It was fun and nervous to went through the mid review. There are many good feedbacks from critics and some suggestions as to where my project can proceed to.
Many of the critics thought it is an interesting project to proceed and investigate. Some of them also commented that my target group is truly underserved in many aspects and need more attentions towards them.
There are many questions toward the projects and comments on how I can improve.
Project: Some critics questioned the usefulness of such product and how much difference it is from what are on the market already. One critics mentioned the baskets that are already out there and why the focus do not use them. Another critic felt that this is not a thesis level problem because it does not address other safety issue cyclists’ faces today. Some thought the problem is not clear enough and the argument need to be better built. Others, while thought the project is interesting, would like to see a better design so maybe not only the delivery people can use but other cyclists can also adopt them.
NFP: Some critics thought the NFP connection need to be better established and connected more in order to access relevant information on the issues and focus group. A Critic recommended me to translate my board and argument into focus group’s language as a mean for engagement with them.
*Board: * Critics wanted to see more of storyboard and how the product is used. Some suggested that the second idea can be taken off and use the space for storyboard.
Model: Critics thought the sketch model is an mediocre representation of my arguments but need to be better made to show various kind of possibilities I mentioned. They recommended many sketch models that show functions and bring them to focus group for modifications that can meet their need. Some suggested additions of safety equipments be installed on to the bag (lights) to serve two purposes at the same time.