A lot has happened regarding who we have met and the types of advice both neta and I have received about our study. We conducted interviews and met with people such as Mr. Adair, Dr. Katherine Saul, and of course our advisor, Ms. Starling. During the envision process of what we might want to come up with in the end, Neta and I were unsure of what our device would look like or even function like. We both knew in the beginning that we were leaning more towards designing a prosthesis because that was ultimately our goal. The problem with this was that we were not thinking outside of the box. We ignored important factors and did not ask “Is this realistically going to happen?” “Is this feasible?” or “Does this vision take into account our large audience?” which limited our view of what we wanted our final device to be. So, we met with Dr. Saul. We presented our ideas on how we want to approach the brainstorming process. We presented the conflict of a prosthesis even being plausible, and she gave us the great idea of attaching/incorporating a widget device onto the bike so there is a larger chance of usability increasing since a functional leg is no longer needed. This was great because it meant less costs and more functionality/accessibility.
