Humanitarian Makers Usability & Reliability Testing (Responses)
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR
1
Timestamp
Which item did you test?
Did you successfully make the item?
Do you have any suggestions for how the instructions and/or documentation could be improved?
Did you try using the finished item?
Do you have any suggestions for how the design could be improved?
What did you find useful or not useful about the platforms the designs were hosted on?
Would you be willing to do this sort of test again, to help humanitarian aid?
If you responded "yes" or "maybe" to the above, and would like to be notified of future test opportunities, please share your name and email:
How could we make the test experience better for you?
If you have any ideas for how we could improve the experience of distributed testing for humanitarian items, we'd love to hear them! If there are partners, organisations who might be able to help, please let us know. Thank you!
Contact us at info@humanitarianmakers.org if you'd like to share further or have any questions. Also, welcome to share photos of your testing on Instagram or any social media, tagging @H_Makers, #humanitarianmakers so others can see too!
2
11/16/2017 5:18:571/2" BSP blanking plugYesno
No, I've tried to print it only.
write the dimensions on the top of the design.
it's useful to see the item designed and printed in the attached pics
YesI don't know.
make an event and ask makers to test a lot of items. AFAD they might help with camp refugees to test the items for you with the instructions "not makers" doing all the tests, to get feedback about the using part of the process.
Thanks.
3
12/7/2017 12:06:13TweezersYesNo
Yes, and it worked for the described purpose
NoEasily navigatableYesN/A
4
12/13/2017 13:41:59TweezersYesNo
Yes, and it worked for the described purpose
No (though I haven't used them in a medical setting
FineYes
It the infill and resolution were in the google doc, you could see which items could be printed at the same time
5
12/13/2017 14:01:40Finger BraceYes
I broke the first two I did trying to get the raft off - a warning to be gentle doing that would have been helpful
I'm just using it for demo
NoFineYesIt was fine
6
12/13/2017 14:01:51Finger BraceYes
I broke the first two I did trying to get the raft off - a warning to be gentle doing that would have been helpful
I'm just using it for demo
NoFineYesIt was fine
7
12/13/2017 14:03:13Umbilical cord clampYesNo, worked first timeUsed for demoNo
Not every design has the same instructions
Yes
Photos on the list of items
8
12/13/2017 14:03:26Umbilical cord clampYesNo, worked first timeUsed for demoNo
Not every design has the same instructions
Yes
Photos on the list of items
9
12/13/2017 14:03:50Umbilical cord clampYesNo, worked first timeUsed for demoNo
Not every design has the same instructions
Yes
Photos on the list of items
10
12/13/2017 14:21:59Nebulizer t-fittingYes
Should include the orientation for printing
NoNo
Needed orientation of design
YesIt was fine
11
12/21/2017 5:24:22IV HookYes
Tensile tests show the hook failed at approximately 11kg when printed using PLA using default settings. Consistent print quality across multiple machines (Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es)
Yes, and it worked for the described purpose
No suggested improvements
Would be good to get a sense of part scale.
Yes
Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.
12
12/21/2017 5:29:35Umbilical cord clampOther
Documentation was fine.
Yes, and it did not work for the described purpose
Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). Requires high resolution printing – this part has very small details. Excess support material required post op. cleanup in the clamping slot and tab. Clamping tab broke easily.
One staff member printed with polycarbonate filament, resulting in a stronger clamping tab.
It appears that the clamp was originally designed for plastic injection molding - a redesign of the part might be necessary for 3D printing applications. Determine what materials these clamps are typically made from when plastic injection molded. Determine strength and flexibility requirements of clamping feature. Confirm that the physical dimensions are correct.

