Chapter 25 — Design studio I
Lesson map
Lesson 25 published. Map, example, EX073.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["25.1 Studio format"]
N2["25.2 Mateo's design"]
N3["25.3 Feedback"]
N4["25.4 Responses"]
N5["25.5 Iteration"]
N6["Learning from critique"]
N7["Studio records"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7
N7 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX073"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["25.1 Studio format"]
N2["25.2 Mateo's design"]
N3["25.3 Feedback"]
N4["25.4 Responses"]
N5["25.5 Iteration"]
N6["Learning from critique"]
N7["Studio records"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7 --> Q["EX073"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[25.1 Studio format]
|
v
[25.2 Mateo's design]
|
v
[25.3 Feedback]
|
v
[25.4 Responses]
|
v
[25.5 Iteration]
|
v
[Learning from critique]
|
v
[Studio records]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX073]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) present an initial design for critique; (2) respond to feedback; (3) iterate.
25.1 Studio format
Students present designs to peers and industry guests, who critique them.
Guests come from local employers, another library network and the institute's own staff. Each student has ten minutes to present and twenty for questions. The aim is not to win approval but to find weaknesses while the design is still cheap to change. Students are marked partly on how well they record and respond to the critique they receive, not only on the design itself. Guests receive designs in advance.
25.2 Mateo's design
A hardened golden image, nightly restore of the patron area, Secure Boot with firmware password, application control, USB storage blocked, public segment and monitoring.
Mateo presented it as a single diagram with the layers stacked, starting from firmware at the bottom. Next to each layer he listed the requirement it meets and the scenario it addresses. Guests could see at a glance how the parts fit, and their questions went straight to the gaps rather than to understanding the basics.
25.3 Feedback
A guest asks how patrons save work. Another asks what happens when the restore server is down.
Both questions came from people who had run public computers. The first exposed something Mateo had not thought about from the patron's side: the design removed problems but also removed a way of working that some patrons relied on. The second exposed a single point of failure in the restore design. He wrote both down word for word before answering. Neither had an easy answer.
25.4 Responses
Patrons can save to their own USB storage? No: USB storage is blocked, so the notice directs them to email or cloud storage; a print-to-PDF option helps. If the server is down, PCs restore from a local protected copy.
The answers were partly worked out on the spot, so Mateo checked each afterwards. Email and cloud storage depend on patrons having accounts, which not all do; the print-to-PDF option helps those who can email the file to themselves. The local copy needed a design of its own.
25.5 Iteration
The local restore copy becomes a design change.
The change adds a protected partition on each PC that holds a copy of the current image. The nightly restore uses the server copy when available and the local copy otherwise. Mateo recorded the decision with the studio question that prompted it, and added a requirement and test so the fallback is checked on every release. The local copy is updated with each image release and verified by its digest. Marta approved it.
Learning from critique
After the studio, Mateo groups feedback into three types: misunderstanding (fix the explanation), new requirement (add and trace) and alternative idea (evaluate later). The saving-work question exposed a missing requirement for patron guidance; the server-down question revealed a resilience gap. Both lead to design changes.
He thanks the guests and sends them a short note on what changed, which builds relationships for later reviews.
Studio records
Studio feedback and responses are stored with the decision records.
Preparing for studio
Mateo prepares a ten-minute presentation, a one-page summary and a list of open questions he wants feedback on. Asking specific questions gets more useful critique than asking guests for general comments.
Peer review roles
Each student also reviews one peer's design, practising critique as well as receiving it. Mateo reviews a hospital kiosk design and learns from its approach to cleaning shared keyboards, a physical hygiene issue with parallels to data hygiene.
Worked example
A peer suggests allowing USB storage for read-only use. Mateo records it as an option to evaluate, weighing patron needs against malware risk.
Synthetic case. Synthetic.
Errors and limits
Defending a design instead of listening wastes the studio.
Exercises
- EX073 — Guest questions. What two questions did guests ask? Rubric: 3 = saving work; server down; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
- EX074 — Server down. How does the design handle server outage? Rubric: 3 = local protected copy; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
- EX075 — Read-only USB. How was the read-only USB idea handled? Rubric: 3 = recorded as option to evaluate; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Studio critique improves designs when feedback is recorded and weighed.
Continue studying — chapter 25 of 50
← Chapter 24 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 26 (draft) →