User talk:KayriaT/sandbox
What we need to hand in:
– Cover page
– Screenshot of the article (or section) before editing
– Screenshot of the article (or section) after editing
– Printouts of the Sandbox
Due Date: March 29th, 2012 before lecture.
KayriaT (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Hi everyone this is my sandbox! -- Kayria T
KayriaT (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC): I just want to let everyone know I have put up the banner on the Product design talk page.
Melissalk (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC) Wait, we have to talk here now? I'm totally lost now. So anyway, how do we get started with this? - Melissa
KayriaT (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, this is where we will be discussing everything for this project. By the end of the day each of us should have picked a section to work on and posted the name of the section here. I will be working on the section application. The project is not really difficult we just need to focus and get the work done. Good luck everyone! Update: I have taken screen shots of the page Product design.
Melissalk (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Sounds good. I can take over the Design Process section since I have two books plus some lecture notes on that. The major concern over the article is needing more sources, so that could help.-Melissa
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC) This is where we should be posting our written content, correct? Or is it just where we banter with each other?
Melissalk (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Yep, we post our content here, and talk on the talk page, which is the tab beside this one. The only thing I don't understand is, do we copy the entire page down here, or do we just post the sections we're working on? And how should we differentiate who's working on which part? -Melissa
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I have moved the 2 comments from the sand box over to this talk page, now that I've discovered it. Thanks Kayria for taking the screen shots. I will copy and paste the Product design page into our sandbox and begin with the superficial edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) We can each take a stab at that before and after. Just note in here anything you've added or edited so the others know. Good luck ladies!
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) I have copied and pasted the entire article into the sandbox. I have also gone through and done a once over edit of the existing material. There needs to be a section covering the difference between Product design and Industrial design. If you read the existing [[Product design] talk page someone has suggested a merge with Industrial design. If we find enough research to separate the two we can make a compelling argument that our edited Product design page should remain online as a separate Wiki page. I think we will find some good sources from library books. I am conducting research at the library and will advise later today what sections I intend to add/edit.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Just a reminder, have a look at Rachel's last slide deck. I just read that we need to write what our edits to the sandbox are in the box that says "edit summary". I forgot to do that last time so I will do it from here on in. Also, do you know in what instances we click the "minor edit" box?
Melissalk (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Minor edits are just when you make a spelling check or something. I'll get started on the Design Process section later on today when I get back from class. -Melissa
Melissalk (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC) One last question before I start, do we have to make our edits straight on the sandbox, or do we write it out and then convert it on here? -Melissa
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I think the easiest way would be to write it in a Word doc then, when you're finished, copy and paste it into the sandbox and add any coding like references. Are you working from home or in the library? By the way does my time stamp show that this edit was made on the 28th? For me it does. I think I'm somehow still stuck on Australian time. This is odd.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I'm currently working on a section that I will tentatively call "Design Considerations" detailing the demands of stakeholders and another blurb about why some designs don't make it to market. I don't have a tentative title for the latter. I'm gathering my information from a book titled, The Design Of Everyday Things. I will post it to the sandbox when I am finished.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC) What sections are you ladies working on? I don't want us to overlap. Also, there are some coding issues with asterisks and bolded words in places where they shouldn't be. I'm going to clear that up shortly.
Melissalk (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I'm working on the Design Process section, so you can leave that part for me, since I'm hoping to make it more extensive. For the designs that don't make it on the market, you could latch it on to the last part of my design process section since there's a sub-section which will be "evaluation" where it basically talks about assessing whether the product works or doesn't, and would fit in nicely with your blurb. Also, I think writing on a Doc is better, it's what I'm doing right now. -Melissa
Melissalk (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Just an additional thought, make sure that when you're importing the text from the document, that you double check the formatting, since Word has a history of bringing in these fancy formatting styles that just show up as symbols everywhere else. Or pass if through Notepad and convert it to plain text, just in case. -Melissa
KayriaT (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC) This is great! We are making good progress. Alright so I'm working on the application section and also I think I might also be adding a new section to the page. Will update on specifics in the next two hours or so. Things are coming together great so far but the deadline is tomorrow. Let's try to have each section done by 7pm today so we can give an hour for the editing process (where each of us checks and goes through the others work) and hopefully we'll be done by 8pm. What do you think? -Kayria
KayriaT (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC) By the way Melissalk the section that I am doing,application, covers design process. But go ahead and continue with design process I'll figure out something else.
