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.
All three reports are written to roughly the same length, close to the 3,500-word ceiling. Word counts in the criterion headers are counted from this page as you read it. Green and red marks in the reports are moves worth noticing; hover or tab to one to see what it earns or costs.
These sit outside any single criterion and are easy to overlook while comparing the three reports. Page references are to the design technology guide.
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 is actually my grandma, which is why I chose her for my persona. I have known her my whole life so I thought she would be a good person to design for because I already know a lot about her and I can visit her house whenever I want to ask her questions. I go there most Sundays for lunch with my mum and my brother. She has lived in the same house for about thirty years now and she says she is never moving out of it.Autobiography, not analysisEvery fact here is about how the student knows the persona rather than about the persona. None of it changes the design, and it is spending the 900 words criterion A allows on writing that earns nothing.
Sarah's house has two bedrooms and she uses the second bedroom as a study where she keeps her books and her desk. The desk is quite old and made of dark wood. There is a window on the left side of the desk but she says the light from the window is not very good in the winter because it gets dark early. That is why she has the desk lamp. The lamp is silver and it has a bendy neck. I do not know what brand it is because the sticker has come off the bottom.
Sarah has arthritis in both of her hands. She told me she has had it for about ten years and it has got worse recently. Some days are better than others. On a bad day she says she cannot open jars or do up buttons very well. She takes tablets for it from her doctor. She said the winter is worse than the summer for her hands.Description with nothing drawn from itThe paragraph reports what the student saw. The descriptor asks the persona to be explained, which means saying what each fact means for the design. A reader learns Sarah has arthritis and is told nothing about what that requires of a switch.
She reads a lot of books. She likes crime novels and she gets them from the library in town every two weeks. She reads for about two hours in the evening, usually after she has watched the news. Sometimes she reads in the living room instead but she says the light in there is not bright enough so she mostly reads at the desk. She also does crosswords at the desk and she writes letters to her sister who lives in Scotland.
I asked Sarah some questions about her lamp. I asked her what she liked about it and she said it was a nice lamp and she has had it a long time. I asked her what she did not like about it and she said the switch. I asked her if there was anything else and she said the light is sometimes too bright when she first turns it on. I wrote her answers down in my notebook.
In the photo you can see Sarah sitting at her desk in her study. She is reaching out towards the lamp with her right hand. The lamp is on the right hand side of the desk. You can see that she is having to stretch and her face looks like she is finding it difficult. There is a book open on the desk in front of her.The image is described twiceEverything in this paragraph is visible in the photograph beside it. The picture is free; the paragraph costs roughly sixty words of a 900-word criterion. Two annotations of ten words or fewer would carry the same content at no cost.
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. I think this means she wants a lamp with a better switch and a dimmer on it. This is what I am going to design for her because those are the two things she said when I asked her what was wrong with her lamp.
A lot of older people have arthritis so I think this would be a good design for lots of people, not just my grandma. It would help anyone who has trouble with their hands.A claim with no sourceThe persona strand rewards research support. Nothing here has been read, measured, cited or footnoted, so a statement like this reads as an assumption rather than a finding.
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.
Behaviours: Jordan works in long blocks rather than short sessions, usually starting around 8pm and continuing until he is too tired to draw accurately. He switches between three surfaces during a session: the laptop screen, an A2 drawing board propped at an angle against the wall, and a flat area of desk where he keeps his scale rule and models. Each of these needs light from a different direction, and at present he moves the whole lamp when he changes task.
Because he moves the lamp between three positions in a single evening, the effort of repositioning it is repeated many times rather than once, which is why an arm that takes two hands matters more than it first appears.A behaviour turned into a design constraintThis is the move the persona strand rewards. The observation about three work surfaces is not left as a fact about Jordan; it is carried forward into a requirement the arm has to satisfy.
Environment: The room is 3.2m by 2.8m and Jordan shares it with one other student. His desk is 60cm by 90cm and sits against the wall under a shelf, which limits the height available above the desk to roughly 70cm. There is one ceiling light with a warm bulb, which he describes as too dim to draw under, and no other lighting in the room.
I interviewed Jordan for about twenty minutes and asked him about his study habits, his current lamp, and what he found difficult about it. He told me the arm was the biggest problem, followed by the brightness. He also mentioned that he sometimes uses his phone torch to light a corner of the drawing board when he is working on detail.Interview reported, not evidencedA direct quotation costs almost nothing and does far more work than a paraphrase, because the examiner hears the persona rather than the student's summary of them. There is no quotation anywhere in this persona.
Jordan's course requires him to hand in drawn work every two weeks, so the periods before a hand-in are the ones where a failure of his lighting has the most cost. He estimated that in the week before a deadline he works at the desk for five or six hours a night instead of four.
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."A quotation that carries the whole problemDaniel states the cost, the doubt, and why the two cannot be separated, in his own words. Nothing the student could write in three times the length would be worth as much to an examiner.
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.
This storyboard shows how Sarah uses her lamp. First she sits down, then she reaches for the switch, then she turns it on, then she reads her book. It only takes a few seconds to do the whole thing. The hardest part is number three because that is where the switch is.The sequence stops at successA task analysis is judged on what it reveals. This one ends with the lamp on, so the reader never sees a failure, a cost, or a consequence. There is nothing here for a specification to answer.
I watched Sarah do this three times so I could draw the storyboard properly and make sure I had all the steps in the right order. Each time she did it roughly the same way. I drew the pictures afterwards at home from memory and from the photos I took on my phone while she was doing it.
The sequence below was recorded by sitting with Jordan for one full study session and noting each stage as it happened, then rating how hard each stage was on a scale of one to five immediately afterwards with him.A stated methodSaying how the sequence was produced tells the examiner the storyboard is a record of something observed rather than an imagined one. Two sentences buy a lot of credibility here.
