Product focus: Desk Lamp Redesign. This resource presents three parallel IA reports at different quality levels side by side, allowing students and teachers to compare and contrast performance across all five assessment criteria. Commentary after each section explains the mark awarded.
Total marks available: 33 | Criterion A: 9 marks | Criteria B–E: 6 marks each | Images in dashed boxes are placeholders — produce or photograph images matching each description.
My primary persona is Sarah. She is 72 years old and retired. She lives by herself in a small house. She uses a desk lamp every evening when she reads books. She finds the switch on her lamp hard to turn because her fingers are stiff and sore.
Sarah told me she would like a lamp that is easier to switch on and off. She also said the light is sometimes too bright.
Jordan is a 21-year-old university student studying architecture. He spends approximately 4–6 hours each evening at his desk drawing and using his laptop. He lives in a shared student flat with limited space.
Goals: Jordan wants to stay focused during long study sessions, keep his workspace tidy, and avoid eye strain that forces him to take breaks.
Frustrations: Jordan finds that his current lamp creates harsh shadows across his drawing board. The arm is difficult to reposition without the whole lamp toppling. The brightness cannot be adjusted, meaning it is too harsh late at night.
Context: Jordan works at a small desk in a shared room. He often works past midnight. Research into student health (University of Edinburgh, 2025) shows that 68% of students report eye discomfort linked to artificial lighting during late-night study.
Daniel is a 34-year-old freelance graphic designer and digital illustrator. He works from a home studio, typically 8–10 hours per day, producing print and screen-based design work for clients in the publishing and branding industries. Accurate colour rendering in his workspace is critical to the quality of his work output.
Demographic profile: Age 34, male, university-educated (BA Graphic Design, 2014), self-employed for 6 years. Works from a dedicated home studio, 12 m². Income dependent on client deliverables with hard deadlines.
Behaviours & motivations: Daniel values precision and efficiency. He works under deadline pressure and cannot afford to have his output compromised by poor colour rendering — a print job produced under warm-tinted light will not match the client's approved proof. He has invested significantly in a calibrated monitor but his task lighting undermines this investment.
Pain points (from interview, March 2026):
"I've spent £600 on monitor calibration and my lamp is basically undoing it. If a client says the blue is wrong, I can never be sure if it's my screen or my lighting."
Research context: A 2025 survey of freelance designers conducted by the Design Council (UK) found that 71% of home-studio designers had not evaluated their task lighting against professional colour-rendering standards. Of those who had, 84% reported changing their setup after evaluation.1
1 Design Council UK, Home Studio Environments and Professional Output Quality, 2025, p.14.
User: Jordan (21, architecture student) | Environment: student desk, shared flat | Lamp: standard gooseneck LED desk lamp
User: Daniel (34, graphic designer) | Environment: home studio, controlled ambient light | Simulation: researcher used warm-only desk lamp to replicate Daniel's conditions
Task analysis findings: Steps 4, 5, 7, and 8 represent critical failure points. The inability to accurately assess colour under the current lamp directly prevents Daniel from completing a core professional task. The one-handed repositioning failure (step 5) is a secondary but significant usability problem. These findings directly inform the problem statement and design specifications.
I think the IKEA lamp is the best one for my grandma because it has a dimmer.
Five desk lamps were examined to identify successes and weaknesses relevant to a student workspace.
Six products were evaluated against criteria derived from the task analysis: colour rendering quality, arm adjustability, control usability, thermal management, and footprint suitability for a professional studio workspace.
Summary finding: No single existing product simultaneously achieves CRI ≥ 90, variable colour temperature with physical controls, multi-pivot one-handed arm adjustment, passive cooling, and a compact studio footprint. This gap defines the core redesign opportunity.
My grandma Sarah has a problem with her desk lamp. The switch is really small and her fingers are stiff so she can't turn it on easily. She also finds that the light is sometimes too bright. I want to redesign the desk lamp to make it easier for her to use.
I will make a new lamp that has a bigger switch and maybe a dimmer.
