RESEARCH

COMMENTS REPORT PREVIOUS DPH20 PROJECT

They have created a rather simple lay-out which at first seemed a good choice; afterwards the design choice was not that good because of the simplicity. The lay-out doesn’t lure the user to keep reading. One of the requirements of a good report is create a general line in the report, which this report doesn’t have. One of our questions is how they got to the concept which they have now.
ABSTRACT
The previous group uses the words “you, your and we” too much. This results in a less professional report, which could be prevented if such words aren’t used.It should be better when ‘abstract’ is placed in the introduction? They should’ve looked at what a abstract means and how to use it better.
INTRODUCTION
It’s a summary/conclusion of what they did, not a a way to lure the reader to continue reading. The product description sounds good, but the full explanation should be in the appendix. (which is missing)
RESEARCH
They’ve looked at what’ s already on the market but they didn’t connect it to their own report. They didn’t drew any conclusion and didn’t include any pictures. It would be nice to have a clearer and more elaborate explanation of the product. There isn’t any depth in the explanation, they could’ve told something about the creator of the product and where their focus lied. They copied a lot of information directly of the internet like the ‘webchair’. This is okay to do if they write their own interpretation afterwards but they fail to do so. In the ‘scotty’ piece they only ask questions and don’t explain how this contributes to Enhancing Distributed Communications. We think they forget the goal of the project and went their own way.
TARGET SPECIFIC RESEARCH
They don’t give an explanation on why they choose sick children, there’s no introduction. Their choice just isn’t that well built by a brainstorming session. The link between their research and target area is missing or not clear enough.
IDEAS AND CONCEPTS
What do the pictures mean? It doesn’t have a real value to the explanation if their ideas. Some pictures do explain their research a bit.
COMMUNICATION DOLL
They have used a good structure; using a introduction, interface and goal. The piece of technology could have been added in the interface.
CLIENT MEETING
This part is brief and clear. They could have told more about the brainstorming session with the client. Which techniques are used in other products, give some more details. They say that Graham Smith wants to use more advanced technology, how did they use that knowledge? Graham Smith doesn’t mind if the desired effect is simulated in order to show how it works.
FARM GAME
The project doesn’t have a clear connection with this game, where is the video connection integrated? How did they get the idea to create such a game and how was the image created?
Motion Sport Games en Board Games
This is a common idea which looks like the Wii; another group in Orange has used the exact idea for their project. They have explained other concepts better than this one. It’s a good idea to use board games and using a storyboard really clarifies the use of the game.
DEVELOPMENT
It’s ones again a new concept, everything is bit of the same. Where are the results of the thinkering session, how does such a session work? Using pictures would make it more attractive to read.
FINAL CONCEPT
It’s a new concept which they didn’t talk about before. They show a clear overview of the electronica inside but they didn’t show a picture of their concept. Everything is explained well but the piece lacks the structure which was found in other concepts. How did they use flash, they need to explain more about the use of Flash.
PROTOTYPING
Belongs under the header ‘Final Concept’
They don’t have an appendix, the sources aren’t written down correctly, no end notes and they don’t recommend the client about what to do.