Please refer to:
http://newwoodrizon.blogspot.com/2015/11/pictures.html?m=0
Thursday, December 10, 2015
EVALUATION
- Think about the outcome
- Because of the magnets and stiff hinges, the paper will be attached to the artefact.
- • Does it meet the Design Brief?
- Yes, we were able to create an artefact that can hold paper, but not very effective tho due to our materials thrown away accidentally.
- • Does it satisfy the Evaluation Criteria?
- Partially, yes. It holds paper but sometimes it doesn't. We wouldn't consider it a failure because our materials were thrown accidentally and the magnets we bought were quite cheap because we don't know how strong they were at the time.
- • How well does it work?
- It works for small pieces of paper. Some areas work effectively while some doesn't.
- • Are there any parts that can be improved?
- Yes. We could use better magnets next time and we could also be more careful with our materials.
- • What remains to be done?
- Designs. We could add cool design to it if we are given time.
- • What is the best feature of the artefact?
- Portability. It is foldable; therfor it is portable. It can fit in small places and it light.
- • What is the least satisfactory feature?
- It has a dull look to it. It looks very plain.
- • Are there any unexpected problems?
- The magnets were an unexpected problem. We didn't expect them to be weak. We also lost an important piece.
- • Are there any unexpected benefits?
- Yes, the portability. We didn't expect it to be quite light. It's all thanks to good woods. Cheers!
- • Is the artefact aesthetically pleasing?
- Yes
- • Is the artefact ergonomically sound?
- Yes
PRODUCTION LOGBOOK
Date: Week 1
Procedure: Interviewing and brainstorming for ideas
Cogitation: This is very important. We had a hard time designing the artefact
Date: Week 2
Procedure: Preparing of materials and cutting of wood
Cogitation: This could be moved to another time because the wood might be damaged
Date: Week 3
Procedure: Cutting of wood
Cogitation: This is risky. We damaged our parts here
Date: Week 4
Procedure: Cutting of wood
Cogitation: After a week of experience, cutting became easier
Date: Week 5
Procedure: Cutting of wood
Cogitation: We're already pro at cutting of woods. Yey!
Date: Week 6
Procedure: Cutting, fixing, and assembling
Cogitation: Almost finished... This is an easy part of creating the artefact
Date: Week 7
Procedure: Cutting, fixing, and assembling wooden parts as well as attaching the magnets and putting on the varnish
Cogitation: The magnets we bought were cheap so the artefact didn't function well
PRODUCTION PLAN
Step
|
Procedure/Materials
|
Tools/Equipment
|
Risk
|
Time
|
1
|
Interview and brainstorm
|
None
|
None
|
1 week
|
2
|
Smoothen the wood
|
Sand Paper
|
None
|
1 day
|
3
|
Cut the wood
|
Jig Saw
|
Wrong measurement
|
6 weeks
|
4
|
Smoothen the cut pieces and remove excess parts
|
Plainer, Sander, Chisel, and Hammer
|
Removal of essential parts
|
2 week
|
5
|
Assemble the wooden parts
|
Hammer and Drill
|
None
|
2 Weeks
|
6
|
Attach the metal and magnets
|
Hammer, Jig saw, and Chisel
|
Embedding too deep
|
1 week
|
7
|
Finishing touches
|
Paintbrush, sand paper
|
None
|
2 Days
|
TOOLS AND EQUIPMENTS
Tools and equipment we intend to use:
- Plainer
- Hammer
- Sander
- Sand Paper
- Jig Saw
- Chisel
- Drill
- Paintbrush
CUTTING LIST
Part
|
No.
|
Material
|
Length
|
Width
|
Thickness
|
Supports
|
1
|
Wood
|
16
|
1
|
0.5
|
Pillars
|
4
|
Wood
|
5.3
|
2
|
0.5
|
Clips
|
4
|
Wood
|
16
|
1
|
0.5
|
Stick
|
1
|
Wood
|
16
|
1
|
0.5
|
PREFERRED OPTION
We preferred to use magnets and iron. We chose this over our original idea of using clips because magnets and iron can be a replacement to a clip if the magnets are strong. Magnets are also cleaner to look at and can be hidden from view. Also, the use of clips is too mainstream and causes damage on the paper on the long-term.
BRAIN STORMING IDEA
Our project this quarter is new, so coming up with an idea was hard. We decided to interview Ma’am Jona Mesia for design ideas. We decided to work on a visual aid support, an artefact that can make using of visual aids, such as cartolina, easier. Our design is a slim artefact, made up of long thin pieces of wood, and attached by hinges to be flexible. Our core design is the use of magnets and iron to clip the paper so that the paper will not be damaged and attaching it will be easy.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
5 Questions to evaluate the artefact:
- Does it help the client in using visual aids?
- Doe it make the client's work easier?
- Is it functional?
- Is it portable and light?
- Does it appeal to the eye?
TOP 5 PRIORITIES
Constraints :
- Made up of 6 pieces of wood only
- Innovative
- PIES
- Functional
- Portable
Considerations :
- Hinges
- Nails
- Wood Glue
- Magnets
- Metal
CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Constraints
|
Grade
|
Considerations
|
Grade
|
Made up of only 6 pieces of wood
|
1
|
Wood Glue
|
2
|
Innovative
|
2
|
Nails
|
2
|
Satisfies PIES
|
2
|
Varnish
|
4
|
Portable
|
4
|
Magnets
|
3
|
Functional
|
3
|
Hinges
|
1
|
Piece of metal
|
3
|
DESIGN BRIEF
Our goal is to create an artefact using only 6 pieces of good wood measuring 2 x 1/2 x 16 inches each. The product shall be able to support the client physically by being able to carry and support visual aids, such as manila papers, easily. The artefact should also be able to support the client intellectually by being able to hold and support teaching aids and intellectual materials, like those used by the teachers, emotionally by relieving the client of stress by helping him/her carry and use visual aids easier, and socially by helping the client be more productive and interactive because he/she will have less time to prepare and more time to interact.
DESIGN TASK
We are here to create a product that satisfies the client. The artefact must be able to support his physical, intellectual, emotional, and social needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)