University students who undertake extended study sessions face significant challenges with standard desk lamps that were not designed with their specific needs in mind. As identified in the task analysis, Jordan's current lamp creates three main problems: the arm is unstable when repositioned, harsh shadows fall across the drawing board, and there is no way to reduce brightness during late-night study — contributing to eye strain that ends his study sessions prematurely.
Current desk lamp products on the market either prioritise visual aesthetics (e.g. the Anglepoise Type 75) or basic functionality (e.g. TaoTronics budget lamps) without addressing the positionability and eye-comfort needs of a student working across multiple tasks at a single desk.
Opportunities for redesign identified:
Professional graphic designers working from home studios require task lighting that meets the ISO 3664:2009 standard for colour-critical viewing (CRI ≥ 90, correlated colour temperature between 5000K–5500K for D50 standard), yet no compact articulated desk lamp currently on the market combines this level of colour accuracy with the physical adjustability required for one-handed repositioning during active work.
As demonstrated by the task analysis, Daniel's current workflow is disrupted at two critical points: (1) he cannot accurately assess colour proofs under his existing warm-toned, low-CRI lamp (steps 3–4, difficulty rated 5/5), and (2) he cannot reposition the lamp one-handed while holding a physical proof (step 5, difficulty rated 5/5). These failures are not individual product shortcomings — the existing products analysis confirms that no product in the current market simultaneously resolves both issues.
Current situation: A wide range of desk lamps exists for home and professional use. Products with high CRI exist (Elgato Key Light, Daylight Slimline) but lack articulated arms; products with excellent arm systems exist (Anglepoise 1227) but rely on user-selected bulbs for CRI. The professional market is served by ceiling-mounted track lighting, which is incompatible with a home studio desk environment.
Core problem: Freelance graphic designers working from home studios cannot accurately review colour-critical print work at their desk because no compact articulated task light provides both (a) CRI ≥ 90 across a variable colour temperature range and (b) effortless one-handed arm repositioning.
Key redesign opportunities, informed by research and task analysis:
| # | Requirement |
|---|---|
| 1 | The lamp must have a big switch that is easy to press |
| 2 | The lamp must be bright enough to read by |
| 3 | The lamp should have a dimmer |
| 4 | The lamp should look nice |
| 5 | The lamp must be safe to use |
| 6 | The lamp should not be too expensive |
| # | Requirement | E/D | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arm must be repositionable with one hand | E | Task analysis step 3 — Jordan must hold items while adjusting lamp |
| 2 | Arm must reach a minimum of 50 cm from base | E | Drawing board is positioned 45 cm from lamp base on Jordan's desk |
| 3 | Lamp must not tip when arm is fully extended | E | Current lamp tips — identified as highest difficulty task in storyboard |
| 4 | Brightness must be adjustable (dimmer) | E | Task analysis — harsh light at night causes eye strain (step 5–6) |
| 5 | Colour temperature should be adjustable (warm/cool) | D | Research suggests 4000K reduces eye strain during study (TaoTronics product research) |
| 6 | Control interface must be operable without looking at lamp | D | Student needs to remain focused on desk work, not the lamp |
| 7 | Lamp head must be angled to reduce shadow on drawing board | E | Storyboard step 4 — shadow is a significant problem for architectural drawing |
| 8 | Base footprint must fit on a standard student desk (≤ 200×200mm) | E | Jordan's desk is 60×90 cm — space is limited |
| 9 | Lamp must include USB charging port | D | Identified as useful feature in existing product analysis (TaoTronics) |
| 10 | Material must be robust enough for daily student use | E | Lamp will be moved and adjusted frequently — durability required |
E = Essential | D = Desirable
| # | Specification | E/D | Justification & Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LED module must achieve CRI ≥ 90 | E | ISO 3664:2009 minimum for colour-critical graphic arts viewing. All tested products fail or only marginally meet this. Daniel's interview: current lamp CRI 72 is inadequate. |
