this is what my slides have to do Test and evaluate the product, in its intended environment, include photographic evidence where appropriate . here r my slides
[ARYENDRA MUNSHI] DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY - RESISTANT MATERIALS

Evidence of Testing
Specification
Testing
1.0: The box must get a minimum of 8/10 points from 5 target users when rated based on appearance and style.
Users will rate the appearance and style of the final box between 1-10. Scores will be averaged.
2.0: Production cost should not exceed HK$500.
The actual production costs will be recorded and summarised.
3.1: The box shall be primarily made of solid hardwood and laser plywood.
3.2: The plywood and hardwood will be sanded down for a smooth finish, with both of them having a finish applied.
3.1: Materials will be verified through visual inspection.
3.2: The finish will be visually inspected to ensure smoothness and consistency.
4.0: I must use only recyclable, reusable or certified sustainable materials for all materials.
The sources will be considered.
5.0: The box must be easy to handle and operate by a range of users. Must get a minimum of 8/10 points.

User testing to ensure comfortable handling.

The jewellery box is stunning! I rated it a 10/10. It’s elegant and fits beautifully in my living room.

1.0: The jewellery box successful achieved a premium look with its wooden finish. Bharati and other users rated the appearance an average of 9.2/10 based on its clean, elegant design.

2.0: The final production cost remained well under the HKD 500 budget, confirming that the product met the cost specification. The total cost is estimated to be around HKD 125-150, excluding the price of the PVA glue, epoxy resin, and spray paint used.

The smooth finish feels fantastic. I appreciate the attention to detail. There are no rough edges.

3.1: Visual inspection confirmed that both primary materials were used as specified.
3.2: The finish was visually inspected and tested by touch. The surfaces were smooth and consistent, with no rough edges. User commented positively on the texture and quality of the finish.

4.0: After researching online and discussing with my teacher, I found out most of the materials used are recyclable, but the synthetic felt used for the ring holder is not, thus this specification point is not met.

I find the lid quite fiddly to open. I have to use both hands, which made it less user-friendly than I expected.

5.0: User testing was conducted with Bharati and four other potential users. They rated the handling and ease of use an average of 7.6/10. While the box was lightweight, the lid wasn’t easy to open unless the user used 2 hands (one to hold the side of the product, and one to take the lid off). Thus this specification point is not met.

43

[ARYENDRA MUNSHI] DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY - RESISTANT MATERIALS

Evidence of Testing
Specification
Testing
6.1: All edges/surfaces must have an edge radius
6.2: All materials must be non-toxic
6.1: Visual inspection
6.2: Online research and consult teacher
7.0: The dimensions of size should not be larger than 260mm width x 300mm height x 300mm depth.
Dimensions will be measured.
8.1: Interior organisation must store a minimum of 15 jewellery pieces of various types and sizes.
8.2: Organisation system rated at least ⅘ for effectiveness by 80% of target users aged 45-55.
8.1: Place 15 representative jewellery pieces in compartments
8.2: User testing with product and rating survey for target age group.
9.0: The box needs to be able to withstand at least 10 kg of downward force without any damage.
The sample will be either stress tested to failure or 10kg downward force.
10.0: Wastage shall not exceed 10% of the materials by mass.
The amount of waste produced will be checked and recorded.

6.1: All edges were rounded, ensuring that the box was safe to use without risk of injury.
6.2: After researching online and asking my teacher, all materials used were confirmed to be non-toxic.

7.0: The final product dimensions were recorded at 180mm width, 230mm height, and 220mm depth, complying with the specified limits.

8.1: The box efficiently accommodated all 15 pieces, demonstrating effective design for organisation.
8.2: User testing was conducted with Bharati and 4 other potential users. Only 60% (⅗) of these potential users rated the organisation system at least (⅘), thus this specification point is not met.

9.0: The box successfully withstood the weight without any structural damage or noticeable sagging, verifying durability.

10.0: Waste is estimated to be close to 15-20%, thus this specification points is not met.

44
for spec points 9 and 10, they are difficult to test and show evidence for. change them and change my testing against spec for them as well. i need to be able to do these tests at my house. also, no damage should be inflicted on the box.