We’ve had ACCESS FM[1. Aesthetics, Consumer, Cost, Environment, Size, Safety, Function, Materials] and CAFÉ QUE[2. Cost, Aesthetics, Function, Ergonomics, Quality, User, Environment] for product analysis in D&T, but talking to one of my PGCE trainees this afternoon (about a job interview) we reflected on how these don’t work quite as effectively with graphic products, as with other D&T areas. The trainee wanted to plan a ‘quick and dirty’ product analysis that could lead into a design activity[3. we decided that it would be better in this instance to lead into a pupils generating a product design specification – it’s for a 20 minute activity!]. After a quick brainstorm, TICL was created:
TICL (pronounced Tickle)…
- Text: the way that fonts, styles, information, data, layout, etc. are used…
- Image: the graphics (such as images, shapes, symbols) used to attract attention…
- Colour: the choice of colours and combinations (supplementary and complimentary)…
- Logo: the way product and company branding is used…
Needs unpacking with two to four prompt questions for each category. Will have to wait and see how it works!
Image taken from www.ecotools.com
To be honest….not sure how effective cafeque and access fm are. They’re a nice idea but ‘cost’ – what do we mean by that? To manufacture? To sell? Including transport costs? Costs to the environment? To society? With limited frame for pupils this exercise can be meaningless.
Yes, they could be a bit forced. I found that they only worked with specific questions tailored to the activity, or encouraging older learners to be selective about which category they used.
Cost – some learners may implicitly link with Value here, without instruction to. Are they aware that a Dyson Hoover is cool, looks good and works well but an unknown brand with the same sucking power will be ten times better value ? Even young people make these cost-benefit judgements when buying products, as a consumers. Apple products also split youngsters into two camps of ‘Marmite’ judgements about their products. I say, keep Cost in, as it allows for scaffolding and expanding their thinking of value ‘judgements’ against differing products.
Pingback: How design acronyms work | design thinking | technological activity | design and technology