Every name, statement and constraint below is invented. The voices are scripted classroom stimulus, not interview data. Learners may replace the setting with a safe invented one while preserving the same design decision. Keep the card label on every claim so another person can trace it. A brief does not establish that its proposed solution works.
Card A · Lantern Library loan-game shelf
Setting and profession lens: A fictional neighbourhood library has a tabletop-game loan shelf. A graphic designer could address sign hierarchy; an industrial designer could consider the return tokens; an interior designer could plan the shelf location. Do not assume one role can settle all three. The current paper sign names game categories by coloured dots alone. The mock librarian writes, “Some borrowers ask which dot means puzzles when the room lighting changes.” This is one scripted observation, not a measured frequency or a diagnosis.
Stakeholders: Borrowers need to identify a category; a volunteer wants fast reshelving; the mock librarian wants a quiet, tidy display. Constraints for a paper concept: Two A4 sheets and one marker colour are available. The sign must work when photocopied without colour. Do not move furniture. Unknown: Which words people understand, current shelf dimensions and whether a real user would prefer icons, words or both. A candidate criterion: every proposed category is distinguishable by a written label without relying on colour. This does not certify real accessibility.
Card B · Backstage entry board
Setting and profession lens: A fictional student theatre has two side-room entrances labelled only “L” and “R” on a rough plan. A spatial/interior designer may look at the physical route; a graphic designer may refine the plan. In a scripted note, one performer says, “I need to find my room without hearing a spoken cue”; another says, “Keep the board clear of long paragraphs.” Neither represents a population study.
Stakeholders: Performers, stage crew and people reading the board from the doorway. Constraints: A4 portrait paper, black print, two distinct destinations, no arrows that contradict the drawn corridor. Room names and direction words may be used. Existing-design clue: The L/R-only plan has no legend. Unknown: Actual sightlines, wayfinding distances and how the space is used. A sketch should indicate position and relationship, not just give an attractive headline.
Card C · Tool-return tray
Setting and profession lens: At an invented repair club, volunteers lend three dummy tool types: a large screwdriver, a tape measure and a small cloth pouch. An industrial designer could prototype a tray, and a communication designer could label it. The present mock tray has three identical outline boxes. A scripted volunteer says, “I can sort faster when the label tells me the item name.” That preference belongs only to the fictional persona.
Stakeholders: The sorter, people returning items, and the person cleaning the surface. Constraints: A cardboard mock-up only; exactly three compartments; labels must remain readable if printed in greyscale. No real tools or sharp edges are handled in class. Competing features: A large label takes space; a tiny compartment may not fit an object. Unknown: Real tool dimensions, cleaning requirements and approval. A criterion may be checked on the drawing (“three named spaces”), while fit requires later measurements.
Card D · Pool-club practice board
Setting and profession lens: A fictional pool club wants a schedule board for four made-up practice groups. A graphic designer might work on information hierarchy; a digital designer might consider a phone version later. The current mock sheet mixes day and group in one long sentence. One scripted coach wants changes quick to edit; one scripted family reader wants times easy to locate. These are not actual user interviews.
Stakeholders: Learners, carers, coaches and the person updating the sheet. Constraints for the exercise: One A4 portrait page, four groups, one week, black-and-white print. Include a place for an update date; leave all actual times as placeholders rather than inventing a real club schedule. Unknown: Reading distance, preferred languages, group names and actual timetable. A visible hierarchy can be critiqued; ease of use cannot be claimed until people try it.
Card E · Pocket exhibition map
Setting and profession lens: A fictional pop-up gallery has three rooms and an entrance. An interior/experience designer can examine flow; a graphic designer can make the handheld map. The mock curator wants visitors to see all three rooms, while a mock volunteer wants the desk marked clearly. A map that shows a route without room labels may look simple but leave a user uncertain.
Stakeholders: Visitors, the desk volunteer and the person installing the display. Constraints: The paper prototype is an A4 rectangle with three room boxes and one entrance. The only valid corridor in the fictional floor plan runs Entrance → Room 1 → Room 2 → Room 3; the desk is in Room 1. Do not imply any real building's emergency routes. Unknown: Door widths, accessibility, lighting and visitor preferences. Generate alternatives by changing label/legend placement or route emphasis while keeping the valid corridor.
Card F · Seed-share instruction card
Setting and profession lens: A fictional community garden gives away packets of imaginary paper seeds for a classroom game. A graphic designer could create a take-home instruction card; a product designer could shape its folded holder. The mock organiser wants people to understand a three-step paper activity; a mock volunteer wants it quick to replenish. No horticultural or health advice is provided.
Stakeholders: A reader unfamiliar with the game and a volunteer restocking cards. Constraints: One A4 sheet, black print, no real seeds, exactly three numbered steps and a clear “paper game only” label. Existing mock option X: three pictures without words. Option Y: three written steps with very small numbers. Unknown: How users interpret either option. A revised low-fidelity concept can pair full words with large step numbers, then ask what user evidence would be needed before claiming success.