands, Dec, 2004.
________________________________________________________________
The Design Brief Ends Here

Appendix B - Pairwise Comparisons

 Page 20 of 29

[1] Pairwise comparison for objectives. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].

[2] Pairwise - Identifiability. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].

[3] Pairwise - Portability. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].
 Page 21 of 29

[4] Pairwise - Ergonomics. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].

[5] Pairwise - Head Tilt. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].
 Page 22 of 29

[6] Pairwise - Cost. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].
 Page 23 of 29

[7] Pairwise - Ease of Item Acquisition Storage. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016.

[Online].

[8] Pairwise - Appearance of the Product. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].

[9] Pairwise - Manufacturability. Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].
 Page 24 of 29

[10] Pugh Chart.Praxis Team 10. Google Docs, Nov. 2016. [Online].

Appendix C - Design Concepts

References
[1] Images

Figure 1 Figure 2
 Page 25 of 29

Figure 3 Figure 4

Figure 5 Figure 6

Figure 7 Figure 8
 Page 26 of 29

Figure 9 Figure 10

Figure 11 Figure 12

[2] M. Green, "Visual expert human factors: Determining visibility," 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/contrastfundamental.html. Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.
 Page 27 of 29

[3] "Contrast ratio," in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2016. [Online]. Available:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrast_ratio. Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.

[4] Design Brief Assessment and Evaluation

[5] Farlex, "Ergonomic," TheFreeDictionary.com, 2003. [Online]. Available:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ergonomic. Accessed: Nov. 24, 2016.

Appendix D Engineering Tools Used

1. SCAMPER - divergence tool

2. Brainstorm - divergence tool

 Page 28 of 29

3. Face Your Fears -divergence tool

4. Pairwise - convergence tool

Appendix B[2] - [9]

5. Analytic hierarchy1 tool

Appendix B [1]

1
According to Professor Jason Foster, this tool was identified on Design Crit. Day.
 Page 29 of 29

6. Pugh Chart - convergence tool

Appendix B[10]

7. Prototypes of our product - representation

8.