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