Review: Plan, Resize, Explain, and Improve a Design
Develop a design that can be explained and revised. Rank information deliberately, preserve image proportions, distinguish observation from a supported interpretation and address a critique with a specific inspectable change.
Bring the unit skills together
Use these 4 new cases to check your reasoning. Choices are temporary and are not saved to an account, sent to staff or recorded as school grades. Download your current review choices before leaving or reloading.
The download contains your current choices and any checked feedback. Keep the separate transfer-task work in your own document; downloading its instructions does not mark it complete.
Use the skills in a new task
Complete these four parts. Answer each question, then make a separate drawing or written plan. Check each piece of work with the points given. 1. The brief makes title largest, instruction next, credit smallest. Candidate sizes are title 36, instruction 18, credit 10. Which allocation meets that rank? Supplied candidates: (A) All three 18 (B) Title 10; instruction 18; credit 36 (C) Title 18; instruction 36; credit 10 (D) Title 36; instruction 18; credit 10. For your separate work, plan a poster with title size twenty-four, instruction size twelve and credit size eight; explain the rank. Criteria: The three assigned sizes follow the brief’s priority order and remain distinctly labeled. 2. A fictional image is 3 units wide and 6 high. Enlarge both dimensions by factor 3 without distortion. Which dimensions work? Supplied candidates: (A) 3 by 18 (B) 6 by 9 (C) 9 by 18 (D) 9 by 6. For your separate work, resize a four-by-six image by factor three and show both dimension calculations. Criteria: The new dimensions are twelve by eighteen and the width-to-height ratio remains four to six. 3. Original artwork description: “one repeated shape changes in the final position.” Which claim clearly distinguishes observation from interpretation? Supplied candidates: (A) The description shows one repeated shape changes in the final position; one possible interpretation should be stated as a possibility (B) The description supplies the maker’s complete personal history (C) The image proves what happens next (D) The maker definitely intended every viewer’s exact feeling. For your separate work, describe two visible features of an original sketch and write a possible interpretation using both. Criteria: The features are actually present, the interpretation is qualified, and neither biography nor universal response is invented. 4. The critique identifies this specific brief failure: two shape groups overlap despite a no-overlap brief. Which revision directly addresses it? Supplied candidates: (A) Add more decoration without addressing the stated failure (B) Change only the filename (C) Delete the whole brief and declare the work successful (D) Separate the group boundaries. For your separate work, create a draft with a hidden title, then a revised draft moving the title into clear space. Criteria: Before and after artifacts make the changed placement inspectable, and the revised title is no longer covered.
Work on paper or in your own document. Explain the choices you made.
- Answer all four questions and explain what in each description helped you choose.
- Make each of the four drawings or written plans.
- Use the checklist for each piece of work, then show one change that improves it.
- Explain your size choices, resizing calculations, possible meaning and revision.
Compare with a model response
1. Title 36; instruction 18; credit 10. The ordering is 36>18>10, matching all three priorities. Hierarchy is a deliberate cue, not a guarantee of legibility; an actual poster would also need readable forms, value contrast and space between elements. Check the separate work: The three assigned sizes follow the brief’s priority order and remain distinctly labeled. 2. 9 by 18. Preserving proportions multiplies both dimensions by the same factor: width 3×3=9, height 6×3=18. Scaling just one dimension changes the width-to-height relationship. Check the separate work: The new dimensions are twelve by eighteen and the width-to-height ratio remains four to six. 3. The description shows one repeated shape changes in the final position; one possible interpretation should be stated as a possibility. The quoted visual arrangement is observable in the supplied description. Meaning can be argued from it, but private intention and later events were not supplied. Labeling an interpretation as possible keeps the claim proportionate to its evidence. Check the separate work: The features are actually present, the interpretation is qualified, and neither biography nor universal response is invented. 4. Separate the group boundaries. The proposed revision directly changes the feature causing the stated problem: two shape groups overlap despite a no-overlap brief. A useful critique names an observable issue and a relevant change rather than treating personal preference as proof of failure. Check the separate work: Before and after artifacts make the changed placement inspectable, and the revised title is no longer covered.
A different response can also meet the criteria. Compare the evidence and reasoning, rather than copying the wording.