In the beginning of the year we had to submit ourselves to two competencies we would like to learn more about. I chose Integrated Technology and Business Proces Design. This because that were the main competencies I wanted to start with. I wanted to create a view on how the industry works and I wanted to develop myself when using electronics.

Business Proces Design

When I started with the assignment for the competency area Business Process Design, we got the assignment to do a stakeholder research and a stakeholder interview of the new interactive playground product called Bumprock.

There is an old dutch game played by children called “stoepranden”. The company Candelled has renewed this game into a modern playground product called bumprock.

As mentioned before we had to do a stakeholder Interview. So we split up the group. My teammate  Sway and we decided to go a primary school to interview some stakeholders there.
We managed to get an interview with two teachers, one from the youngest class and one from the oldest.

We handed our reflection in and got some nice and positive review. After this exercise we had to do a stakeholder research of our own product and I made a poster.

My learning progress:
From this assignment I learned to explore and map the stakeholders of certain products.
Now I can better think a about the stakeholders in a certain project and take that into account. As a result, I can make more valuable and (business) interesting products for a certain market.

Integrated Technology

We started the integrating technology competency with the assignment to build a circuit that is triggered by a NTC (heating sensor).

We also had to make a good overview and some calculations with it. After I made the circuit overview and the calculation I build the circuit on the breadboard. In the meeting we got some reflection about the circuits. We also got a new
assignment to make a circuit with another output then an LED.

We divided our project group (all doing IT) in 2 groups. One was focusing on the sound of our project and one was focused on light (made with RGB LEDs). I and Iris were taking into account the RGB LED part. Time flew by while working on the RGBs, it was a useful assignment for our project.

My learning progress:
While doing the both assignments with the circuits I learned to deal with, new kind
of electronics like RGB LEDs and NTC's. I also learned to work with the breadboard.
My progress is that I now can work with different (and basic) kind of electronics on
the breadboard.


When finishing DG000 we had to deliver a booklet. You can download my booklet here.


This an excellent booklet. I was impressed with its quality and design. It is complete, innovative, well organized and well formatted, and gives a very good picture about your development. 

Quality of reflection: 
Very good. Your reflections have depth and appropriate amount of content. Your reflections are readable and clear.

Providing evidence: Balance between reflections and evidence:
Very good. You describe not only what you have learned, but how and when. You provide concrete references to the activities that you used to develop your skills.

Use of images:
Very good. Your selected appropriate illustrations, and your illustrations support your story well. Minor comment: when you are using external images, such as the image in the section describing "Social Cultural Awareness", it is a good practice to credit sources from which these images are coming.

Z. ObrenovicZ. Obrenovic

DG300: User Focus Perspective


When we had to choose our first assignment as B1.1 students, I didn't know quite
good what to choose. So I asked some Industrial Design students that I already knew
about their experience with the assignments. They told me that the User Focus and
Perspective assignment was very important. This because it is essential that everything
you design, has a focus on the user that is going to live with the product you make.


The last semester I started with my first real assignment. I chose User Focus and Perspective because I wanted to learn to design with the focus on users. I guess that succeeded quite well because we got the assignment to design something out of the perspective of some old people.

During the assignment we had to do several activities. We had to make a storyboard, context of use analysis, mind maps, ethnographic interviews, QOC analyses using the DECIDE framework, and desiging iterations of our prototype.

As young people we aren't used to look from that perspective into the world. While doing the interviews with my neighbors (the "Pieten" ) I found out that they have a whole different explenaition and view of modern technology. To design something out of their view is therefore really challenging. After having done this all, I can say I look with a different eye when designen something. I will view better to the user target first. Before just starting with designing some product or interface. I learned to empathize something more into the user.

