This page is public by URL. It is for formative feedback, not a secure exam, QCAA instrument, real-client signoff or efficacy claim. A student may reasonably choose a different design if they preserve the brief, justify it with a criterion and name limits. Record whether a teacher supplied an answer component or only access support. Do not assess choice of hand/voice/computer as design quality; when the target is spatial representation, inspect the arrangement itself.
| Day | Evidence of target and an acceptable answer | If stuck, the next move |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A graphic designer could revise labels; an industrial designer could consider return tokens. Borrowers need categories identifiable; actual preferred labels are unknown. Other plausible role/output pairings are valid. | Ask the learner to point to a designed thing, then match a role to that thing; revisit “unknown” with the one mock librarian note. |
| 2 | Stated in Card B: two entrances use L/R and one scripted performer wants a non-audio way. “Labels might help” is inference. “All performers need this” is unsupported. | Highlight each exact Card B phrase, then put “might” before an inference. |
| 3 | “How might a doorway reader find either side room from an A4 black-print board when the existing L/R plan has no legend?” Constraints include A4/black print and valid arrows. Sightline remains unknown. | Supply a blank who/what/current issue/limit frame, not a finished problem. |
| 4 | “Show exactly three spaces” and “name each in words even in greyscale” can be checked on paper. Real fit/cleaning remains unverified. | Ask “Can you point to the proof on the cardboard sketch?” Move any uncheckable claim to the later-test list. |
| 5 | File G: reported difficulty is one scripted organiser line, not a survey. Bounded problem and two criteria below. | If the learner overclaims, locate the word “one” and classify the source before rewriting. |
| 6 | D diagram contains four group placeholders with visible hierarchy and an update-date space; annotation links date to the person updating and reader. Reading distance unverified. | Give heading/group/date tiles; learner chooses their spatial order, then explains it. |
| 7 | E two alternatives may use room-number-led and full-name-led labelling. Both keep Entrance → Room 1 → Room 2 → Room 3 and the desk in Room 1. | Trace the fictional corridor with a finger/marker; then vary a meaningful label/legend feature. |
| 8 | X has picture order but no words; Y has words with tiny step numbers. A combined proposal uses three large numbers plus worded steps and “paper game only.” No user preference established. | Put each option feature under a criterion; ask which requirement still lacks evidence. |
| 9 | Before: tiny step numbers; after: large 1/2/3 with worded steps. Annotation links sequence to new reader's task; comprehension still untested. | Ask for a before/after pair with one tile physically moved or replaced and a criterion label. |
| 10 | File H: bounded problem, two distinct spatial representations, revision and limit below. | If the learner gives a polished single idea, request a second different information layout and a visible change. |
Worked File G · Paper Path
- Source and limit: The mock organiser's scripted sentence reports one visitor question inside fiction. It does not establish any actual visitor response; even within the story it gives one report, so “most visitors” is unsupported. An acceptable learner line: “The organiser says one visitor asked about the triangle. I cannot generalise from it.”
- Problem: “How might a reader identify Fold, Print and Trade on a black-and-white handout of no more than two A4 sheets when its present three shapes have no legend and station positions cannot change?” An answer that names two of those constraints, the reader, existing issue and intended task is sufficient.
- Inspect on paper: (a) All three stations appear with their full names beside a shape or route, so meaning does not rely on shape alone. (b) The mock handout fits at most two A4 pages and is legible in greyscale as a drawing, with no claim that real users can read it. A criterion about a route can also work if it is traceable without moving stations. Aesthetic preference alone is insufficient.
- Next evidence: Ask a consented future participant to locate Fold and explain the shape/label, using a school-approved process. No claim of actual comprehension or accessible performance is established by this fictional card or paper inspection.
Next moves: If “all visitors” appears, sort stated/inferred/unsupported again. If the criterion says only “make it easy,” ask what could be observed on a draft. If a reader uses alternative layout pieces, assess the same names/constraints. A fresh local case is required after preview of this public key.
Worked File H · Studio Swap
- Problem: “How might a studio visitor use one A4 greyscale handout to pass through central check-in, then locate Books to the left or Art prints to the right, when the current B/P labels have no full-word key?” This includes user, limitation, task, page/colour constraints and layout order. The scripted volunteer line is not actual feedback.
- Two genuine ideas: Idea A draws entrance bottom, check-in centre, Books left and Art prints right, with full words inside each labelled area and arrows from check-in. Idea B keeps those positions but uses numbers 1 check-in, 2a Books left, 2b Art prints right, plus a separate full-word legend. That changes how information is found, rather than only decoration. A numbered idea may show the branch after 1; it must not imply Books comes before Art prints for everyone.
- Criteria and refinement: (a) Both destination names appear in full words in a greyscale A4 concept. (b) A reader can trace from bottom entrance through centre check-in to either left/right table without a contradictory arrow. Select B; move the legend adjacent to the branch and add “Choose after check-in” beside it. On paper, this makes route order and the full-word decoding more visible. It does not prove users find the route easier.
- Limit: User success, sightlines, crowd flow and physical accessibility are unverified. A responsible local reviewer would need real room dimensions and consented observation or feedback from appropriate stakeholders before making performance claims. This practice result is not a real client approval.
Next moves: For missing location order, rebuild with four full-word position tiles. For two almost identical ideas, change the information mechanism (labels inside areas versus numbered/legend route) and state the tradeoff. For unqualified “accessible,” separate an inspectable paper feature from actual usability evidence. The teacher checks representation and justification; polish is optional.