Note-Taking in Lecture Halls

Introduction
During lectures, students may take notes using a computer or a combination of pens/pencils
and paper. The amount of available space to place one's belongings in some lecture halls is
sometimes limited [1] (Figure 4, Figure 5). For those who use writing utensils, using more
than one piece of writing equipment requires using two hands, or an improvised method to
keep these utensils available [1] (Figure 1). Potential solutions include any method of
keeping desired utensils accessible as well as out of the way.

Stakeholders

Direct
1. Academic + Campus Events (ACE)
There is a standard for classrooms [6] which states the required size of tablets of seats
produced by Academic + Campus Events. However, all the buildings in use are built
before this standard existing [7], so some of the desks in these buildings does not reach
the requirements. ACE is planning to replace these desks in a 15 - 20 classrooms in a
summer and they have limited budget [13].

2. Lecture Room
Each lecture room is a campus service provider for students, Professors, TAs, etc. The
service it provides is an environment which allows students to see/hear anything
presented free from noises and distortions, and be physically comfortable [12] (Figure 1).
During lectures it is common that students take notes. Being able to keep pencils/pens
easily accessible would improve the experience provided by lecture rooms.

3. Students at U of T
Because some of our professors (e.g. Prof. Collins) dont recommend taking notes by
laptops and other devices, most of U of T engineering students use pens/pencils to take
notes during lectures. However, because of the limited space for each students in most
of lecture rooms [1] (Figure 4), many students think its bothering to look for a place for
placing writing utensils; besides, placing writing utensils at inappropriate places may
cause them to drop and disturb the class.
(talk to stakeholders)

4. Teammates and Engineers

All executive decisions made by the team, reached by consensus/vote/imposition will
make a lasting effect on the product. Therefore, every individuals input/contribution will
shape the development and therefore impact the outcome.

Indirect
1. Stationery companies
 2

A company's number of usual clients may be affected by the benefits development of the
design, especially from U of T.

Reference Designs:
Shirts with Pockets [1](Figure 2 )
Weaknesses:
-As a reliable solution, one is required to wear a shirt that posses a pocket every day
-Assuming the pocket is a breast pocket [1](Figure 2 ), it may require uncomfortable
twisting of the head to see contents of the pocket

Putting Pens on Watches [1](Figure 1)

Weaknesses:
-One is required to own (and wear) a watch each day
-The watch must be loose enough to fit pencil-sized object in and tight enough to ensure
items are secure
-Having objects in watch may impair wrist movement or comfortability

Binder with Pencil Case [2](Figure 1)

Weaknesses:
-Binder requires surface on which to be placed
-when closed, a binder occupies approximately 840 cm2. When open, the binder can
occupy up to 1860 cm2

Using Sleeve to hold pencils[1](Figure 3)

Weaknesses:
-Items will not be secured reliably if sleeve is too loose
-Potential for items to fall farther into sleeve

Objectives
High Level:
1. Consistent access to all desired writing utensils. (Direct Stakeholder 3)
2. Product keeps equipment that is not in use is kept out of the way (Direct Stakeholder 3)
3. Using product will augment note taking experience 1 (Direct Stakeholder 2 and 3)
4. Product is space efficient (Direct Stakeholder 1, 2, and 3)

Detailed
1. Product securely holds utensils to reduce chance of dropping (HLO3)
2. Utensils can be identified, obtained and stored with minimal effort (HLO1, HLO3)
3. Product does not take up table surface space (HLO2, HLO3)

1
This goes back to the service provider. The students are guaranteed that their utensils and other
belongings will remain in a fixed place throughout the lecture.
 3

4. Product does not hinder comfortability (HLO3, HLO4)

5. Product complies with definition of portability [11] (HLO4)

Metrics
1. Cost in Canadian dollars to own a product [4] [5][13]
2. Ease with which the items are retrieved from the device (usability) (DO1, DO2 and DO5)
[9]

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Device placement is not Device is fixed,however Large range of possible

adjustable. Device
configuration is fixed.
Complicated storage of
items. [9] Fig.1
configuration allows for placements and
simple and unobtrusive configurations allows
access by the user user to optimize item
according to needs. [9] placement and retrieval
Fig.2 based on preference.
[9] Fig. 2, 3

3. Portability of product [11]

a. Space occupied by the product (DO3)
b. Weight of product (DO5)

4. Product Manufacturability [3]

a. Number of pieces required to assemble product [3] (Figure 1)
b. Amount of time required to assemble product [3] (Figure 2)

