Generation, Analysis, and Selection of Design Ideas
Results of wide-scope brainstorming
Structured in need → disability → specific idea format.
If you are having difficulty viewing the Miro board, visit it directly here.
The highlighted ideas are the ones our group liked enough to bring them on to the next stage of the design process, initial sketching. These three ideas were actualized with five different drawing variations, shown below. Each variation experiments with how different features would turn out in real-life.
Initial Sketches
Design 1 (top), Design 2 (bottom)
Design 1 on a can
Design 1 on a can
These two designs are the same except for the handle. The handle on the first is for people with reduced hand ability for any reason, while the second is sepcifically for those who can't use their thumb. The hook on the end was carefully designed to be able to initially open and peel back pull tab cans.
Design 3 (top), Design 4 (bottom)
Designs 3 and 4 approach the problem with the same idea, but vary in both the handle and hook. They are held and opperated differnently from both each other and designs 1 and 2. Less detail was put into designing a hook that would best open cans in these designs than in 1 and 2.
Design 5
Finally, Design 5 tackles the problem of how to open cans if someone had neither a hand nor a hand-like prosthetic. The task of opening a can without a can is clearly harder than opening a can without a thumb. As such, following the same approach between the two disabilities led to a less effective product for the more severe disability. This idea is useful, people without hands still need to open cans, but would (as expected) be more chanllenging to use than designs 1-4. All designs are clearly of geometry and material needs to allow them to be 3D printed in a place like the Innovation Studio. They are small enough and don't require unique materials, just one that is relatively rigid.
Design Analysis
We compared all of these designs against a current product on the market that is similar to what we intend to make. From the results of this comparison, and our group's own preference as to what we like and think would work, we selected our final design.
Pugh Selection Matrix
Reference Design (datum)
This is the product that we compared all of our designs to. It was found at this website and has a suggested price of $7. Of course, since we can't hold this device nor the ones that we drew, all of our comparisons were done with using our best guesses as to how all devices would handle.
All evaluation critera used, excluding can opening effectiveness, are pretty standard aspects that determine how good of a product a simple mechanical compoonent is. Can opening effectiveness was added because that's prehaps the single most important factor of all of our designs. If it can't easily enable someone with the specified disability to open a can, all of the six evaluated concepts would be worthless to the end user. All of our designs would be made out of ABS and printed with FDM. This is the cheapest and most available method. ABS is the most available plastic for FDM. Additionally, it surpasses the relatively low strength our product needs and is also not brittle, an extrememly important aspect for our product. PLA was initially considered but then dismissed to due it getting brittle after a few months of being printed.
Price was deemed better for all of our designs than the datum because 3D printing all of our designs--printed out of ABS--would cost less than the $7 of the datum.
Ergonomics was determined by visual inspection of all products and imagaine how they'd feel to opperate.
Aesthetics was evaluated by looking at the datum and comparing it to how we imagine ours would look. They're all minuses because the datum is a clearly pretty product.
Environmental impact: ABS is partially recyclable, as with most plastics, and our best estimate is that ABS is about as recylable as whataever material the datum is made out of.
Material strength: ABS is likely around similar strength to the design in the datum.
Can opening effectiveness and human effort were both evaluates similarly to ergonomics, using our imagination as to hold well the products would work.
Size and weight were accuratley determined through inspection.
Durability is a neutral for the same reason as material strength.
Design Selection
We decided on selecting Design 2. Not only did it score the best on the selection matrix, but our team also liked it the most. Below is a more detailed sketch of it with some modifications from the original design. The geometry of the hook has been refined to one that would better open a can. Additionally, the pillar and handle have increased in thickness to make the entire product stronger.
The final design is a T-shape handle connected with a 90° offset to the T-shaped hook and wedge extrusion. The pillar and handle are thick to ensure they supprt the light loads involved in opening a can with a lever. Experiments with items around our houses showed that we prefered handles that aren't fully cylindrical but rounded-rectangular. This geometry also allows for torques to be applied to it, so that is how we made our handle.
Choosing Design 2 was the right choice for our group because the Pugh Decision Matrix showed quanitatively that this design is better than the other ones we came up with and the similar products that are currently on the market.
