Page | 1

Design Recommendation

Improving Writing Display Systems in the University of Toronto St. George.

Faduma Ahmed, Shakibasadat Tonekabonipour, Peter Yao, Jay Jaewon Yoo

 Page | 2

Design Opportunity:
After struggling to consistently see the content on the blackboard during lectures, our
design team identified an opportunity in facilitating blackboard usage in lectures by modifying
blackboard peripherals. To do so, we adapted a new design brief and refined its scope,
objectives, and metrics to better address the issue1. In simpler terms, we further specified our
goals for the solution and the means of which possible solutions will be evaluated.
To go into greater detail, we pushed back and changed all the metrics. We also altered the
constraints such that for a solution to be viable, it must integrate the blackboard through some
means.
Our two most prioritized criteria are legibility of blackboard and the time before which
the board can be used again after utilizing a solution. The latter criteria can be further separated
into preparation time and active usage time.
Initially, we brainstormed ideas by having each team member propose a solution. Using
SCAMPER, a tool that assists in creating new ideas from pre-existing ones using various
methods2, we diverged to create a variety of ideas to converge from, as seen in Figure 1. We
initially converged by removing the ideas that violated our constraints. Then each member
anonymously voted on the ideas they thought best adhered to our objectives.
The following paragraphs present the engineering requirements model, which consists of
objectives, metrics, criteria, and constraints. Objectives detail the goals of the design brief. the
metrics outline how each criteria and constraint will be measured. The criteria define how
alternatives are compared to one another. Finally, the constraints set limits on certain metrics
with any alternative exceeding a constraint no longer being a valid consideration.
Objectives:
1) Produce a design that improves the chalkboards at the University of Toronto:
a. Decrease maintenance and cleaning time.
b. Improve accessibility of board space.
c. Decrease setup time.
2) Produce a design which enhances the visibility of material on the board:
a. Provide clearer writing.

1
See Appendix A for the original design brief and Appendix B for the new design brief.
2
See Appendix C.2 for an example of the scamper diverging tool in use.
 Page | 3

b. Reduce shadows and obstructions.

c. Produce a design which is logistically and financially practical:
i. Low on cost.
ii. Easily integrated with existing systems.
Metrics:
1) Estimated cost in CAD:
a. Installation and purchase cost ($).
b. Maintenance cost ($).
2) Preparation time (s):
- Time required for the chalkboard to be setup before use.
3) Active usage time (s):
- Time required for use of design alternative. Higher active usage time indicates less
teaching time; thus a lower active usage time is preferred.
4) Legibility score:
a. Optical Character Recognition Test software will be used to read chalkboard
writing, by comparing this measurement with the actual percentage value for
correctly identified letters can be obtained.
b. Gradient test will be used to compare the contrast of the board surface with the
writing. As score up to 11 will be given based on how dark the shade of the board
surface is.
5) Stakeholder preference (yes/no):
- Appropriate stakeholders are interviewed for their opinions on potential design
alternatives.
Constraints:
1) Must be affordable by the university.
2) Must not significantly alter the wall.
3) Must be designed to interact with existing chalkboard to satisfy objectives.
Criteria:
1) Prefer a solution that requires less maintenance.
2) Prefer a cheaper solution.
3) Prefer a system with easier integration with the current.
 Page | 4

4) Prefer a design that allows for better visibility.

5) Prefer a system that allows for more time to be spent teaching instead of manipulating the
chalkboard.

Initially, we brainstormed ideas by having each team member propose a solution. Using
SCAMPER, a tool that assists in creating new ideas from pre-existing ones using various
methods2, we diverged to create a variety of ideas to converge from, as seen in Figure 1. We
initially converged by removing the ideas that violated our constraints. Then each member
anonymously voted on the ideas they thought best adhered to our objectives.

The following presents the engineering requirements model, which consists of objectives,
metrics, criteria, and constraints. Objectives detail the goals of the design brief. the metrics
outline how each criteria and constraint will be measured.