| 2 | Colour temperature range: 3000K–5500K, continuously variable | E | D50 standard (5003K) required for print proofing. 3000K lower limit supports evening ambient use and prevents eye fatigue. Gap identified in all tested products: none offer full range at CRI ≥ 90 simultaneously. |
| 3 | Colour temperature control via physical dial (not app) | E | Task analysis step 5 — Daniel cannot operate app while holding physical proof. BenQ WiT physical dial identified as a best-practice reference. App-only control (LEDVANCE) rated as a critical weakness in product analysis. |
| 4 | Arm must be operable with one hand, full range of motion | E | Task analysis step 5 (difficulty 5/5). Anglepoise success with spring tension identified as reference mechanism. Requires balanced counterweight or low-friction gas-lift joint. |
| 5 | Arm reach: minimum 500 mm from pivot, 270° rotation | E | Daniel's desk layout — drawing tablet is 420 mm from lamp base position; 80 mm tolerance added. 270° rotation ensures reach to both sides of dual-monitor setup. |
| 6 | Thermal management must be passive (no active cooling fan) | E | Elgato Key Light fan generates 38 dB — identified as unacceptable in quiet studio (Daniel's interview). Passive LED heat dissipation via finned aluminium heatsink required. |
| 7 | Base footprint ≤ 180 mm × 180 mm | E | Daniel's available desk area measured at 320 mm × 200 mm beside monitors; 140 mm tolerance retained for accessories. IKEA HEKTAR (240×240mm base) identified as too large in product analysis. |
| 8 | Brightness adjustable, minimum 300 lux at 500mm distance | E | ISO 8995:2002 recommends 500 lux for detailed visual tasks; 300 lux minimum set for lower bound. Adjustability allows Daniel to reduce output for non-critical tasks. |
| 9 | All user controls accessible without repositioning lamp | E | Workflow analysis — interruption of task to adjust lamp reduces professional productivity. Controls (brightness, CCT) must be at base or arm joint, reachable from seated position. |
| 10 | Shade angle adjustable independently of arm position | D | Existing product analysis: all reviewed lamps couple arm angle with shade angle. Independent shade tilt would allow precise direction of light without full arm repositioning. |
| 11 | Product lifetime ≥ 50,000 hours LED rated output | D | Professional-use context — frequent replacement is costly and disruptive. Standard professional LED modules specify 50,000 hrs at L70 (70% lumen maintenance). |
| 12 | Mains-powered (not USB/battery) | E | Professional 8–10 hour daily use rules out battery power. USB power insufficient for high-CRI, high-output LED module. Mains supply with inline switch for safety. |
E = Essential | D = Desirable | All specifications are testable against the final prototype.
Taylor's problem statement sits at the very bottom of the 1–2 band. It identifies a problem but the link to the task analysis is entirely superficial — the statement would read the same whether the storyboard existed or not. There is no current situation description, no summary of research informing the problem, and no articulation of specific redesign opportunities beyond "bigger switch and maybe a dimmer." The design specifications are a bare list of requirements with no reference to research whatsoever. Several specifications are so vague as to be untestable ("look nice", "not too expensive"). The word "must" is used but without any quantitative or qualitative criteria to test against. This is characteristic of the 1–2 descriptor: specifications that state requirements but provide no research basis for them.
Sabrina's problem statement falls in the 3–4 band. The current situation is identified, the problem is clearly described, and there are direct links to the task analysis — specific storyboard steps are referenced. Three redesign opportunities are listed. However, the statement does not fully explain why these opportunities exist beyond the immediate observation, and the supporting research is limited to a single product reference. The design specifications are the strongest part of this criterion: ten specifications are presented, most are testable, and the E/D distinction is used. Justifications reference both the task analysis and existing product findings — this demonstrates the required link to research. However, some justifications remain general ("needs to be robust"), and quantitative values are missing from some key specifications (e.g. what is the minimum acceptable brightness?). To reach the 5–6 band, the problem statement needs more depth in its research synthesis, and specifications need more consistent quantitative targets with cited sources.
