From the feedback and critique we received, we decided on a few points:
– We would keep the kerb-side location, but look into limitations (eg. distance from road edge for safety).
– We would keep the idea of queuing to improve flow but with a gentler approach.
– Our design would be modular to adapt to many spaces.
– Our design would consist of 3 levels, with the focus on the floor and seat level, shelter to be developed as an accompaniment rather than as a focus.
We made the decision not to focus on shelter since even designing a shelter on its own is a pretty hefty task. We felt 3 weeks would not be sufficient time for us to develop all 3 components to a high standard, and would rather execute our core ideas of seat and floor design well.
We decided that while there were good and bad points to the 3 concepts we initially presented, we also wanted to generate some concepts that directly reflect the points raised in feed back. We made a few more models and came up with 3 more concepts, and put all our concepts into a matrix.
What was the most surprising to me, was that the concepts that ranked highest was the floor concept for our 1st set of concepts, and a seat concept from our feedback concepts. This was surprising to me, because I had expected our newer concepts to rank better in the separate criteria since a lot of our criteria came from our feedback. What we found instead was that them most simplistic concepts actually did the best, simply because what they did they really did well, whereas the others tended to have even scores across a number of areas.
I think what I found to be most useful this time was the matrix, since it gave us a surprising result, we went back and looked at those designs and found that we had under estimated their value a bit just because they were simple. I think the matrix provides a more objective way of evaluating ideas so we don’t over or undervalue based simply on intuition (can be a common pitfall for designers)