Students will create a clear, actionable plan for assessing the ergonomic aspects of their prototype. This method must be practical and achievable within the classroom context. Examples:
- User Feedback Questionnaire: Develop a questionnaire with specific, targeted questions relating to ergonomic performance. Questions should be scaled (e.g., Likert scale: 1-5 for comfort, grip security, ease of use) and include open-ended sections for qualitative comments. Examples: "On a scale of 1-5, how comfortable is the grip during prolonged use?" "Describe any areas of pressure or discomfort."
- Timed Task Completion/Efficiency Test: Design a simple, repeatable task that the hand tool is designed for. Measure the time taken to complete the task with the prototype versus an existing tool, or measure the number of repetitions before fatigue.
- Observation Checklist/Protocol: Create a checklist for observing users interacting with the prototype. This could include observations on wrist posture, grip force, signs of strain, ease of manipulation, and task accuracy.
- Comparative Assessment: Design a method for direct comparison of the prototype against an existing, similar tool (if available) across ergonomic criteria.

Students will execute the designed evaluation method, collecting data (quantitative from scales, qualitative from open-ended responses/observations). Systematic Comparison: Compare the collected data directly against the established design brief (Criterion A.3) and the prioritized specifications (Criterion A.4/B.4). This involves going through each requirement and specification and determining whether the prototype successfully meets it, partially meets it, or fails to meet it. Evidence-Based Assessment: Provide specific evidence from the evaluation (e.g., "7 out of 10 users rated grip comfort as 'excellent' (4 or 5 on Likert scale), meeting our specification for high comfort," or "Observation showed that the prototype's weight distribution led to noticeable wrist deviation in 3 out of 5 testers, indicating a failure to meet our neutral wrist posture specification"). Identification of Strengths and Weaknesses: Clearly identify which aspects of the prototype were successful and which were less successful, specifically in terms of ergonomic performance.

Based on the identified weaknesses from D.2, students will propose concrete, detailed, and actionable improvements for the prototype. These are not generic statements but precise design modifications. Direct Link to Findings: Each proposed improvement must be directly linked to a specific finding from the evaluation (e.g., "The evaluation showed the grip needs to be softer because users consistently reported localized pressure points. Therefore, the durometer hardness of the overmold material should be reduced from Shore A 50 to Shore A 35, and the internal support structure should incorporate more flexibility in key areas."). Variety of Improvement Types: Improvements could relate to:
- Material Changes: E.g., "Switching to a higher-friction material for the grip surface."
- Dimensional Adjustments: E.g., "Increasing the diameter of the handle by 5mm based on users with larger hands."
- Form Modifications: E.g., "Deepening the finger indentations from 5mm to 8mm for better finger registration."
- Weight Redistribution: E.g., "Adding a small counterweight to the base to improve balance."
- Mechanism Redesign: E.g., "Adjusting the spring constant of the return mechanism to reduce actuation force." Prioritization of Improvements: If multiple improvements are suggested, students could briefly prioritize them based on impact or feasibility.

Articulate in detail how the proposed improvements (and the existing successful features of the prototype) would enhance the user's physical comfort. This could include:
- Reduction of localized pressure.
- Prevention of repetitive strain injuries.
- Promotion of neutral postures.
- Mitigation of muscle fatigue.
- Improved tactile feel and thermal comfort.
- Overall reduction of discomfort during prolonged or intensive use. Efficiency Impact: Explain how the redesigned tool would contribute to the user's efficiency in performing tasks. This might encompass:
- Increased speed of task completion.
- Reduced effort required for operation.
- Improved accuracy or precision of work.
- Fewer errors or mistakes.
- Enhanced control and maneuverability.
- Reduced need for breaks due to fatigue. Holistic View: This explanation should demonstrate an understanding of the holistic relationship between ergonomics, user experience, and task performance, linking directly back to the Global Context: Identities and Relationships by showing how improved design positively impacts daily life and well-being.