Skip to content

IterativeObjectProject.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
175 lines (130 loc) · 7.16 KB

IterativeObjectProject.md

File metadata and controls

175 lines (130 loc) · 7.16 KB

DM-UY 1143 Ideation and Prototyping

Iterative Object Project

Project Goal

This project is graded on evidence of thinking. NOT correctness. Students will demonstrate iterative design thinking through multiple physical prototypes informed by reflection and user feedback.

Your object must genuinely try to succeed at its intention. It is allowed to fail in reality when tested. It is excecpted that students work and design towards making the idea plausible and real. It is expected to change throughout this process.

This project teaches you how to think in objects. The Future Project will ask what kind of world would produce these objects?

Requirements

  • The object must not work is not to be finished and a fully functioning success, with reference to it's prescribed ultimate goal. It must be on that path to the prescribed intention, and it iterated to be refined from it's orginial form.
  • It must change at least once after the first build
  • Documentation of your process is more important than the final form

Constraints

  • Must be physical
  • Must be hand-built (no outsourcing, no final polish expectations)
  • Must go through at least 3 materially different versions
  • Final object MAY be incomplete or non-functional
  • Documentation & Design Autopsy of each stage is required and heavily graded
  • Design Autopsy must explore: One decision made, One assumption challenged, One change since last week

Choose one of these prompts to use over the next several weeks:

Structure

Week 1 - Prompt & First Build (Fast + Wrong)
  • Goal: Break perfectionism immediately & identify a behavior, feeling or interaction the object explores.
  • Restrictions:
    • 30-45 minute rapid build using limited materials
    • No planning beyond a 5-minute sketch
  • Design Autopsy:
    • What assumptions did you make?
    • What failed immediately?
    • What surprised you?
    • How are you going to move forward next week? Given what you've learned, how does this inform your next steps?
Week 2 - Failure as Data

Before moving forward, you must post the results of the 48-hour Minimim Viable Solution:

  1. One sentence intention using this template:

"This object is intended to _________ for ________ in __________ context"

  1. Two photos or a 10 second video: Whatever is existing at this stage.

  2. Answer the following:

    • What you built
    • What isn’t working; what are you realizing?
    • What will you address next?
    • What is your success metric? (Define it!) If you cannot complete the above, you will lose points and not be able to participate in feedback next class.
Week 2 - Failure as Data (continued)
  • Goal: Teach observation and reinterpreation
  • Assignment:
    • Test Prototype v1 with at lease 2 users
    • Document misuse, confusion, and unintended behaviors
    • Post 2 annotated sketches of your next build (See below) before the build.
    • Build Prototype v2 that responds to failure. Also, New Constraint: Keep the same object category, but redesign it so it has a plausible path to success for at least 60 seconds.
    • Research & Identify similar objects on the market. Post links and analysize differences
  • Design Autopsy:
    • What did users do "wrong"?
    • What did you not change, and why?
    • What did you change, and why?
    • What assumptions did you have? How are they challenged?
    • How are you going to move forward next week? Given what you've learned, how does this inform your next steps?
Week 3 - Constrain Intervention

"Constraints aren’t punishments — they’re tools that force your brain out of its first solution.”

  • Goal: Force lateral thinking

  • Research: Look into the context of the situation your object is used. Find 2 sources: one that counter your assumptions; the other refines & deepens your understanding. Post about them. Analyze what you've gained.

  • Pick 2 of the following constrains:

    • Remove a key material & swap it for another
    • Reduce Double size by 50%
    • Make it operable with one hand
    • Must be usable while walking
    • Must work without being touched directly
    • It must monitor behavior
    • It must create mild discomfort

  • Assignment

    • Build Prototype v3

  • Design Autopsy:

    • What decisions did you make and why?
    • What assumptions did you have? What are the present ones?
    • Which contraint helped? How so?
    • Which broke your idea? Why did it break your idea?
    • What emerged unexpectedly?
    • How are you going to move forward next week? Given what you've learned, how does this inform your next steps?
Week 4 - Reframing the Object

  • Goal: Transition from object to system

  • Assignment:

    Reframe the object:

      * is it training someone?

  * is it enforcing value?

  * is it revealing a system?

    Build Prototype v4 OR deliberately stop iterating and justify why

  • Design Autopsy:

    • How did you reframe the object? Discuss.
    • What decisions did you make and why?
    • What assumptions did you have? What are the present ones?
    • How are you going to move forward next week? Given what you've learned, how does this inform your next steps?

Week 5 - Process Review (Not a Final)

Failure-Forward Grading Rubric

Late posts loose 2 points a day, but can still be submitted

Total: 100 points

  1. Iteration & Risk (30 pts)

    • 27–30: Multiple substantial iterations; student actively changed direction based on failure
    • 20–26: Iterations present but mostly refinements
    • 10–19: Minimal change; avoided risk
    • 0–9: Single-solution mindset

  2. Engagement with Failure (25 pts)

    • 22–25: Failures clearly identified, analyzed, and used productively
    • 15–21: Failure acknowledged but not deeply examined
    • 8–14: Failure reframed as “mistake” rather than insight

  3. Process Documentation (20 pts)

    • 18–20: Clear visual and written documentation of thinking over time
    • 12–17: Documentation present but incomplete
    • 6–11: Minimal documentation
    • 0–5: Little to no process evidence
    • 0–7: Failure avoided or hidden

  4. Conceptual Clarity (15 pts)

    • 13–15: Object clearly explores a question, behavior, or idea
    • 9–12: Concept present but underdeveloped
    • 4–8: Concept unclear
    • 0–3: No articulated intent

  5. Reflection Quality (10 pts)

    • 9–10: Thoughtful, honest, specific
    • 6–8: General but sincere
    • 3–5: Surface-level
    • 0–2: Minimal or absent