5.
a. Identifiability of utensils carried by the product (DO2) [8]

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Utensils are all stored in a
single space and may not
be visible. The user is
required to search for
desired utensils [8](Figure 2)
Utensils can be categorized
in separate sections based
on tool features, i.e. pockets
according to its type, e.g.
pens, highlighters, etc.
Each item has a specific
storage location and is
distinguishable from other
items (implying visibility).
[8](Figure 3)

b. Angle at which head must be turned in order to see items (DO4)

 4

6. Ergonomics of product usage (DO4) [14] (reduce operator fatigue and discomfort; improve
appearance; includes factors of accuracy, strength exertion and displacements)

Elementary Satisfactory Outstanding

Consumer experiences a Consumer operates the After usage consumer does

form of discomfort after
using product [10] Fig. 1
Forceful activities with large
displacement [10] Fig. 3
product within some level of
comfort [10] Fig. 2
Frequent movements
between targets, usually
with some accuracy but little
force [10] Fig. 3
not experience any
discomfort qualifiers due to
product [10] Fig. 1
Fine manipulation of
objects, with little
displacement and force [10]
Fig. 3

7. Appearance of the product [16] (DO4)

Constraints
1. Must score at least satisfactory when assessed with M2, 5a, 6

Criteria
1. Preferred lower cost (M1)
2. Preferred higher ranking when assessed with M2, M5a, M6
3. Preferred lower volume and lower mass when assessed with M3
4. Preferred less pieces and less time required to manufacture when assessed with M4
5. Preferred smaller angle when assessed with M5b

References

Provider Item Date Source Location

Recovered

[1] Students of U of T Photographs Oct 25, 2016 St. George

Campus

[2] Walmart Picture of pencil case in N/A www.walmart.ca

binders

[3] G. Boothroyd, P. Dewhurst, W. A. Knight, and G. Boothroyd, Product design for

manufacture and assembly, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2002.

Figure 1
 5

Figure 2

[4]"Living costs," 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.studentlife.utoronto.ca/hs/living-costs.

Accessed: Nov. 22, 2016.

[5] G. of Ontario, M. of Labour, and E. P. Branch, "Ministry of labour," Government of Ontario,

Ministry of Labour, Employment Practices Branch, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/minwage.php. Accessed: Nov. 22,
2016.

[6] DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CLASSROOMS UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 2012, Office of

Space Management of University(renamed as Academic + Campus Events) of
Toronto,at the St. George campus, for use by all three University of Toronto campuses, 09
 6

July, 2012.

10 16 = 0.254 m 0.406 m = 0.103 m2

ikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2016.

[7] "List of University of Toronto buildings," in W
[Online]. Available:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Toronto_buildings. Accessed: Nov.
22, 2016.

Average of Built 1937.859

Year

Median of Built 1931.5

Year

Newest Built 2009

he Sweethome, The Sweethome, 2015. [Online].

[8] D. Mahoney, "The best Toolbox," in T
Available: http://thesweethome.com/reviews/best-toolbox/. Accessed: Nov. 22, 2016.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

[9] Researchers Submit Patent Application, "Hipband Pouch", for Approval.

Politics & government week. 2013-03-21.
 7

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

[10] K.H.E Kroemer, K.E. Kroemer-Elbert and H.B. Kroemer, E rgonomics: how to design for
ease and efficiency, c1994 ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994.

Figure 1 Figure 2
 8

Figure 3

[11] H. Dongwook, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design,

ICED, 4th ed. Design Society, 2015.

Figure 1

[12] DIVISION N CLASSROOM AND LECTURE HALL DESIGN INDEX, University of

Pittsburgh, 2003.
Figure 1 (Page 2)
 9

Figure 2 (Page 19)

[13] Andy Allen (from Academic + Campus Events) (2016, Nov. 23). About desk size and
"DESIGN CRITERIA FOR CLASSROOMS UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 2012 ". Available
email:andy.allen@utoronto.ca
 10

[14] Farlex, "Ergonomic," TheFreeDictionary.com, 2003. [Online]. Available:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ergonomic. Accessed: Nov. 24, 2016.

[15] Researchers Submit Patent Application, "Ergonomic Wristband for a Watch Or Piece of
Jewelry", for Approval. (2014, November 5). M ergers & Acquisitions Week. Retrieved
November 24, 2016, from http://getit.library.utoronto.ca

[16]M. E.H. Creusen and J. P.L. Schoormans, "The Different Roles of Product Appearance in
Consumer Choice," Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering,
Delft, The Netherlands, Dec, 2004.
.