Lines, Planes, & Spaces: 3-D Prototyping II
HCID 521 Prototyping Studio | Week 2 | Assignment
This week’s assignment is to create 3 physical prototypes based on one of the assigned real-world topics. One of them is to design a handheld immersion blender for OXO. Several constraints were mentioned in this assignment: variable speed control, digital monochromatic readout with speed and content viscosity, and at least 12 inches long and 2.5 inches diameter with 2-3 lb in weight.
RESEARCH
Before I started sketching, first I tried to analyze my own hand shape while holding a heavy cylinder object. Also, I went on some secondary research of both hand blenders and OXO’s products.
I started from asking some friends and myself to hold a cylinder in different ways. I also observed how an empty fist looks like when raising the arm horizontally, just like holding something. I found out that center of a human’s fist is not vertical to the ground even one raises his or her arm horizontally. There is a specific angle between vertical line and fist. This finding brought me to my first prototype.
While finding some hand immersion blenders in the market, I found those products are pretty much the same in specs and functions. At first I searched online to gather as many models of blenders as possible. I found massive amount of blenders slightly differing in colors, shapes, and price. I did not find any major differences between these products.
To experience how it feels to hold a blender, I went to Target and Bed Bath & Beyonds, in order to check out and actually grip some existing products. Basically all the products have similar grip shapes. Some of them have some special shapes and I inferred it might be made for reasons like ergonomics, feasibility, or style. The ones having better grips are ones like these (photo above). This also gave me some insights that lead to my second and third prototype (for 1st and 2nd round).
On the other hand, OXO’s products are famous in “good grips”: products should be easy to use for the broadest spectrum of users, and ridiculously simple whenever possible. They constantly focus on the grip part of products to make it easy and effortless to handle. First I was curious about whether OXO has products similar to handheld blenders, and I found there is an OXO egg beater in the market. Since the way we hold egg beater is pretty much the same to the way we hold blender, I decided to analyze the grip part of this OXO product, trying to think their consideration while designing this grip.
Based on this egg beater outline, I drew down some differences between using egg beaters and blenders. I briefly calculated the grip strength and friction that user’s palm/fist would apply on holding both OXO egg beater and blender, and figured out several necessary adjustments based on egg beater’s grip (shown above).
EXPECTING UNDERSTANDINGS FROM PROTOTYPES
According to my findings, the primary I would like to know is how users feel while holding a 2-3 lb item firmly for at least a minute, and how the shape of grip part influence such experience.
MATERIALS
Since I would like to measure how the weight of product affect people using it, I decided to go with a heavier material with my prototype. I chose plastilina for its density, texture, and malleability. I was not concerned about how the product would be visually polished or crafted in detail since those were not the factors I would like to test during this stage of design.
PROTOTYPING PHASE I
Based on my initial findings, I created 2 prototypes for first round of testing. The first grip is based on the shape of human palm while raising the arm horizontally. The second one is an implementation of my revised sketch based on OXO’s egg beater (shown above).
TESTING
At the first round of testing, users would give out feedback from using model 1 and 2. Below lists out few tasks I assigned for users to test:
- Grab the blender firmly with 30 sec to 1 min, and ask them how they feel about the experience of holding it.
- Press the buttons on the blender to see if they can use their finger of the holding hand to reach those buttons.
- See the display, and read the display (Model 2)
FEEDBACK
The first model received mixed comments. Some pointed out that it’s hard to figure out the way to hold the product, while others felt it’s not easy to hold it firmly. However, several feedbacks were positive, such as that the layout of display and buttons were in an easily visible position.
In contrast to model 1, model 2 received overall great comments in terms of texture, effort of holding, and layout of display and buttons. One or two mentioned that the shape makes it hard to figure out how to hold the device at the first sight.
PROTOTYPING PHASE II
Gathering all the feedback from first round of testing, I adjusted several revision from the base of model 1 & 2 and created model 3 & 4. Model 3 is a combination of model 2 and shape of outstanding current products in the market. Model 4 is based on shape of model 1, feedback of both model 1 & 2, and an inspiration I came up with the shape of hiking cane.
TESTING II
The setting was the same with first round of testing. The tasks for users were remained unchanged as well. Four prototypes involved are model 1, 2, 3, and 4.
FEEDBACK II
Model 3 received even better feedback than model 2 when it comes to gripping experience, which several people referred as “the most comfortable one”. However, the trade-off is the position of buttons. Some suggested that the button should be places at lower part of the grip, while others did not have problem to reach the buttons.
Model 4 is shaped totally different from 3 previous models or even existing products. Most of the users were surprised by the shape at the first sight. However, almost all the users praised model 4 for effortless gripping experience and position of display/buttons. They all commented that they could hold model 4 for a while and would not feel tired.
Generally, model 3 & 4 received better feedbacks than 1 & 2. Surprisingly model 4 had the best gripping experience, which I did not expect (I thought model 4 would have performed better result than others).
REFLECTION
From both prototyping process and critique session in studio class, I have gained different understanding in lo-fi 3-D prototyping.
First is that I found it really helpful to determine my prototyping and testing purpose earlier. That made me focus on specific features on prototypes, and it also reduced my time of creating effective prototypes and efficient testing.
I spent way more time of research and analysis of testing instead of making prototypes. I found this entire process was much more efficient than any individual/group design experience I had previously had. This made me focus on how to communicate and craft my ideas, no longer being too dedicated to the pieces which I spent much time making. During initial design process, this is what I would say the right way to work.
What surprised me during testing was that the feedback was different from my expectation. That was why testing is always necessary during design process: designer himself/herself definitely cannot represent all the users and fully interpret user experience.
The other thing is to see the variety of prototype our class created. Everyone had different purposes of prototyping and testing, and that brought out different types of prototypes: some focused on shape and weight like I did, while others focused on operating experience or appearance.
While in class Axel brought out a point I found really useful: the weight created by clay is not necessary the weight of real product. In a real product, different parts weigh differently, and the balance of weight would influence testing and users’ feedback. Without experience in industrial design, this was truly a blind spot I did not notice during my prototyping process.
