The design process and iterative design

边玩边学

回答这些题目来赚取能量，然后钓鱼探索。无需账号。

给教育者：面向 The design process and iterative design（Design and Technology，Designing）的即用型课程幻灯片, 复习笔记——用在你的课堂上，或将该知识点作为学习者可实时游玩的互动课堂活动来运行。

课程笔记

A useful process investigates needs, frames a brief, sets requirements, generates and develops ideas, models, tests and evaluates. This is a guide to related activities, not one compulsory linear order. Testing an early idea may reveal that more research is needed or that the original problem was framed too narrowly.
The Design Council’s Double Diamond describes Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver, combining exploration with focused decisions. Its framework explicitly allows returning to earlier activities. This lesson uses original simplified flow diagrams rather than reproducing that organisation’s artwork.
Iteration uses evidence to decide what to change and what to test next. Repeating a drawing without learning is not enough. Improvements are conditional: a change may help access but increase cost or reduce robustness, so compare relevant criteria and record trade-offs.

The brief concisely frames the intended problem or opportunity, users, context and major constraints. It avoids prematurely assuming one solution when the need is still being investigated.
The specification develops relevant requirements for function, size or mass, materials, cost, safety, appearance, sustainability and usability. Make criteria specific and testable, using justified targets and suitable procedures rather than arbitrary numbers.
Requirements may evolve as understanding improves, but record the evidence and reason. Do not alter an acceptance target merely to make an unsuccessful test appear successful. Keep versions of the brief, specification and design consistent.

User-centred design investigates people’s tasks, contexts and feedback throughout development. Separate the roles of commissioning client, purchaser and end user where they differ. Observed behaviour can add evidence beyond what people say they prefer.
Inclusive design seeks to reduce barriers across physical, sensory and cognitive capabilities. Consider accessible interaction, alternative cues, adjustment and remaining limitations. A broad aim does not justify claiming that one product works for everybody.
Ergonomics concerns interaction with people’s capabilities, comfort and usability; anthropometrics provides body measurements for selected decisions. Relevant population, posture and task matter, and body dimensions alone cannot establish complete usability.

Use thumbnails, brainstorming and mood boards to explore alternatives, then select promising ideas against evidence and constraints. Mood boards communicate direction; they do not establish performance. Record why an option was developed or rejected.
SCAMPER prompts substitution, combination, adaptation, modification, another use, elimination, and reversal or rearrangement. It helps challenge an existing proposal without prescribing a final answer; each generated possibility still needs evaluation.

Choose a model that answers the current question. A card mock-up may reveal layout, form or access issues; a CAD model may support fit checks; a functional prototype may investigate a mechanism. None automatically demonstrates every property of the final product.
State limitations of material, scale, detail and test conditions. A foam model cannot establish final metal strength, and a virtual result depends on its assumptions. Use appropriate safe trials and technical tests before drawing broader conclusions.

Define the criterion and procedure, collect evidence, compare with the target, diagnose the problem and justify the next action. Feedback may support a product change, more research, a test correction or reconsideration of assumptions. Test again after a change.
Worked invented record: a draft criterion requires at least 8 of 10 trial users to locate a control unaided under an agreed task. Version A achieves 5 of 10; observations suggest the cue is hard to notice. After changing the cue, version B achieves 8 of 10 under a comparable procedure.
The later result meets this local trial target, but does not prove the cue alone caused the change or that everyone can use it. Record participant and procedure differences, learning effects and sample limits; check whether other requirements were harmed before claiming the design improved overall.

Step through every slide for this topic — plus flashcards and revision notes — with a free account.

免费预览——32 题中的 8 题。注册即可查看全部。

该知识点的历年真题练习即将推出。

即将推出