Noah's problem statement is an exemplar of the 5–6 band. It opens with a precise technical framing of the design opportunity (ISO 3664 standard, specific CRI and CCT requirements), directly references the task analysis with step numbers and difficulty ratings, and demonstrates through the existing products analysis that the identified gap is genuine — no existing product resolves both issues simultaneously. The four redesign opportunities are each explicitly linked to a specific evidence source. The design specifications are comprehensive: twelve specifications with quantitative targets where appropriate, consistent E/D classification, and each justified with a specific source (interview, task analysis step, standard, measurement). This is "relevant and detailed reference to research" as described in the 5–6 strand. A mark of 6 was not awarded because specification 10 (independent shade tilt) lacks a specific quantitative target, and the research summary within the problem statement, while strong, could more explicitly synthesise the qualitative and quantitative data gathered in Criterion A.
This lamp is the same as a normal lamp but with a big rocker switch instead of a small one. The switch would be easier for Sarah to press.
This lamp turns on when you touch the base. This would be easier because Sarah doesn't have to grip anything.
Note: Only 2 ideas presented.
This design uses a three-section arm with locking pivot joints. The base is weighted to prevent tipping. The wide shade directs light across the drawing board with fewer shadows. The dimmer is placed on the base so it can be reached easily.
User feedback (Jordan): "I like the arm idea but the dimmer should be closer to where I sit, not at the back of the base."
The LED bar clamps to the back of the desk, freeing up the desk surface. It rotates forward to illuminate the drawing board. It does not need a base, which saves space.
User feedback: "This would save space but I'm not sure it would stay in position — it feels wobbly."
The square LED panel provides even, shadow-free light across the drawing area. The panel tilts independently of the arm. A touch slider on the arm shaft controls brightness without requiring the user to look away from their work.
User feedback: "The touch slider is really useful. The panel is a good idea but 150mm might not cover my whole drawing board."
The counterbalanced arm is the core innovation of this concept. By positioning a weighted rod behind the upper pivot, the centre of mass of the arm assembly is brought close to the pivot point, reducing the force required to reposition the shade from approximately 4N to an estimated 0.8N — allowing comfortable one-finger repositioning. Low-fidelity testing with Daniel confirmed the principle works: a weighted cardboard arm was repositioned by Daniel one-handed while holding an A4 colour proof. The dual-dial control cluster (brightness / CCT) was positioned at the base near the front edge after feedback from Daniel indicated that rear-mounted controls interrupted workflow.
Iterative development note: The first version of this model placed the counterweight inside the arm body, making the arm too heavy overall. Second iteration used a smaller external counterweight with a magnetic attachment for fine-tuning — Daniel confirmed this version was effortless to adjust.
This concept draws from professional track lighting (used in print studios and galleries) and adapts it to a compact desk format. The directional reflector provides highly focused, controllable illumination ideal for reviewing proofs in a specific spot. The wireless charging base adds studio utility. User feedback from Daniel: "The focused beam is exactly right for proof-checking, but I'd also need a wider mode for general desk work." This feedback prompted the addition of a diffuser slide mechanism in the subsequent ideation refinement.
The split-zone concept addresses a key insight from Daniel's interview: his lighting needs for screen-based work and for physical proof review are fundamentally different. This design provides two independent light zones from a single lamp, eliminating the need to reposition between tasks. User feedback: "This is clever — I actually hadn't thought about how different the two tasks are. But it looks complicated to build." This complexity concern was noted as a risk factor in the evaluation stage.
I showed both ideas to my grandma and she said she liked the touch lamp because she doesn't have to grip anything. I am going to go with the touch lamp design.