User: Jordan (21, architecture student) | Environment: student desk, shared flat | Lamp: standard gooseneck LED desk lamp
The three hardest steps are 3, 5 and 6. Step 6 is the most serious because it is the point where Jordan stops working, which means the lamp is costing him study time rather than just annoying him. Steps 3 and 5 are both rated 4, so those are the ones to concentrate on in the redesign.The failure point is found but not opened upStep 6 is correctly identified as where the product costs Jordan something real. What is missing is why: which of the three earlier difficulties causes it, and therefore which one a redesign has to remove first.
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.
The basic clip lamp is the cheapest one at £9.99 and it clips onto the edge of a desk or a shelf. It has a small on off switch on the cable. It only points in one direction and you cannot move it once it is clipped on. It comes in black or white on the website.A features list, restated at lengthThe 1 to 3 descriptor names exactly this: a list of key features. Writing the same list again as sentences does not turn it into analysis. A success and a weakness for each feature would.
The IKEA HEKTAR is £25 and it has a big metal shade in dark grey. It has a dimmer on the cable that you turn with your fingers. It has a heavy base so it does not fall over. It is quite a big lamp and it would take up a lot of room on a small desk. There were good reviews of it online and people said it was a nice looking lamp for the money.
The LED gooseneck lamp is £18 and it has a neck you can bend into different shapes. It has a touch button on the base instead of a switch. It is powered by USB so you have to plug it into a computer or a plug adapter. It does not have a normal bulb in it, it has LEDs built in, so you cannot change the bulb if it stops working.
The Anglepoise is the most expensive one at £75. It has a special arm with springs in it so you can move it around and it stays where you put it. It is a famous design and it has been made since the 1930s. It has a switch on the shade. It uses a normal screw in bulb so you can put whatever bulb you want in it.
I think the IKEA lamp is the best one for my grandma because it has a dimmer. The dimmer is the thing she said she wanted so that is the most important feature. The Anglepoise is probably the best quality one but it costs too much and my grandma would not want to spend that much money on a lamp. The clip lamp is too small and the gooseneck one has to be plugged into a computer.A conclusion with no route to itNothing above compares the four lamps against anything, so the choice arrives from nowhere. A judgement is only worth marks when the reader can see the evidence that produced it.
None of the four lamps has a big switch on it, which is the main thing Sarah needs. The IKEA one has a dimmer you turn and the gooseneck one has a touch button, so those are the closest ones. I will use the touch button idea from the gooseneck lamp and the dimmer idea from the IKEA lamp in my own design.
No product testing: all four lamps are described from online listings. None was handled, measured, or tried against the task from the storyboard.
Five desk lamps were examined to identify successes and weaknesses relevant to a student workspace.
How these were tested: the IKEA HEKTAR and the TaoTronics were tested in person, in Jordan's room, by repeating storyboard step 3 (repositioning the arm over the drawing board). The touch-panel fault was found this way. The BenQ, Anglepoise and HALO were not available to test and are analysed from manufacturer specifications and reviews.Testing separated from readingSaying which products were handled and which were read about is honest and it is useful. The examiner can then weigh each finding correctly instead of assuming all five carry the same evidence.
The two lamps that were tested were each set up on Jordan's desk in the position his own lamp occupies, and he was asked to repeat storyboard step 3 with them: reach across, reposition the head over the A2 drawing board, and return to work. He was then asked to change the brightness without looking away from the board. The five products were chosen to cover a range of price points and a range of mounting types, from a monitor clip to a weighted base, so that the analysis was not limited to one form of lamp.
The features compared across the five products were arm adjustability, brightness control, colour temperature control, shade type, and desk footprint. Not every product had every feature, so some cells of the comparison are empty. Prices ranged from £18 for the TaoTronics to £185 for the Anglepoise Type 75 with the daylight bulb fitted.Comparable measures would sharpen thisThe section reads as five separate reviews. Testing every product against the same two or three tasks, and recording the same measurements for each, turns a set of opinions into a comparison an examiner can follow.
What the five products show together: the products that control light well are the ones that cannot be moved, and the products that move well are the ones with the least control over the light. The BenQ and the HALO both produce good light but sit in one place. The Anglepoise moves anywhere but offers nothing beyond on and off. The TaoTronics is the only one that attempts both, and it does so with a touch panel that failed twice during testing when Jordan's hands were damp from washing his brushes.
None of the five combines an arm that can be repositioned with one hand and a control that can be operated without looking away from the work. That combination is the gap this redesign is aimed at.A gap named, which is what the strand is forThe analysis ends by saying what none of the products does. That sentence is what criterion B's problem statement will be built from, so the two criteria are joined rather than restarted.
The touch panel failure was the most useful finding from the testing because it was not visible in any of the reviews I read beforehand, all of which described the panel positively. It is the kind of fault that only appears when the product is used in the situation it will actually be used in, which for Jordan includes wet hands after painting.
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.
Test protocol: each product was set up on Daniel's desk and tested against the same three tasks drawn from the task analysis: review a printed colour proof, reposition the arm one-handed while holding that proof, and adjust colour temperature without leaving the seated position. Measurements were taken with a lux meter at 500 mm and a sound level meter at 1 m. CRI and CCT figures are manufacturer datasheet values, cross-checked against the proof review where a difference was visible. The Elgato and BenQ units were borrowed from the school design studio; the Anglepoise and IKEA units were tested in a retail showroom.
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.
The problem is that the switch on her lamp is too small for her to turn. This is a problem because she uses the lamp every evening to read and if she cannot turn it on then she cannot read her book. She has to try a few times before it works and sometimes she asks someone else to do it for her if there is anyone in the house.The task analysis is not doing any workThis statement would read exactly the same if the storyboard had never been drawn. The criterion asks for a problem statement informed through the task analysis, which means the storyboard has to have told you something the interview did not.
Desk lamps in the shops are mostly designed for younger people I think. They have small switches and small buttons on them. Nobody seems to make a lamp for people with arthritis. That is why this is a good project to do because there is a gap for a lamp that is easier to use for older people who have problems with their hands.