Figure 1 - Initially Brainstormed Ideas

 Page | 5

The following are the seven design alternatives that were considered after altering the initial
design brief, including the current solution in place:

Magnetic Strips:

Figure 2 - Example of Blackboard Utilising Magnetic Strips [1]

We observed that in a single lecture, the same term or phrase had to be constantly erased
and rewritten, creating unnecessary chalk dust which reduced the clarity of the blackboard
throughout the lecture.
To reduce this, our team considered having magnetic strips that can be written on. By
having key phrases written on these strips, the strips could simply be moved and reused rather
than erased and creating the previously mentioned issue. As a bonus, this also reduces writing
time.
This alternative excels in costs, costing $11.99 for a magnetic chalkboard, [2] and
legibility but lacks the speed that other alternatives have. Furthermore, various professors, one
group of key stakeholders, have expressed that this alternative is one they would not like to use.
 Page | 6

Squeegee: Inspired by a similar tool employed by

Professor Scott Ramsay and his teaching
assistants, as seen in Figure 4, the design team
observed that using water to clean the board
was extremely effective in removing chalk
dust.
However, the squeegee posed issues
with regards to time. While the active usage
time is short due to its width and the lack of
strokes required, the preparation time is high
due to the time it takes for the water to dry.
Upon testing using the drying test, which will
be outlined later in this document, the water
was found to take approximately 7 minutes
and 54 seconds to dry. This is within the 10-
minute timespan between subsequent lectures,

Figure 3 - Squeegee Prototype allowing the squeegee to be a viable

alternative worth considering.

Figure 4 - A Teaching Assistant Utilizing a Squeegee

 Page | 7

Colored Chalk:

Figure 5 - Colored Chalk [3]

The chalk dust reduces the contrast of the chalk used, thus reducing clarity. Colored chalk
is an alternative that circumvents this issue to a degree. While the colored chalks preparation
time and active usage time are short like the current blackboard and white chalk combination, the
colored chalk only improves the legibility to an extent, failing to meet the legibility of solutions
such as the squeegee.

Live Stream:
Live streaming eliminates the issue of preparation time and active usage time by allowing
students to playback the recording to revisit parts of the lecture. The issue with clarity is also
potentially reduced to a degree due to the ability to pause the stream and take time to affirm what
is written on the blackboard.
However, the livestream does not improve the legibility of the board itself. Thus if the
board is illegible, the livestream does not improve the clarity.
Similarly, to the magnetic strips, the professors do not prefer to use the live stream.
 Page | 8

Illuminated Blackboard:

Figure 6 Example of Illuminated Chalkboard from Upward Angle rather than Downward
Angle

The current solution in place has shadows covering certain areas of the blackboard,
making it difficult to see content written over those areas. Our team found that the other
alternatives failed to address this specific issue. To alleviate this, we thought of including extra
lighting under the current blackboards, thus removing the small band of shadows and improving
the experience of students.
Although this idea would increase the legibility of content written on the board, the
alternative was seen as a costly investment by the stakeholders in terms of initial purchase and
maintenance. Figure 6 serves to demonstrate the illuminated chalkboard but the one presented in
the figure is aimed from a higher angle than the design we considered. Furthermore, the lights
would have to face the professor or teaching assistant from a lower angle to best eliminate
shadows. This orientation would undoubtedly irritate, if not blind the professor or teaching
assistant.
 Page | 9

Larger Eraser:
The larger eraser is an extension of the existing solution. The larger eraser shares the
same pros and cons as the regular blackboard erasers while decreasing the active usage time by
increasing the area that the eraser covers. This alternative is already quicker than the original
blackboard but does nothing in improving its legibility.
It is important to note that some professors and teaching assistants choose to erase the
blackboard chalk using their hands to further improve the speed. In these cases, the larger eraser
would have no impact.

Regular Blackboard and Chalk:

This is the current solution in place and

allows for swift, writing but the accumulated dust
overtime reduces legibility. This solution also
creates shadows over certain parts of the board,
resulting with those parts of the board being
difficult to see for students.

Figure 7 - Blackboard with White Chalk

After refining possible alternatives, our design team created tests that would evaluate
each prototype against each of our metrics.

