Design and Tech Exam Thoughts (1 Viewer)

[sillilouyje]

What do you think about question 9 with the graphs? I think the scale was a bit ambiguous. Was it D?

 

[cresence]

i put down product x (option C i think?) i think the last option (D) had both function and aesthetics at the highest just to throw ppl off, but if you looked closely you could see that the cost of manufacturing was higher than the selling consumer price. C had them both even, even if the aesthetics was lower.

 

[sillilouyje]

wasn’t it asking about what was the best for the consumer? So a low cost to consumer and high function and aesthetic would be good right?

 

[svad]

What do you think about question 9 with the graphs? I think the scale was a bit ambiguous. Was it D?

(option C i think?)

i put graph x which was option B

 

[svad]

The 3 people who do DT on this forum are gonna love this thread

 

[svad]

Also what did u guys write for the last short answer Q? About how innovation effects the user experience or smth

 

[cresence]

wasn’t it asking about what was the best for the consumer? So a low cost to consumer and high function and aesthetic would be good right?

oh nooo you're probably right, if that was what the question was asking. i don't remember the exact wording of the q but i interpreted it as "what is the best product to sell [from the manufacturer's pov]" if that makes sense? was it "what is the best product to sell for the consumer" instead? im so cooked

 

[sillilouyje]

Also what did u guys write for the last short answer Q? About how innovation effects the user experience or smth

I wrote about innovation of Uber from taxies and how that make it easier for people to book rides when the driver doesn't know where they are goingm, makes it easier to pay and ride share.

oh nooo you're probably right, if that was what the question was asking. i don't remember the exact wording of the q but i interpreted it as "what is the best product to sell [from the manufacturer's pov]" if that makes sense? was it "what is the best product to sell for the consumer" instead? im so cooked

Yeah that makes sense but we were looking at products that had high function and aesthetics as being good I think. The confusing part to me was the scale on the left. It said rating from 1 low and 5 high. If environmental impact was on 5 does that mean people rated it as being good? Therefore maxxed out on the "goodness scale" like how you would rate a movie 5 stars if it was good? If that was the case then that would make sense of why the cost to consumer was lower, meaning people rated that product as being 'not good to buy' rather than the cost of the product actually being lower than it was to manufacture. Does that make sense?

 

[cresence]

Yeah that makes sense but we were looking at products that had high function and aesthetics as being good I think. The confusing part to me was the scale on the left. It said rating from 1 low and 5 high. If environmental impact was on 5 does that mean people rated it as being good? Therefore maxxed out on the "goodness scale" like how you would rate a movie 5 stars if it was good? If that was the case then that would make sense of why the cost to consumer was lower, meaning people rated that product as being 'not good to buy' rather than the cost of the product actually being lower than it was to manufacture. Does that make sense?

yeah, i agree with you that the "goodness scale" was from the consumer's perspective (function, aesthetics, env impact), but then if that were the case i'm not sure why they included cost of manufacturing if it didn't have any relevance to the ppl. so i assumed that the scale star ratings meant that 1 = lowest and 5 = highest, which could be applicable to any of them? like we have:

• function = 1 is low function, 5 is high function
• aesthetics = 1 is bad aesthetic, 5 is beautiful aesthetic

these are very straightforward because it's from the pov of the consumer. but if we get to the others like the cost of manufacturing, selling price, and environmental impact, it's honestly a bit confusing and it mostly leaves it up to the students' personal interpretations, so i get why you'd think that the scale was ambiguous. for example here were my interpretations:

• env impact = 1 is low impact (which is good for env), 5 is high impact (this is bad, damages env)
• cost of manufacturing = 1 is low (good for the manufacturer, because it's cheap to make), 5 is high (bad, expensive to source materials)
• selling price to consumer = 1 is low (good for consumer, because it's cheap), 5 is high (bad, expensive)

so that's why i ended up putting product X, because the cost of manufacturing was equal with the selling price to the consumer. even though option D had function and aesthetics maxxed out, it would've been more expensive for the manufacturer to produce. umm if you remember the exact wording of the question, or anyone who remembers, would you lmk it would help clarify a bunch of things.