# Four A4 aids · full text and tactile equivalents

The [SVGs](evidence-ladder.svg) have titles and descriptions; the PDFs have selectable text but are **untagged**. Use this page for screen reading or turn each ordered block into a full-word card. Do not use colour as an answer cue. An aid rehearses fictional design reasoning, not a tested solution or a reproduction of a named process model.

## Evidence ladder

Files: [SVG](evidence-ladder.svg) · [PDF](evidence-ladder.pdf).

Top line: “Keep each claim at its actual source level.” Four numbered full-word cards, top to bottom:

1. **Scripted brief fact.** Card B has two side-room entrances marked L and R. This is a fictional card fact, not a real interview.
2. **Cautious inference.** Full-word room names might reduce ambiguity. A possible design idea; no use outcome is known.
3. **Unsupported claim.** Every performer will find the rooms quickly. No timing, user sample or real-site test is supplied.
4. **Next evidence.** Ask a consented stakeholder to try a prototype. A proposed check is not a reported result.

Tactile route: Make four separate full-word, large-print cards numbered 1–4. Place them vertically in the stated order. Learner moves a statement card beside the matching category and says/records why; the number and wording, not shading, provide meaning.

## Problem to criteria

Files: [SVG](problem-criteria.svg) · [PDF](problem-criteria.pdf).

Top line: “Build a problem from a source, not from a preferred solution.” Four ordered ingredients:

1. **Who/task:** Doorway reader needs to find either side room.
2. **Present design:** Current Card B plan gives only L and R.
3. **Brief constraints:** A4 portrait; black print; arrows must match corridor.
4. **Unknown:** Real sightline and reading distance are not supplied.

Bottom box: **Paper-checkable criterion:** Both destinations have full-word labels on the draft. Final caution: A labelled draft is not proof of real-world wayfinding.

Tactile route: Place four numbered ingredient cards in a top-to-bottom line. Put a separate criterion card below them and a distinct “not yet tested” caution card last. Learner rearranges or points to who, present issue, constraints and unknown before composing a sentence.

## Idea loop

Files: [SVG](idea-loop.svg) · [PDF](idea-loop.pdf).

Top line: “Change the information system, then test against criteria.” Five ordered steps:

1. **Explore:** Card E visitor needs the route; actual use unknown.
2. **Idea A:** Room numbers lead; full names appear in a key.
3. **Idea B:** Full room names lead; numbers are secondary.
4. **Compare:** Both must preserve Entrance → Room 1 → Room 2 → Room 3.
5. **Refine:** Move a label or legend, then annotate why.

Footer: “Not a copy of a named design-process model.” The teaching loop is an original organiser, not a QCAA/Design Council/IDEO model diagram.

Tactile route: Use five numbered, full-word cards in the same order. Give four separate room tiles plus an entrance tile and a desk tile. Build Idea A, clear the layout, then build Idea B. Finger-trace the same corridor both times; move a word/legend tile to show revision.

## Decision grid

Files: [SVG](decision-grid.svg) · [PDF](decision-grid.pdf).

Top line: “Use visible features to justify a possible revision.” Fictional Card F options: **X** has pictures but no words. **Y** has words but tiny step numbers.

Four cells in reading order, left-to-right then top-to-bottom:

1. **Criterion 1:** Exactly three numbered, worded steps.
2. **Criterion 2:** “Paper game only” is visible.
3. **X strength/limit:** Picture sequence / missing words.
4. **Y strength/limit:** Words present / tiny numbers.

Below: **Revise the low-fidelity idea:** Pair full-word steps with large 1 / 2 / 3. **Evidence still needed:** A consented reader check before a usability claim.

Tactile route: Lay out two full-word criterion cards on the upper row and the two X/Y feature cards below, with each card's role written out. Put the revision card under them and the future-evidence card last. The learner can move the X/Y cards toward the criterion they support and name a gap; do not rely on cell location alone to convey strength or limit.