The big switch lamp would also work but Sarah prefers touch. Both lamps would be easy to turn on.
| Specification | Idea 1 Articulated Arm | Idea 2 Clamp Bar | Idea 3 Panel Lamp |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-hand arm adjustment | ✓ | ~ | ✗ |
| Arm reach ≥ 50cm | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| Stable — does not tip | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Adjustable brightness | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Colour temp. adjustable | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Controls usable without looking | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| Reduced shadow pattern | ~ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Footprint ≤ 200×200mm | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
✓ Met | ~ Partially met | ✗ Not met
Selected idea: Idea 3 — Modular LED Panel Lamp. This best meets the stability, shadow-reduction, and control usability specifications. The main gap (colour temperature) will be addressed in the design development stage by incorporating a dual-CCT LED module. Jordan confirmed preference for the touch slider control in user testing.
| Spec. | Idea 1 Counterbalanced | Idea 2 Track-Head | Idea 3 Split-Zone |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. CRI ≥ 90 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 2. CCT 3000–5500K variable | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 3. Physical CCT dial | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| 4. One-hand arm op. | ✓ | ~ | ~ |
| 5. Reach ≥ 500mm, 270° rot. | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ |
| 6. Passive cooling | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| 7. Base ≤ 180×180mm | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
| 8. ≥ 300 lux at 500mm | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| 9. Controls w/o repositioning | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| 10. Independent shade tilt | ✓ | ~ | ✓ |
| 11. LED life ≥ 50,000 hrs | ✓ | ✓ | ~ |
| 12. Mains-powered | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Total ✓ | 11/12 | 8/12 | 7/12 |
✓ Fully met | ~ Partially met | ✗ Not met
Selected idea: Idea 1 — Counterbalanced Articulated Arm with Integrated CCT Module. This concept meets 11 of 12 specifications, with specification 10 (independent shade tilt) partially addressed and to be fully resolved in the design development stage. It is the only concept that fully satisfies the one-hand operation requirement (spec 4) — the critical distinguishing specification identified in the task analysis. Daniel's feedback during user testing: "The counterbalance idea is genuinely different from anything I've tried. The arm practically floats — I could see myself using this every day." Ideas 2 and 3 both have structural specification failures (spec 5 and spec 7 respectively) that cannot be resolved within their conceptual frameworks without fundamental redesign.
Taylor's ideation falls squarely into the 1–2 band for a defining reason: only two ideas are presented, not the required three. The 1–2 descriptor specifically states "fewer than three annotated, feasible redesign ideas" — this is precisely what Taylor has provided. The ideas themselves are feasible in principle, but the annotations are minimal (three labels per sketch, none of which exceed a single word). There is no evidence of fidelity modelling. The evaluation is not an evaluation at all — there is no comparison against design specifications, only a single piece of user feedback and an unsupported preference statement. To move into the 3–4 band Taylor would need to present a third fully annotated idea, produce at least one low-fidelity physical model, and evaluate all three ideas against her specifications.
Sabrina presents three ideas, each with sketches, models, and user feedback — this clearly meets the 3–4 band. The annotations include some key features, and the evaluation matrix is a genuine comparison of ideas against specifications. However, the work remains in the 3–4 band rather than reaching 5–6 for several reasons: not all key features are annotated (Idea 2 has only 4 labels, missing internal components); the evaluation does not cover colour temperature (a core specification from Criterion B), meaning the highest-priority specification is absent from the comparison; and the user feedback, while quoted, is not systematically acted upon — the choice of Idea 3 is explained but not fully justified against the full specification set. A mark of 4 rather than 3 is awarded because the three ideas are clearly distinct, the models are present, and the evaluation matrix, while incomplete, demonstrates a genuine attempt to compare ideas analytically.
Noah's ideation meets the full 5–6 descriptor. Three ideas are presented with comprehensive annotations covering all key features. Each idea includes multi-view sketches, physical low-fidelity models, and direct user feedback that is demonstrably incorporated into the design (the counterweight refinement is documented in two iterations; the diffuser slide in Idea 2 is a direct response to user feedback). The evaluation matrix tests all twelve design specifications, and the selection of Idea 1 is justified with specific reference to critical specification failures in Ideas 2 and 3 that cannot be corrected within their conceptual frameworks. The inclusion of Daniel's direct quote in the final selection justification is effective — it demonstrates that user feedback is not just collected but genuinely informs design decisions. Full marks are appropriate here. This section also demonstrates subject-specific vocabulary effectively throughout ("counterweight", "centre of mass", "gas-lift joint", "CRI", "CCT"), which is rewarded across all criteria.