I will make a new lamp that has a bigger switch and maybe a dimmer. The bigger switch will be easier to press because she will not have to grip it with her fingers. The dimmer will help with the problem of the light being too bright when she first turns it on in the evening.No current situation, no research summaryThe strand asks for three things: the current situation, the current problem, and a summary of the research behind it. Only the problem appears, and it is the same sentence as the persona's complaint.
My design will be based on a normal desk lamp shape because that is what Sarah is used to and she said she likes her lamp apart from the switch. I do not want to change it too much or she might not like it. It will be about the same size as her lamp now so it fits on her desk.
There are lots of desk lamps for sale so someone must be buying them, which shows there is a market for desk lamps. If my lamp was made and sold in a shop I think older people would buy it because it would be easier for them to use than the ones that are already there. Their families might buy it for them as a present as well.
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, which contributes 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.
The problem is worth solving because the cost is measurable in study time rather than in comfort alone. Jordan estimated that he stops between thirty and sixty minutes earlier than he intends on perhaps three evenings a week, which over a twelve-week semester is between eighteen and thirty-six hours of drawing time lost to a lamp.
Current situation: Desk lamps aimed at students sit in two groups. Budget LED lamps between £15 and £30 offer touch controls and sometimes colour temperature modes, but they use short single-piece arms and light plastic bases, so they cannot be moved far and they tip when they are. Design-led lamps from £70 upwards use sprung or jointed arms that move well, but they are built around a bulb socket and leave brightness and colour to whatever bulb the owner buys. The two groups have not converged, and the price gap between them is larger than a student is likely to spend.
Neither group is failing at what it set out to do. The gap is that a student working across a screen, a drawing board and a desk surface needs both halves at once, and buying both halves currently means buying two lamps.The market description explains why the gap existsSaying that the cheap lamps and the expensive lamps solve different halves of the problem is stronger than saying no lamp is good enough. It gives the redesign a reason to exist that a reader can check.
Research summary: Three sources informed this statement. The task analysis established where Jordan's session breaks down and how often. Testing two lamps in his room established that a touch panel is unreliable with damp hands and that a fixed arm cannot cover an A2 board from a single position. Published work on student study environments (University of Edinburgh, 2025) established that eye discomfort under artificial light is common rather than particular to Jordan, with 68% of students reporting it.1
1 University of Edinburgh, Student Study Environments Survey, 2025, p. 22.
The three sources agree that the problem is the combination rather than any single feature, since Jordan can name lamps that solve each part of it separately and none that solves all of it at once.Three sources, one of them citedOnly the survey has a footnote. The interview date, the testing session and the product specifications are all evidence too, and each of them should be traceable on the page it is used.
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:
Summary of research informing the statement. Four bodies of evidence stand behind the problem above. The first is the interview of March 2026, which established the financial stake: Daniel has calibrated his monitor and cannot calibrate his light, so his workspace is accurate at one end and unmeasured at the other. The second is the task analysis, which established where in a working day that gap costs him something, and found two steps rated 5/5 rather than a general dissatisfaction. The third is the product testing, which established that the gap is a market gap rather than a purchasing mistake, since six products tested against the same three tasks each failed a different part of the requirement. The fourth is ISO 3664:2009, which supplies the threshold the redesign has to clear rather than leaving the standard to be set by the designer.2
2 International Organization for Standardization, ISO 3664:2009 Graphic technology and photography: Viewing conditions, clause 4.2.
Anchoring the requirement to ISO 3664 rather than to Daniel's preference means the redesign can be judged to have succeeded or failed on a measurement, and it means a second user in the same profession would be served by the same specification.The standard does the arguingBringing in a published threshold means the specification is not the student's opinion of what is good enough. It also gives criterion D something external to test the finished model against.
Why this is a redesign rather than a new product. The articulated task lamp is a mature form and the Anglepoise arm has been in production since 1935, so the arm geometry is not the thing that needs inventing. What has changed is that a lamp head is now an LED module with its own colour rendering and its own thermal behaviour, and the two established forms have absorbed that change separately: panel lights took the colour accuracy and gave up the arm, articulated lamps kept the arm and left the light to the bulb. The redesign is the recombination, and the difficulty sits in the head mass, since a high-CRI module with a passive heatsink is heavier than a bulb and is what makes the arm stiff to move.
| # | Requirement | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The lamp must have a big switch that is easy to press | Because Sarah's switch is too small and she cannot turn it with her fingers when they are stiffA justification that repeats the requirementSaying a big switch is needed because the small one is hard restates the specification in different words. A justification names the evidence: which storyboard step, which measurement, which product test. |
| 2 | The lamp must be bright enough to read by | Because Sarah uses it to read her books in the evening and she needs to see the words |
| 3 | The lamp should have a dimmer | Because Sarah said the light is too bright sometimes when she first turns the lamp on |
| 4 | The lamp should look nice | Because it is going in her study where she can see it and she would not want an ugly lampUntestableThere is no way to hold a finished model against this and get an answer, so it cannot be evaluated in criterion D and it cannot be evidenced in criterion E. Every specification should be a test you could actually run. |
| 5 | The lamp must be safe to use | Because it plugs into the mains electricity and it would be dangerous if it was not safe |
| 6 | The lamp should not be too expensive | Because Sarah is retired and she does not have very much money to spend on things |
| 7 | The lamp should be easy to clean | Because dust gets on the shade of her old lamp and she has to wipe it every few weeks |
| 8 | The lamp should not fall over | Because if it falls over the bulb might break and Sarah might cut herself picking it up |
These are the specifications for my lamp. I got them from talking to Sarah and from thinking about what she needs. The most important ones are number one and number three because those are the two things she told me were wrong with her lamp when I interviewed her about it in her study.Nothing here came from a productThe criterion requires interface and experience requirements drawn from the existing product analysis. Four lamps were looked at in criterion A and not one of them appears in this table.