Gradient Test:

Figure 8 - Gradient Test

 Page | 10

In order to see how much a specific solution would improve the legibility of notes written
on a blackboard, a gradient test was used. A gradient was created and split into various sections.
The shade of the blackboard was then compared to this gradient. Based on the how the dark the
shade of the blackboard is, each alternative was given a score out of 11, which a higher number
indicating a darker shade. A darker shade meant greater contrast and thus, greater legibility.
Other color gradients were also created for the colored chalk tests.

Optical Character Recognition Software Test:

Figure 9 - SimpleOCR Software

In order to examine the percentage at which the alternative would improve the legibility
of notes, an optical Character Recognition Software Test, was used. This is a computer software
that would identify printed characters from a digital photo. This test would significantly decrease
the human errors associated if a person were to judge the the legibility of notes. Two photos of a
blackboard were taken during a lecture, one from the back and one at the front of the room.
These photos were then fed to the software SimpleOCR, which would then return the
recognized test, see Figure 8. The percentage of letters recognized was then compared between
the alternatives.
 Page | 11

Single Stroke Erase Test:

To examine how effective a specific solution was for a given time, each prototype was
used on the board for a single stroke spanning 30cm. After which, the gradient testing was used
to see the new found shade of the board and if it was an improvement of the original gradient.

Drying time test:

To examine the preparation time needed for each alternative, the drying test would
evaluate how long it took for the blackboard to dry. Each prototype was used on the board for a
single swipe, 30 cm in length. A timer was then used to document how long it took for the
blackboard to dry. This test is exclusively for the squeegee solution.

Testing Results:
1. Magnetic Strips:
The magnetic strips were unable to go through the single stroke and drying time
tests, since there were no elements within the prototype that required drying. However,
the magnet strips only scored 6 on the gradient test. This was mainly due to the fact that
the magnet strips were not constantly erased, thus reducing the amount of chalk dust that
could accumulate. This helped to improve the legibility of the notes written. The magnets
did not score well in the Optical Character Recognition Software Test, receiving
approximately 61% of characters recognized. From a few samples, the software could
only detect a small fraction of the words written.

2. Squeegee:
The squeegee seems to do well in all tests. In the gradient and single stroke test,
the squeegee excelled by removing all the chalk dust and reverting the blackboard to it
original dark colour, achieving a perfect score of 11 in the gradient test. From the drying
test, the blackboard only took 7 minutes and 54 seconds to dry. Because the squeegee
increased the legibility of the notes written, the optical character recognition test detected
approximately 79%.

3. Colored Chalk:
 Page | 12

The coloured chalk only helped to improve the legibility of notes as the optical
character recognition test detected a 67% of words. It did not score well in the gradient of
single stroke test, scoring 5, because it did not remediate the chalk dust accumulation on
the board. Since no drying element was associated with the coloured chalk, it did not go
through the drying test.

4. Live Stream:
SimpleOCR only recognized 49% of words on the live stream, primarily due to
the visual quality of the recorded video. The gradient test yielded a score of 6. Since no
wet element was associated with the live stream, it did not go through the single stroke or
drying test.

5. Illuminated Blackboard:
Since this alternative did nothing to affect the speed of writing, the illuminated
blackboard scored almost exactly as the colored chalk and regular chalkboard. The
lighting did assist in the legibility of the alternative solution but the improvement was
nearly nominal. SimpleOCR recognized 63% of words. The light ironically gave the
board a brighter shade, resulting with a score of 4 on the gradient test.

6. Larger Eraser:
Because the large eraser was unable to reduce the amount of chalk dust on the
board, it was unable to score well in the gradient test, scoring 5. It was unable to go
through the drying test as no wet elements were associated with the prototype. It did
score well in the single stroke test as it was able to erase a large area of the board in a
small time. However, it was noticed that more pressure needed to be applied to
effectively use the eraser. The character recognition software only recognized 59% of the
words. This was mainly due to the fact that there wasnt a high contrast between the
board itself and the notes written even after the large eraser was used.
 Page | 13

7. Regular Blackboard and White Chalk:

The regular blackboard is unable to reduce the chalk dust on the board and thus
earned a score of 5 on the gradient test. The blackboard scored poorly on the single stroke
test relative to the other alternatives. The SimpleOCR software was able to recognize
64% of the words.