I made a cardboard model of my lamp. The base is big so it won't fall over. The shade points down to light the desk. I made it touch-sensitive by adding a button on the base.
Testing Cycle 1 findings: Arm reach 42 cm — below the 50 cm specification requirement. Shade angle creates a shadow at the near edge of the drawing board. Base lifts when arm at maximum extension — does not meet stability specification (spec 3).
Changes for Cycle 2: Extend upper arm segment by 10 cm. Add modelled ballast weight (bolt) to base interior. Reangle shade mount from 45° to 60° from horizontal.
Testing Cycle 2 findings: Arm reach 53 cm — meets spec 2. Shade angle improved — shadow eliminated on near edge. Base stable at full extension. One-hand repositioning still requires significant force at upper pivot joint — partially meets spec 1. Touch slider control on arm shaft confirmed effective by Jordan.
Specifications tested: 4, 5, 6 (arm operation, reach, thermal). One-hand operation confirmed at 1.2N force — marginal. Reach 480mm — 20mm below specification. Counterweight mass of 85g creates mild base-tip tendency at maximum extension.
Refinements for Cycle 2: Extend upper arm segment 25mm. Increase base footprint to 165×165mm (still within 180mm spec). Move counterweight attachment point 10mm rearward. Replace cardboard base with 3D-printed PLA shell to accurately model wall thickness and mass distribution.
Specifications tested: 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 (stability, arm op., reach, footprint, controls). One-hand operation confirmed at 0.75N (exceeds spec 4). Reach 510mm — meets spec 5. Base 165×160mm — meets spec 7. Dial positions confirmed accessible from seated position without lamp repositioning (spec 9). Daniel: "This actually works. I can move it without putting down what I'm holding."
Issues found in Cycle 2: Shade tilt range limited to 30° — insufficient for low-angle proof review (spec 10). Dial knobs too small (14mm diameter) — require precise grip. Shade housing too shallow for planned LED module + heatsink assembly.
Refinements for Cycle 3: Redesign shade tilt bracket to 45° range. Increase dial diameter to 22mm. Extend shade housing depth by 18mm.
All 12 specifications tested against Cycle 3 model. Results summary:
| Spec | Target | Result | Met? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CRI ≥ 90 | CRI 94 (module datasheet) | ✓ |
| 2 | 3000–5500K variable | 2900–5600K confirmed | ✓ |
| 4 | 1-hand arm op. | 0.75N measured | ✓ |
| 5 | Reach ≥ 500mm | 520mm confirmed | ✓ |
| 6 | Passive cooling | No fan — heatsink only | ✓ |
| 7 | Base ≤ 180mm | 165×160mm | ✓ |
Taylor's work sits in the 1–2 band. A single cardboard model has been produced with no documented testing cycles — there is no evidence of testing the model against design specifications, and no refinement is shown. The model "partially addresses the problem statement" (the touch activation concept is visible) but the description goes no further than confirming its existence. The design drawing shows "limited detail" as described in the 1–2 strand: it is a single view with three labels, no dimensions, no orthographic projection, and no component breakdown that would allow a third-party manufacturer to produce the design. Note that the word count for Criterion D is very low (300 words) — the assessment is almost entirely visual, which means the quality of the model and drawings carries the full marking weight.
Sabrina's work enters the 3–4 band by demonstrating two clear refinement cycles with documented testing and findings. The move from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 is explicitly justified: specific failures (arm reach, shade angle, stability) are identified and addressed. User feedback from Jordan is incorporated. The formal drawings show adequate detail — three views with key dimensions and eight annotations are present, and a title block is included. However, the work does not reach the 5–6 band because the testing is described rather than evaluated: we are told the results of each cycle, but there is no systematic comparison against all design specifications. Several specifications from Criterion B (e.g. colour temperature, controls usability) are not tested at all in the model development. The drawings, while functional, lack a component-level exploded view that would be necessary for a third-party manufacturer.