I have written must for the ones that have to be in the design and should for the ones that would be nice to have but are not as important. The safety one is a must because it is the law that electrical products have to be safe and my lamp would have to be tested before it could be sold in a shop.
| # | 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 the 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 (UX) | D | Student needs to remain focused on desk work, not the lamp. The TaoTronics touch panel felt easier to use than the IKEA rotary switch. |
| 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, so 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, so durability is required |
E = Essential | D = Desirable
Specifications 1 to 4 and 7 to 9 can be measured directly against a model with a ruler, a set of scales, or by asking Jordan to perform the task. Specifications 6 and 10 are harder to test and would need a defined procedure before the model is built, which has not been written yet.Two of ten have no number in themSpecifications 6 and 10 cannot be passed or failed, so criterion D will have nothing to test them against and criterion E will have nothing to claim. Every requirement needs a figure or a described test.
How these were derived. Specifications 1, 3, 4 and 7 come from the storyboard, and each names the step it answers. Specifications 2 and 8 come from measurements taken in Jordan's room: the drawing board sits 45cm from where the lamp base stands, and the desk is 60cm by 90cm with a shelf above it. Specifications 5, 6 and 9 come from the existing product analysis, and specification 10 comes from the interview, where Jordan described having broken the arm joint on a previous lamp.
Specification 6 is marked desirable rather than essential because a lamp with a conventional switch would still function for Jordan, but the product testing suggested that a control he can reach without looking would remove one of the interruptions recorded in the storyboard.A desirable requirement that the criterion asks forSpecification 6 is the only interface requirement in the table and it is marked D. The criterion expects the specification to include user interface and user experience, so classifying the one that carries them as optional undersells the work already done in criterion A.
The specifications were shown to Jordan before ideation began. He agreed with the ranking but asked whether the USB port in specification 9 was worth the space it would take on the base, since he charges his phone from the wall. It is retained as desirable rather than removed, on the basis that the existing product analysis found it on two of the five lamps tested and it is inexpensive to include.
If two essential specifications turn out to conflict, the ones drawn from the storyboard steps rated 4 and 5 would take priority, since those are the steps where Jordan loses study time rather than simply finding the lamp awkward.Ten requirements, no priority among themEssential and desirable is one level of sorting. If two essentials conflict during development, as reach and footprint eventually do in cycle 1, the table gives no basis for deciding which one gives way.
| # | Specification | E/D | Justification & Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LED module must achieve CRI ≥ 90 | E | ISO 3664:2009 minimum for colour-critical graphic arts viewing.Source, threshold and failure in one cellThe justification names where the number comes from, what it has to beat, and what the tested products actually did. That is the relevant and detailed reference to research the top band asks for. 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 | [UI] Colour temperature control via physical dial, not app | E | User interface requirement derived from existing product analysis (Criterion A). Task analysis step 5: Daniel cannot operate an app while holding a 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 | [UX] Thermal management must be passive, with no active cooling fan | E | User experience requirement derived from product testing in the empathize phase. Elgato Key Light fan measured at 38 dB, identified as unacceptable in a 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 | [UX] All user controls accessible without repositioning lamp | E | User experience requirement derived from existing product analysis (Criterion A). Every lamp tested required the user to interrupt the task to reach a control. Task analysis steps 5 and 6: interruption during proof review breaks concentration. Controls for brightness and CCT must sit at the base or arm joint, reachable from a 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.
[UI] / [UX] mark the interface and experience requirements. The guide requires the specification to include UI and UX derived from the existing product analysis in the empathize phase, so specifications 3, 6 and 9 each trace to a product tested in Criterion A.The link is labelled rather than left to be foundCriterion B asks for interface and experience requirements derived from the product analysis. Tagging them means the examiner does not have to reconstruct the connection from two criteria apart.
Conflicts and priority. Specifications 5 and 7 pull against each other, since a 500mm reach loads the base at full extension while the footprint cap limits how wide that base can be. Where they conflict, reach is held and footprint is met by increasing base mass rather than base area, because the reach figure comes from a measured distance on Daniel's desk while the footprint figure retains a 140mm tolerance. Specifications 1 and 6 also interact: raising CRI raises the drive current and therefore the heat, which is what makes the passive heatsink in specification 6 a constraint on the module choice in specification 1 rather than a separate requirement.
Phrases in quotation marks below are the level descriptors, quoted from the design technology guide, p. 74. Marks are Mr. K's illustrative targets for each band, not official IB moderated marks.
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. Nothing in the list addresses user interface or user experience, which the criterion requires to be derived from the existing product analysis in the empathize phase. Criterion B carries the largest word allocation in the project, 1,200 words in four pages, and Taylor spends roughly half of it. The words went to criterion A instead, where they earned nothing, and this criterion is where sustained writing is actually rewarded.
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, with specific storyboard steps 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, demonstrating 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?). User experience is addressed, but only in specification 6, and two problems follow from that: it is classified Desirable when the criterion requires UI and UX to be present, and its justification reaches for a product comparison without tracing to anything recorded during the empathize phase. To reach the 5–6 band, the problem statement needs more depth in its research synthesis, specifications need more consistent quantitative targets with cited sources, and the UI and UX requirements need to be drawn explicitly from the existing product analysis.
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. Specifications 3, 6 and 9 are tagged as UI and UX and each traces to a product tested in Criterion A, which satisfies the criterion's explicit requirement that the specification include UI and UX derived from the existing product analysis in the empathize phase. Tagging them makes that link visible to the examiner rather than leaving it to be inferred. 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.
The rocker switch is the kind you get on an extension lead where you press one end down and it clicks. It would be about 4cm wide so Sarah could press it with the side of her hand or even her elbow if her fingers were bad that day. It would go on the front of the base where she can see it easily. I chose a rocker instead of a normal switch because you do not have to grip it, you just push.A sketch explained instead of annotatedCriterion C is nine pages and 900 words, and it is carried by annotated drawings. Turning the labels into paragraphs spends the word count twice: once on the drawing, once on the description of it.