With the empathize I could better make the second iteration as shown in the appendix. We used more clear and structured buttons with colour. And the overal structure was also better


Week 1 – Context of use analysis

A. Analysis of user experience (Usefulness, Usability; Pleasure) of the train ticket machine at the railroad station: Reflections

B. A storyboard for the current situation for the design case

C. A context of use analysis for the design case. It should include:

1.     a characterization of the users, their relevant capabilities and limitations, and the tasks that should be performed

2.     identification of other stakeholders

3.     analysis of the technical, organizational, social and physical environment

D.    Experience goals for the target group


[ ] Not completed / [ ] Insufficient / [ ] Acceptable / [ ] Satisfactory / [ x] Good / [ ] Excellent


Detailed Feedback (if applicable):

UX of train ticket machine:                          good

Storyboard:   Willem’s is not really a story board, but a loose set of pictures that do not tell a story, Maaike and Sjuul good storyboards

Context of use                                     very extensive

Experience goals:                                       good



Week 2 – Personas, Requirements

·         Personas:

·         The Persona hypothesis (individually)

·         Setup for an ethnographic interview (individually), a pilot (individually), one final version of the interview for the whole team on the basis of discussion/reflection of the individual pilots, to be used for two more interviews per team member

·         Personas (individually) on the basis of the combined interview data for the team

·         Requirements:

·         Three requirements, one functional and two non-functional (look-and-feel; ease-of-use; ease-of-learning; performance) ones. Each requirement should be specified according to the Volere template, containing the following fields: Type of requirement; Description; Rationale; Fit criterion (or test case)


[ ] Not completed / [ ] Insufficient / [ ] Acceptable / [ ] Satisfactory / [ ] Good / [ x] Excellent


Detailed Feedback (if applicable):

Persona hypothesis:                 very good,  

Description of process:                        very good

Personas:                                good,

Requirements:                          good



Week 3 – Scenarios and QOC analysis

1.     Scenario of use (150 words), explaining the concept, describing the interaction and illustrating the user experience

2.     QOC analysis: interaction problem; description of three interaction design options; five criteria; QOC matrix and explanation of cell values 

3. Task that the user can achieve by using the chosen concept and design option.


[ ] Not completed / [ ] Insufficient / [ ] Acceptable / [ ] Satisfactory / [x ] Good / [ ] Excellent


Detailed Feedback (if applicable):

Scenario:                     ok

QOC analysis:              good, with clear description

Task scenario:              part of week 4, ok



Week 4 – Paper prototype and heuristic evaluation

Part 1: Prototype

1.     A description and photos of the low-fidelity interactive prototype.

2.     A clear and elaborate task description (goals and sub-steps) that can be used for evaluation

Part 2:

1.     Evaluation of prototype, reported through Interaction Problem Reports

2.     Reflection on design consequences.


[ ] Not completed / [ ] Insufficient / [ ] Acceptable / [ ] Satisfactory / [x ] Good / [ ] Excellent


Detailed Feedback (if applicable):

Prototype:                    good set of pictures. Small comment: design is very button oriented, limited graphical ‘beauty’.  

task description ok

Expert evaluation:         good



Week 5 – User evaluation       

1.     Description of setup of user test according to the DESIRE framework (two users per student). Users should perform three tasks (the same as used for the expert evaluation).

·         Include the consent form.

·         Include the introduction that explains to the users why you are testing your prototype.

2.     Results of user test.

3.     Comparison of heuristic evaluation and user test

4.     Suggest redesigns based on these results.


[ ] Not completed / [ ] Insufficient / [ ] Acceptable / [ ] Satisfactory / [x ] Good / [ ] Excellent


Detailed Feedback (if applicable):

Description of setup:                good


Presentation of results:                        good, detailed

Comparison of expert evaluation and evaluation with users:      OK

Redesigns:                              good



Quality of report

Proper English

Formatted according to our instructions:

·         Title page, including names and s-numbers of team

·         Table of Contents

·         Chapters

·         References

·         Appendices

·         Max. 15 pages for the final report (use appendices if necessary

·         Page numbers


[ ] Insufficient / [ ] Acceptable / [ ] Satisfactory / [ ] Good / [x ] Excellent


Detailed Feedback (if applicable):

Proper English:                                    OK

All elements included:               Yes. Nice lay-out, extensive




Students were asked to include reflections and the feedback to the final presentation.


[ ] Not completed / [X ]  Completed ]


Detailed Feedback (if applicable):


Willem, fairly limited reflection

Maaike, very extensive reflection

Sjuul, very extensive reflection