Noah's work fully meets the 5–6 descriptor. Three refinement cycles are documented, each with measurable testing results (force gauge readings, dimensional checks, CRI datasheet verification) and explicit links to the design specifications being tested. User feedback is incorporated systematically — Daniel's confirmation in Cycle 2 is a turning point in the development narrative, and the issues identified in Cycle 2 (dial size, shade tilt range, shade depth) are each resolved in Cycle 3. The Cycle 3 summary table evaluating all specifications against the final model is an excellent demonstration of the 5–6 standard: "evaluates the testing against all of the design specifications." The formal drawings are comprehensive: a fully dimensioned three-view orthographic drawing, an exploded assembly with a fifteen-part list sufficient for manufacture, and a detailed cross-section of the critical counterweight mechanism. This drawing package provides the information required by the descriptor: "comprehensive details of the intended design solution and its components to communicate to a third-party manufacturer." Full marks are awarded.
My new lamp is better than the old one because it has a touch surface instead of a small switch. This makes it easier for Sarah to turn on. The light is also dimmable now.
| Feature | Original Lamp | Redesigned Lamp |
|---|---|---|
| Arm adjustability | Fixed — one position | Three pivot points, one-hand operation |
| Brightness control | On/Off only | Stepless dimmer via touch slider |
| Shadow pattern | Creates shadow at board edge | Reduced shadow from panel design |
| Stability | Tips when arm extended | Weighted base — stable at full extension |
| Colour temperature | Fixed 4000K | Warm/cool modes |
| USB charging | Not present | USB-A port on base |
The redesign addresses three of the key problems identified in Jordan's task analysis: arm instability, fixed brightness, and shadow pattern. It does not fully address colour temperature in this prototype but this would be developed further with a commercial LED module.
| Problem (from task analysis) | Original Lamp | Redesigned Solution | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colour shift on proofs (steps 3–4, D:5) | CRI 72, 2700K fixed | CRI 94, 3000–5500K variable | CRI increased +22 points; D50 standard (5003K) now achievable |
| One-hand repositioning (step 5, D:5) | Stiff single-pivot, ~4N force | Counterbalanced gas-lift, 0.75N | Force reduced by ~81%; confirmed one-handed by Daniel |
| Workflow interruption (step 6, D:4) | Two-hand adjustment required | One-hand adjustment confirmed | Colour proof can be held during lamp repositioning |
| Screen vs proof mismatch (step 7, D:5) | Warm tint prevents accurate comparison | D50 mode eliminates warm shift | Daniel confirmed proofs can be reviewed at desk without ambiguity |
| Noise in studio (Elgato comparison) | N/A (original silent) | Passive cooling maintained | Silent operation retained — no regression from original |
| Desk footprint | 170×150mm | 165×160mm | Footprint maintained within original envelope |
The redesigned lamp comprehensively addresses all four critical problems identified in the task analysis. The quantified improvements in CRI and repositioning force confirm that the design specifications were met in the final prototype. Daniel's feedback following Cycle 3 testing: "This solves the actual problem. My current lamp doesn't. That's the whole point."
Taylor's presentation meets the minimum 1–2 standard. The redesigned solution is shown with three annotations — this counts as "limited annotations of key features" as described in the descriptor. The comparison with the existing product is present but superficial: one improvement is mentioned (touch vs rotary switch) with a brief additional mention of dimming. There is no structured comparison, no reference back to the design specifications or task analysis, and no consideration of whether the redesign actually solved the problems identified at the start of the project. The visual communication is basic — a single view with no professional presentation quality. To move into the 3–4 band, Taylor would need more comprehensive annotation of her solution and a structured comparison that addresses more of the problems identified in her storyboard.