The rest of the lamp would be like her lamp now. It would have a bendy neck so she can point the light at her book. The shade would be a cone shape pointing down at the desk. It would have an LED bulb in it because they last longer and do not get hot. It would be white or silver to match the other things in her study.
This lamp turns on when you touch the base. This would be easier because Sarah doesn't have to grip anything.
Touch lamps already exist so I know this idea works. You touch the metal part of the base and it turns on, and if you touch it again it goes brighter, and if you touch it again it goes off. Some of them have three settings so that would also solve the problem of the light being too bright. Sarah would not have to grip anything at all with this design, she would just put her hand on it.
One problem with a touch lamp might be that Sarah's hands are cold sometimes and I read that touch lamps do not always work if your hands are cold or dry. I am not sure if this is true. It might also turn on by accident if something touches it, for example if she puts a book down on the base.A weakness noticed and then droppedSpotting the risk is the right instinct. Testing it is what earns the mark: a strip of foil on a cardboard base and ten minutes with the persona would settle it either way and become evidence.
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.
The three-joint arrangement was taken from the Anglepoise Type 75 in the existing product analysis, which was the only lamp tested that could reach across the whole of an A2 board without the base being moved. The difference here is that the joints are friction-locked rather than spring-tensioned, which is simpler to model and cheaper to make, though it means the arm has to be held while it is moved rather than floating into position.
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 dimmer was moved from the rear of the base to the front edge in the second sketch of this idea, so that Jordan reaches it without leaning across the desk.Feedback that changes the drawingJordan's comment is acted on and the change is stated. This is what separates collecting feedback from using it, and the second is what the descriptors reward.
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.
This idea addresses specification 8 directly, since a clamp removes the footprint problem rather than reducing it. The 400mm bar is long enough to light the full width of the drawing board from a single position, which would also address the shadow problem in specification 7 without needing the lamp to be repositioned at all during a session.
User feedback: "This would save space but I'm not sure it would stay in position. It feels wobbly."
The wobble Jordan noticed is a real risk with a single clamp point, and it would need to be resolved before this idea could be taken further.The problem is repeated instead of testedThe card model was in Jordan's hands. Loading the bar with a weight and seeing whether the clamp holds would have answered this in five minutes and produced a finding, rather than leaving the doubt unresolved.
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 panel light was chosen over a conventional shade because a larger emitting surface produces softer shadow edges, which is the problem recorded at storyboard step 4. A 150mm panel at 400mm above the board covers roughly the area Jordan works in at any one moment, though not the whole board at once, which is what Jordan noticed when he handled the model.
Each of the three ideas was drawn to answer a different one of the three hardest storyboard steps, so that the evaluation would compare genuinely different approaches rather than three versions of the same lamp.A concept built from a specific failureThe panel is here because of storyboard step 4 rather than because panels look modern. An idea traceable to a recorded problem is worth more than a better-looking one that is not.
All three ideas were modelled in cardboard and foam at roughly full size before Jordan saw them, because the paper sketches did not give him a sense of how much desk the base would take or how far the arm would reach. The models took one lesson each to make and none of them was finished or painted, since their purpose was to be handled rather than looked at.
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.Two versions of one idea, before the idea is chosenMost reports keep iteration for criterion D. Showing a failed first attempt during ideation demonstrates that the idea was developed rather than drawn once, which is what the top band means by ideas developed through research and feedback.
Research behind the mechanism. The Anglepoise arm balances a fixed head mass with two extension springs sized for that mass, which is why fitting a heavier bulb to one makes it drift downward. The head in this concept is heavier than a bulb and its mass is fixed by the heatsink in specification 6, so the balance has to be built for it rather than adjusted around it. A rear counterweight was chosen over springs because a single mass can be tuned by moving it along the rod, which can be done on a cardboard model with a bolt and a ruler, where spring rates cannot be tested without ordering springs.3
3 Carwardine, G., Improvements in Elastic Equipoising Mechanisms, patent GB404615, 1934, fig. 2.
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 single pivot is the deliberate trade in this concept. A track head is a heavy reflector and a light arm cannot hold it at reach, so the arm is short and the lamp is placed where the work is rather than moved to it. That decision is what later fails specification 5 in the evaluation, and it fails structurally: lengthening the arm would require a second pivot and a counterweight, at which point the concept has become Idea 1.
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.
Two LED modules require two drivers, two heatsinks and roughly double the head volume, which is what pushes the base past the footprint in specification 7 once the shade is wide enough to hold both. The concept is retained in the evaluation rather than dropped, because the insight behind it, that the screen and the proof want different light at the same moment, survives the concept and is worth carrying into development even if this housing is not.
All three concepts were modelled at full size in foam core and card, and all three were handled by Daniel in the position he would use them, because the differences that decided the evaluation were differences in reach and reach cannot be judged from a drawing.A rejected idea that still contributesKeeping the reason an idea failed, separately from the idea itself, is what makes the evaluation look like a decision rather than an elimination. The split-zone insight reappears in the shade tilt requirement in criterion D.
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.
I asked her which one she liked better and she said the touch one straight away. She said she has seen touch lamps before at her friend's house and she thought they were clever. She said the rocker switch one was fine as well but she would rather have the touch one because it is more modern and she would not have to press anything.Preference standing in for evaluationOne person saying they like it is user feedback, and it belongs here. It is not a comparison against the specifications, which is what the strand asks the drawing to be tested against.
Both of my ideas would meet specification 1 because they both solve the problem of the small switch. Idea 2 is better for specification 3 because touch lamps usually have brightness settings built into them. I think both ideas would meet the other specifications about the same, so specification 3 is the one that decides it. That is why I picked idea 2.
Sarah also said she likes the colour white for the lamp so I will make my final one white. She said the silver one she has now shows fingerprints and she has to wipe it, so white would be better for specification 7 about being easy to clean.