Would be good to get a sense of part scale
Yes
Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.
13
12/21/2017 5:33:29Nebulizer tubeYes
No suggested improvements.
Yes, and it did not work for the described purpose
Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). All printed parts appear to be have good strength. Functional requirements need to be determined (may be incorrectly sized for nebulizer tubing). Part solid fill and sealing to address porosity. Placing the part flat on the build plated resulted in excess post op. cleanup of support material causing distortion of round features.
Standing the part on the build plate with the continuous through hole running in the vertical direction reduced the amount of support needed and minimized post op. clean up of support material.
Would be good to get a sense of part scale
Yes
Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.
14
12/21/2017 5:35:35FetoscopeYes
No suggested improvements
Yes, and it worked for the described purpose
Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). This part requires very little strength to function properly. This part printed well on all machines when placed vertical on the build plate. Placing the part on the build plate with bell mouth down results in excessive support material removal during post op.
Would be good to get a sense of part scale.
Yes
Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.
15
12/21/2017 5:37:43
Incubator Corner Support
Yes
No suggested improvements.
Yes, and it worked for the described purpose
Printed using PLA using default settings using Taz 6, MB Replicator, MB 5th Gen, MB Z18, Stratasys Dimension 1200es (ABS). Basic strength tests were successfully performed using simulated frame rails to stress the printed part. The Makerbot 5th Gen uses an infill of 10% in default settings. This appeared to be fail easier that the other samples. We suggest that these parts are 3D printed with at least 20% infill. Parts were produced in various positions to determine the amount of support material required to produce the part. Placing the part on its end with the rail slots running vertical allows the part to be printed with very little support material resulting in an easy clean up.
Would be good to get a sense of part scale.
Yes
Recommendations for relevant tests specific to parts.
16
12/30/2017 9:43:50
Child Specula and Otoscope
YesEverything looked fine
I didn't have a lens or electronic parts, but the plastic parts work fine.
No items worked as advertised
The platforms are all great.
Yes
Maybe when posting files make a zip file of all the files an option too. The otoscope was a bunch of files but no zip of all of them.
I will be bouncing this project off of anyone that I think can help.
Will do.... more printing is in progress
17
1/12/2018 15:13:41otoscopeOther
I used cura, then Slice3r. Had issues with converting specs from instructions to these softwares so that would print fine on the 3D printer (Monoprice Maker Ultimate). Wasn't sure what support would be necessary and for which parts of the otoscope (seemed some didn't need any and some did). Also when uploaded stl files into the software, didn't automatically align with software printer bed. Manually had to adjust which wasn't good enough for some prints. This is most likely ignorance/lack of technical know-how on my part; however this is what I had trouble with.
Be insightful to have information that shares how the chosen thickness/structure for various parts were determined. So that as a producer I could add or subtract depending on what force I know my context will apply. Maybe this can be done regardless if not specifically pointed out in instructions?
still working on
the specula seems odd to 3d print (cost, time). Be easier perhaps to 3d print or carve a mold then use form fitting material to make the specula. this material could be locally sourced from whats available? coated papermache even?
photos are always helpful, better if can see the electronic parts better and have more specs on part size on the bom without going to a link, perhaps even a rating on how important that actual part is to be exact - what is the room for modification and still work well?
Yesna
shared on whats app so far
18
1/17/2018 6:30:56OtoscopeNo
Instructions seem good, I didn't get to that point as the assembly of the components had issues. One thing that is missing from the documentation is the 3D print material used and nozzle size.
No
Firstly I love the idea of this project and its goal. The design overall is nice and simple and the component set minimal.

The tolerances seem to be to small and some of the parts too delicate (LED Mounts shield). I would suggest enlarging the screw thread so the design can be printed with larger nozzles to save time on the build and improve durability.

I would suggest having a Parasolid source file for people to edit.

Also to avoid reprinting the spectaculars for each use you can dip them in natural latex to recreate biodegradable sleeves for this component. I did this in two coats and it worked well, Less than a one minute process with around 30 mins curing time (in two 15 min sessions). Photos will be sent to Naiomi of the build.
I used Wevolver (2). its a great place to host files and instructions with a branching function, Looking forward to them building a comments system for there new platform.
Yes
If you had ready made component sets for sale I think more people will test the products.
If the products are designed with maximum print-ability (less tight tolerances) for a range of printers distribution will be more seamless. There is an African made 3D printer made of e-waste this could potentially be a bench mark. AB3D (African Born 3D Printing) website is down at the moment though.
19
1/27/2018 6:26:29IV Bag HookYes
Documentation was not given for future reference
Was successfully printed but no bags for testing purposes
Can be made to hold more than one bag or multipurpose ; locking mechanism for accident and emergency situations
Print setting information provided was useful
Yes
providing IV bags for testing
20
1/27/2018 6:36:23Wrist brace (small)YesNo
Yes, and it worked for the described purpose
More sizes should be made available.
Information provided was useful
YesExperience was okay
21
1/27/2018 7:54:49OtoscopeYes
Wrong circuit design
Resistor bigger than hole
Error margin specified small
Yes, and it did not work for the described purpose
Tolerance should be bigger than specified (the holes came out smaller than expected making it difficult to assemble)
Easier to assemble as done in legos
Wevolver was okay to use
Yes
Assembling should be made easier
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...