Sabrina's presentation is a clear 3–4. Eight annotations cover the key features of the redesigned lamp, including functional descriptions for most (not just part names). The comparison table is well-structured and covers six features, addressing three of the core problems from the task analysis. However, the work does not reach 5–6 because the comparison does not comprehensively address all identified problems: colour temperature is flagged as unresolved, and the comparison does not systematically reference back to the design specifications or task analysis step numbers. The visual communication is adequate — two clear views of the solution and a side-by-side comparison photo. A mark of 4 is appropriate: the comparison "addresses some of the identified problems" rather than comprehensively addressing all of them.
Noah's presentation is a comprehensive example of the 5–6 band. The solution is shown with fourteen annotations covering all key features — every element of the design is labelled with a functional description. Three photographic views (full lamp, in-use context, control detail) communicate the product effectively to a third-party audience. The comparison table is the defining element: it traces directly back to the task analysis by citing specific task steps and difficulty ratings, quantifies the improvements achieved (CRI +22 points, force reduced 81%), and confirms that no regression occurred where the original lamp performed adequately (footprint, passive cooling). Daniel's final quote provides human confirmation that the redesign is genuinely effective. This is precisely "how the redesigned solution compares with the existing product and comprehensively addresses the identified problems" — the full 5–6 standard. Full marks are awarded.
| Criterion | Max | Taylor S. (Low) | Sabrina C. (Mid) | Noah K. (High) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: Empathize | 9 | 2 | 5 | 8 |
| B: Defining the Project | 6 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| C: Ideation and Modelling | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| D: Designing a Solution | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| E: Presenting a Solution | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| TOTAL | 33 | 9 / 33 | 20 / 33 | 31 / 33 |
Note: Marks shown are illustrative targets for each quality band, not official IB moderated marks. Criterion A bands are 1–3, 4–6, 7–9. Criteria B–E bands are 1–2, 3–4, 5–6.
📝 Examiner Commentary — Criterion A: Empathize
Low Range (1–3)
Taylor's work sits firmly in the 1–3 band. The primary persona is stated rather than described or explained — we learn only the most basic facts about Sarah (age, occupation, problem) with no research to support the characterisation, no demographic context, and no reference to motivations or behaviour patterns. The storyboard fulfils the minimum requirement of showing a user completing a task, but the task analysis is limited: only four steps are shown with no difficulty ratings, no sensory demand notes, and no analysis of why the steps are difficult. The existing products section provides a list of features with no evaluation of successes or weaknesses — this is precisely the "list of key features" described in the 1–3 descriptor. The conclusion ("I think the IKEA lamp is the best one") is unsupported by any evaluative reasoning.
Mid Range (4–6)
Sabrina's work moves clearly into the 4–6 band. The persona is described with meaningful detail — goals, frustrations, and context are all addressed, and there is one cited piece of supporting research. The storyboard is satisfactory: six steps are shown, difficulty ratings are included, and the most critical failure point (Jordan stopping work early) is clearly identified. However, the storyboard does not include sensory demand analysis, and the task analysis reasoning stops short of a full explanation of how each difficulty creates a redesign opportunity. The existing products section describes both successes and weaknesses for most (but not all) features across the five products reviewed — this is characteristic of the mid-band descriptor. To reach the 7–9 band, Sabrina would need a more thorough and research-supported persona, a more comprehensive storyboard methodology, and an evaluation of all key features across all products.
High Range (7–9)
Noah's work meets the 7–9 descriptor across all three strands. The primary persona is fully explained: Daniel's demographic profile, professional context, specific pain points, and direct interview quotes are all present and supported by referenced research. The storyboard demonstrates a comprehensive task analysis: eight steps are shown, all include difficulty ratings and sensory demand notes, and a summary chart is used to visualise the findings. Critically, the storyboard explicitly links task analysis findings to redesign opportunities — this connection is what distinguishes explanation from description. The existing products evaluation is the strongest aspect: all six products are evaluated against a consistent set of criteria, and both successes and weaknesses are identified for every key feature of every product. The summary finding draws a clear conclusion from the evaluation. A mark of 9 was not awarded because the persona, while strong, could include slightly more quantitative behavioural data (e.g. hours per week, frequency of specific tasks).