I did think about a third idea which was a lamp with a remote control so Sarah could turn it on from her chair, but I decided not to draw it because she said she always sits at the desk anyway so she would not need it. I also thought about doing the touch lamp in a different colour as another idea.A third idea that is a colour changeThe 1 to 2 descriptor is fewer than three feasible ideas. Two shapes and a repaint is still two ideas, because nothing in the third one works differently from the second.
Before I decided I looked at my specifications again to check idea 2 would meet them. It meets 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8. I am not sure about 4 because looking nice depends on the person. Number 6 depends on how much the touch electronics cost which I could not find out. Number 7 should be fine if it is white plastic.
Required evidence not submitted: no annotated presentation drawing of the chosen idea appears anywhere in this strand.
| 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.
The drawing shows the selected concept with its main parts labelled. Two of the five annotations name the specification the feature addresses (touch slider, spec 6; weighted base, spec 3).
Colour temperature is not met by any of the three ideas. This is because none of the three sketches specified an LED module, and colour temperature depends entirely on which module is fitted rather than on the shape of the lamp. It will be resolved when the module is chosen.A row of crosses with no reason under itThe colour temperature row fails for all three ideas, and the matrix simply records that. The most important specification in the table failing everywhere is a finding, and it should either change an idea or change the specification.
Idea 3 was selected over Idea 1 despite Idea 1 scoring better on arm adjustment, because the panel answers two specifications at once: the even light in specification 7 and the slider position in specification 6. Idea 1 answers specification 1 better but leaves the shadow problem where it was. Idea 2 was rejected on the stability doubt Jordan raised, which was not resolved.
Jordan was shown the three models side by side and asked to rank them for the task he does most often, which is working at the drawing board rather than at the laptop. He ranked Idea 3 first, Idea 1 second and Idea 2 third. His reason for placing Idea 3 first was the slider, which he could operate without turning away from the board.
| 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.
| Annotated feature | Spec tested | Result of testing / user feedback |
|---|---|---|
| Counterweighted rear tube, 80mm from pivot | 4 | Arm repositioned one-handed while holding an A4 proof. Daniel: "the arm practically floats". |
| Knurled CCT dial at arm joint | 3, 9 | Reached from seated position without moving the lamp. Dial diameter increased from 22mm to 30mm after Daniel found the first size fiddly. |
| Finned aluminium heatsink above shade | 6 | Passive cooling confirmed silent in the studio. No fan noise, unlike the Elgato reference product. |
| Shade tilt collar, independent of arm | 10 | Partially met. Tilt range limited to 40°. Added to the drawing as a flagged item for development in Criterion D. |
| Weighted base, 175 × 175mm | 5, 7 | Stable at full 500mm reach. Footprint fits the measured 320 × 200mm desk area. |
Every annotation on the drawing names the specification it answers, and the two revisions marked on the drawing are traceable to Daniel's feedback during model testing.Annotations that point at the specificationNaming the specification on each label turns the presentation drawing into evidence for two strands at once, and it keeps every label inside ten words so none of it touches the word count.
The one specification the drawing cannot yet claim is 10, the independent shade tilt, which the model achieved at 40° against a required range that had not been fixed at the time of drawing. It is marked on the drawing as outstanding rather than omitted, so the development in criterion D begins from a stated gap.
Phrases in quotation marks below are the level descriptors, quoted from the design technology guide, p. 75. Marks are Mr. K's illustrative targets for each band, not official IB moderated marks.
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", which is precisely what Taylor has provided. The ideas themselves are feasible in principle, but the annotations do no analytical work: each is a bare part name, with nothing about what the feature does or which specification it answers. Brevity is not the fault here. The guide caps annotations at 10 words, so short is correct, and these are uninformative rather than too short. There is no evidence of fidelity modelling. The second strand is weaker still. Its required evidence is an annotated presentation drawing of the chosen idea, tested against the design specifications and user feedback, and Taylor submits no drawing at all. What appears instead is a single piece of user feedback and an unsupported preference statement, with no comparison against the specifications. 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, evaluate all three ideas against her specifications, and draw the selected idea with its features annotated.
Sabrina presents three ideas, each with sketches, models, and user feedback, which 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, as the choice of Idea 3 is explained but not fully justified against the full specification set. The presentation drawing is present, which is what the strand actually requires, but it is doing less work than it could: five annotations, only two of which name the specification the feature answers, no dimensions, and no indication of what changed as a result of testing. A mark of 4 rather than 3 is awarded because the three ideas are clearly distinct, the models are present, the selected idea is drawn and annotated, 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 matrix is not itself the required evidence for this strand, and Noah treats it correctly as the working that leads to the deliverable: the strand closes with a full annotated presentation drawing of Idea 1, in which every annotation names the specification it answers and two revisions are marked as responses to Daniel's feedback. The partially met specification 10 is flagged on the drawing rather than hidden, which carries an honest evaluation forward into Criterion D. The inclusion of Daniel's direct quote in the final selection justification is effective, demonstrating 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.
I made the model out of cardboard from a cereal box and some thicker card from the design room. I cut the base out and folded it into a box shape and taped it together with masking tape. The neck was harder because I wanted it to bend, so I used a strip of card folded like a concertina. It took me two lessons to make the whole thing and I had to start the shade again because the first cone came out lopsided.How it was built, not what it revealedCriterion D is ten pages and 300 words, so the writing has to earn its place. A build diary earns nothing. What a cycle needs is the specification tested, the method, the result, and the change made next.
The base is 12cm by 8cm which is bigger than the base on Sarah's lamp. I made it bigger so that the lamp would not fall over when you press the touch area, because if the base was small it might tip up. I have not tested this but it looks stable when it is standing on the table and it did not fall over when I pushed the top of it.
I think the model turned out quite well. If I made it again I would use better materials, maybe wood or plastic instead of cardboard, and I would try to make the neck bend more smoothly because the concertina one does not really hold its position when you move it. I would also make the shade neater.One model, no cycleThe strand is titled develop fidelity models, and the descriptors reward multiple testing and refinement cycles. A single model with no second version cannot show refinement, whatever its quality.