Costs3:
Live Stream camera equipment: significantly higher than above-mentioned costs. Needless to
say, costs for the Live Stream camera are unreasonably high and would disqualify the alternative
from selection, not to mention the high maintenance cost and effort.

Pugh Chart:
The pugh chart was used to compare the different possible solutions and acted as a diverging tool
to eliminate possible alternatives that had more negatives than positives.4

Recommended Design:
The squeegee and the large chalkboard eraser were the most competitive solutions based on the
pugh chart. In terms of actual satisfaction of the objectives, the squeegee works the best as it
improves the legibility for the blackboard, and does not decrease the speed of blackboard usage
as the squeegee would be used during the blackboard downtime (whenever the blackboard is
not actively being used) and the board would dry in the 10 minutes allocated between each
lecture. Our design team recommends using the squeegee.

Next Steps:
Considering that each squeegee costs approximately $5 per unit, the first recommended step
would be to purchase a squeegee along with a bucket for each classroom. This bucket would be
used to hold the water that the squeegee requires. At this point, the cleaning team of the
University of Toronto would have to be instructed to fill the bucket daily. Furthermore,
professors would have to be made aware of the squeegee. From there, it is up to the professor

3
See Appendix C.1 for the initial purchase costs.
4
See Appendix C.2 for the Pugh chart used in this design process.
 Page | 14

and/or teaching assistant to make the decision of whether or not they should use this alternative.
If they choose not to at a particular instance, the regular eraser will be kept readily available for
their use.

References:
[1] "Magnetic menu boards with Menuflex system," in billyBoards. [Online]. Available:
http://www.billyboardsmfg.com/MagneticMenus-Menuflex.html. Accessed: Dec. 3,
2016.
[2] "M D magnetic Chalkboard, 12 x 12," in Michaels, Michaels. [Online]. Available:
https://www.michaels.com/md-magnetic-chalkboard-12in-x-12in/10329960.html.
Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.
[3] "Chalk it up! // Fort Smith regional Art Museum," in Fort Smith Regional Art Museum, Fort
Smith Regional Art Museum. [Online]. Available: http://fsram.org/chalk-it-up/.
Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.
[4] "Colorations white Dustless chalk - 100 pieces," in Discount School Supply. [Online].
Available:
http://www6.discountschoolsupply.com/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?product=2627.
Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.
[5] "Colorations Colored Dustless Chalk - 100 Pieces," in Discount School Supply. [Online].
Available:
http://www6.discountschoolsupply.com/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?product=1262&Cate
gory=. Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.
[6] "Automobile Squeegee - 8"," in Uline. [Online]. Available:
https://www.uline.ca/Product/Detail/H-2850/Mops-Squeegees-and-Carts/Automobile-
Squeegee-8. Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.
[7] "Sparco All Felt Chalk Board Eraser," in Bulk Office Supply. [Online]. Available:
http://www.bulkofficesupply.com/Products/Sparco-All-Felt-Chalk-Board-
Eraser__SPR1.aspx?onatalp=2392324415. Accessed: Dec. 3, 2016.
[8] "Tools and Templates," in The Innovators Toolkit. [Online]. Available:
http://innovatorstoolkit.com/sites/innovatorstoolkit.com/files/exhibit_19.1. Accessed:
Dec. 3, 2016.
 Page | 15

Appendix A: Original Design Brief

Page | 16
Page | 17
Page | 18
 Page | 19

Appendix B: Revised Design Brief

Page | 20
Page | 21
Page | 22
Page | 23
 Page | 24

Appendix C: Relevant Graphical Aids

C.1 Pugh Chart

Item Price (USD) Retailer

Magnetic Chalkboard [2] 11.99 Michaels
Chalk 100 Pack [4] 5.67 Discount School Supply
Color Chalk 100 Pack [5] 5.89 Discount School Supply
Squeegee [6] 5.00 Uline
Chalkboard Eraser [7] 2.41 Bulk Office Supply

C.2 Cost Analysis

 Page | 25

C.3 SCAMPER Chart [8]