I showed the model to Sarah when I went round on Sunday. She said it was good and she could see what it was going to look like. She said she liked the size of the touch area on the base because it was much bigger than her switch. She did not have any changes she wanted me to make to it.
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, so the stability specification (spec 3) is not met.
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, which meets spec 2. Shade angle improved, eliminating the shadow on the near edge. Base stable at full extension. One-hand repositioning still requires significant force at upper pivot joint, so spec 1 is only partially met. Touch slider control on arm shaft confirmed effective by Jordan.
The remaining problem is the upper pivot, which needs two fingers rather than one. A thinner nylon washer between the joint faces would reduce the friction, and this would be the change for a third cycle if there were time to build one.Two cycles, then the trail stopsThe cycle 2 test names a specification that is still only partly met and a change that would fix it. Building that third model is what turns two cycles into a refinement process, and it is the difference between the middle band and the top one here.
Specifications 1, 2, 3 and 7 were tested across the two cycles. Specification 8 was checked by measuring the base against Jordan's desk. Specifications 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 were not tested on the models, because the models had no working LED and no electronics in them.Seven of ten specifications never testedThe models answer reach, stability and shadow. Colour temperature, control usability, footprint, durability and the USB port are all specifications from criterion B that no cycle puts a number against, so the evaluation cannot cover them.
What changed between the cycles: the upper arm segment went from 32cm to 42cm, giving total reach of 53cm; a 240g steel bolt was fitted inside the base as ballast; and the shade mount angle went from 45° to 60° from horizontal. Each of these was a direct response to a measured failure in cycle 1 rather than a change of mind about the design.
Specifications tested: 4, 5, 6 (arm operation, reach, thermal). One-hand operation confirmed at 1.2N force, which is marginal. Reach 480mm, 20mm below specification. Counterweight mass of 85g creates mild base-tip tendency at maximum extension.One repeated structure across three cyclesEach cycle states the specifications tested, the measured result, and the change made next. Repeating that shape is what keeps criterion D legible inside 300 words, since the reader learns the pattern once and then only reads the numbers.
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, which meets spec 5. Base 165×160mm, which 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°, which is insufficient for low-angle proof review (spec 10). Dial knobs too small (14mm diameter), requiring 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 | ✓ |
| 8 | ≥ 300 lux at 500mm | 640 lux measured | ✓ |
| 9 | Controls, seated reach | Both dials reached seated | ✓ |
| 10 | Independent shade tilt | 45° range achieved | ✓ |
| 11 | ≥ 50,000 hrs L70 | Module rated 50,000 hrs | ✓ |
| 12 | Mains-powered | Inline switch fitted | ✓ |
Specification 3 is met in form but not in feel: the dial turns the correct range and reaches the seated position, though the detent between 5000K and 5500K is softer than intended and Daniel twice overshot D50 by roughly 200K. This is a moulding tolerance on the printed dial rather than a design fault, and it is noted for manufacture.Every specification answered, including the awkward onesSpecification 3 is the only row carrying a qualification, and it is stated rather than quietly dropped. A table where one row admits a limit is more credible than one where twelve rows all pass.
This drawing shows what my lamp would look like from the front and the side at the same time. The base would be made out of plastic with the touch sensor underneath the top surface. The neck would be metal with a plastic cover on it so it can bend and stay in position. The shade would be plastic as well, or metal, with the LED bulb screwed into a holder inside it.Writing round a missing drawingThe strand asks for assembled, exploded and orthographic drawings. A paragraph describing what the parts are made of cannot stand in for them, and it spends words criterion D does not have.
I did not do an exploded drawing because I was not sure how to draw one and I ran out of time before the deadline. I think the drawing I have done shows all the main parts of the lamp anyway and someone could probably work out how to make it from looking at it and reading my description above.
The three views give the overall dimensions and the position of each external component. The internal parts of the arm joints, the ballast in the base and the LED module mounting are not drawn, since these were not resolved during the two model cycles.Three views, and no way to build itThe strand asks for assembled, exploded and orthographic drawings. Without the exploded view and a parts list, a manufacturer can see the outside of the lamp and still cannot tell what is inside the arm or how the joints are held together.
Phrases in quotation marks below are the level descriptors, quoted from the design technology guide, pp. 75–76. Marks are Mr. K's illustrative targets for each band, not official IB moderated marks.
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. The cardboard model does at least satisfy the requirement that a physical fidelity model be developed for testing and evaluation, which is a project-level requirement rather than a Criterion D one, and a report with digital modelling alone would fail it. Note also that the word count for Criterion D is very low (300 words), as 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, with three views, key dimensions and eight annotations present, and a title block 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.
This is my final design for the desk lamp. It is a white lamp with a cone shaped shade and a bendy neck. There is an LED bulb inside the shade which points down at the desk so the light goes onto the book. The base is a big rectangle and the whole top surface of it is the touch area, so Sarah can put her hand anywhere on it to turn the lamp on and off.Prose where annotation belongsCriterion E has 200 words for both strands and asks for the key features annotated on the image. Written out as sentences, these three features cost around eighty words. On the photograph they would cost nothing.
The lamp is 35cm tall and the base is 12cm by 8cm. It is painted white with poster paint. If it was made properly it would be made out of plastic or metal instead of cardboard and the touch part would have the electronics inside it.
The final lamp has a 150mm square LED panel on a three-joint articulated arm, mounted on a weighted base measuring 200mm by 150mm. The panel is covered with a frosted acrylic diffuser to soften the light, and it tilts independently of the arm so the light can be aimed without moving the whole assembly. A touch slider on the arm shaft controls brightness.A paragraph the annotations already carryEight labels on the photograph say all of this, and each of them is under ten words and therefore free. Written out again as prose it costs around seventy of criterion E's 200 words and adds nothing the reader did not have.
The finish is matt white on the base and arm with a brushed aluminium back plate behind the panel, chosen because Jordan's room has white walls and a pale desk. The cable enters through the rear of the base and is concealed inside the lower arm section, which was one of the changes made after cycle 2, where the trailing cable caught on the drawing board.
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.
The old lamp had a switch on the cable that you had to turn round with your fingers and it was only about 2cm wide. My lamp does not have a switch at all, you just touch the base, and the base is 12cm by 8cm so it is much bigger than the old switch was. That is the main improvement.An improvement asserted, never shownThe strand asks for three things and this covers one of them, thinly. Nothing here shows the lamp being used, and nothing returns to the storyboard to show the failure point has gone.
It is also better because of the dimmer. On the old lamp there was only on and off, so when Sarah turned it on in the evening it was very bright straight away. On my lamp you touch it again to change the brightness so she can have it dimmer if she wants. This solves the second problem she told me about in the interview.
| 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.A weakness left visibleAdmitting that colour temperature is unresolved is worth more than a claim the model cannot support. Examiners can see an untested claim; an honest limitation reads as judgement.
Against the storyboard, steps 3 and 4 are resolved: the arm reaches the board from one position and the panel removes the shadow at the near edge. Step 5 is improved by the dimmer but not measured, because eye strain was not something the model could be tested for over a single evening.Nothing shows the lamp being usedThe strand asks for three things and this covers two of them. A short image sequence of Jordan repeating the storyboard task with the new lamp would cover the third, and it would cost pictures rather than words, which is the right currency in a 200-word criterion.
| 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 |
How it is intended to be used. Daniel sets the CCT dial to the D50 mark for proof work and turns it warm for evening screen work. The arm is drawn toward him with one finger while the proof stays in the other hand, which is the movement the original lamp could not support.
Re-run against the original storyboard, the two steps rated 5/5 now rate 1/5 and 2/5 on the same scale with the same user, and step 6, where Daniel previously abandoned the proof review and moved it to the window, no longer occurs.The comparison returns to the storyboard ratingsClosing on the same difficulty ratings the report opened with is what makes the improvement checkable. The reader can compare a 5/5 step against its replacement rather than take an improvement on trust.
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."
Phrases in quotation marks below are the level descriptors, quoted from the design technology guide, p. 77. Marks are Mr. K's illustrative targets for each band, not official IB moderated marks.
Taylor's presentation meets the minimum 1–2 standard. The redesigned solution is shown with three annotations, which 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. Of the three things this strand asks a student to demonstrate, only the first is attempted: the solution is claimed to be an improvement, but there is nothing showing how it is intended to be used, and nothing showing why it is better suited to Sarah's needs. Only a single view is provided, where the required evidence for this strand suggests approximately two to three images per page. Note that the presentation itself, meaning style of delivery and medium, is not formally assessed; what is marked here is the annotation of key features and the comparison with the existing product. 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. Criteria D and E together are allocated 500 words across fourteen pages, and Taylor uses more than that on prose that repeats what the photographs show. Taken with criterion A, her report reaches the word ceiling and scores 9 out of 33, which is the clearest evidence in this comparison that the count is not what is being marked.
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. Two of the strand's three demonstration points are covered, improvement and suitability to Jordan's needs, but how the solution is intended to be used is never shown. A short sequence of Jordan performing the storyboard task with the redesigned lamp would close that gap cheaply, since it costs images rather than words. Two views of the solution and a side-by-side comparison photo sit within the two to three images per page the required evidence suggests. 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) present the intended solution as though to a third-party manufacturer, which is what the required evidence asks for. 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. All three of the strand's demonstration points are covered: the table establishes the improvement, the in-use view shows how the solution is intended to be used during a proof review, and the return to the task analysis ratings shows why it is better suited to Daniel's needs than the lamp he started with. 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.
Marking Commentary on Criterion A: Empathize
Phrases in quotation marks below are the level descriptors, quoted from the design technology guide, pp. 72–73. Marks are Mr. K's illustrative targets for each band, not official IB moderated marks.
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, and no frame indicates what the issue actually is at that stage. The descriptor for this strand judges the task analysis, so a sequence that records what happens without showing where the product fails the user gives an examiner nothing to assess beyond "limited". 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 required evidence for this strand is annotated images of the product testing, and nothing here was tested: four lamps are described from online listings, the photographs carry no annotations, and none of the products was tried against the task from the storyboard. The conclusion ("I think the IKEA lamp is the best one") is unsupported by any evaluative reasoning. Length is not the problem here. Taylor writes more in this criterion than either of the other two students and more than the 900 words the guide allocates to it, and much of it goes on how she knows Sarah, on describing photographs that are already on the page, and on storyboard captions long enough to count against the total. The same evidence, annotated at ten words a frame, would cost a fraction of it and say more.
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, each frame records how hard that stage is for Jordan, and the most critical failure point (Jordan stopping work early) is clearly identified. The credit here is for identifying that failure point, not for the rating scale used to reach it. However, the task analysis reasoning stops short of a full explanation of how each difficulty creates a redesign opportunity, and that is the distance between a satisfactory task analysis and a comprehensive one. The existing products section describes both successes and weaknesses for most (but not all) features across the five products reviewed, which is characteristic of the mid-band descriptor. Two of the five were tested in person, and that testing produced the sharpest finding in the section (the touch panel failing with damp fingers). The other three are analysed from specifications, which the guide permits only where a product is genuinely unavailable to test, so the strand would be stronger if more of the range had been handled. 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, every stage records both what the user is doing and where the product fails them, and a summary chart visualises the findings. Critically, the storyboard explicitly links task analysis findings to redesign opportunities, and 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. It also does what the required evidence actually asks for, which is annotated images of product testing: a stated protocol, the same three tasks applied to every product, and instrument readings rather than repeated datasheet figures. The 38 dB fan measurement and the one-handed reposition test both come from handling the products, and both become specifications in Criterion B. 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).