KayriaT (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Q: Are we allowed to remove sections or are we only allowed to add and redo sections?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I just added in a new subsection called Design Considerations as well as the write-up below it. I am searching how to correctly reference and will follow-up with the reference shortly. Kayria, I believe we can remove sections but I am not 100% sure so I will search around for the answer and get back to you.
KayriaT (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I have checked around it doesn't really specify. I'll ask one of the ambassadors.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Ok Kayria. Please advise when you get the answer. I just changed the footnote subsection title to "Notes" and the reference list subsection title to "References" in-line with Wikipedia:Citing sources policy. Please have a read through that page so we ensure we're citing properly.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I added in footnotes for the subsection, "Design Considerations" and I added in a book to the reference list for this subsection. It looks as though the previous author's footnotes need some additional infomation from the book reference provided. I will have a look at tidying that up.
KayriaT (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I posted it as a question on blackboard. Will update with an answer as soon as I get it.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Kayria, I'm in class. I'll try to be done for 8pm but I'm pretty sure I'll need more time to do a "substantial" write-up.
KayriaT (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Alright that's fine. But let's have it done by tonight so I can get it ready to hand it in in tutorial. By the way I just added my section which I've decided to call Product Design Expression. Please check it but don't make any changes to it. If there is something that you want me to change, even if it's spelling, let me know so I know what I missed or got wrong. Be sure to give me your opinion too. (I haven't added in the reference yet. I'll do it once I have your feed back.)
KayriaT (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Also, I was thinking should all subtitles say "product design" or just "design"? Personally I think they should say "product design" because if you just say "design" it's too broad in comparison to the content that is under the subtitle. What do you think?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Hi Kayria, I read the first 2 sentences and found grammatical errors. Please have another look at what you wrote and edit if you find them. Then I will send you any additional edits. How do you propose I send the edit - perhaps re-post on this page? Is there a way to highlight? I agree with the headings having the word "Product" in them I will change that now.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC) If I mentioned the word "subheading" on this talk page I meant to say "heading" sorry for the confusion. I have edited the headings to reflect the name of our topic, "product design", in all instances where the word "design" was standing alone.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Can someone please verify that the time stamps are wrong? That last talk instance says it was posted at 11:15pm, meanwhile it's only 7:17pm. Is it just my computer or yours too?
KayriaT (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I did find the mistakes, thanks for pointing them out Cassandra. Yes I think posting them here is ok. How about we italicizes the text that we think needs revision and bold the text that we are recommending. (The italics and bold options are found on the tool bar above when you are in the editing mode of a page.)
No it's happening to me too. You probably could change the time under account settings.
KayriaT (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I've moved Initial Stage, Mid Stage and Final Stage sections under the section Product Design Process. I'm not sure if they are supposed to be apart of that section, however I thought it made more sense to have them there.
KayriaT (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC) I just checked and they are apart of the section Product Design Process.
Melissalk (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Sorry everyone, I should have specified my classes ran late today, so I'll brush up and finish my section and should have it uploaded within the next half hour or so. Is everyone else done with their sections? -Melissa
KayriaT (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I finished writing mine, it just needs to be checked. If there are changes to the page that you don't understand just go through this page. All changes should be noted here.
Melissalk (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'll check your section, Kayria, after I finish mine. Also, Cassandra, sorry if my part overlaps with yours, but in my defense, I did state three or so days ago that I wished to take over this part. If you wish, after I finish with my part, if there is anything else you wish to add, you're more than welcome to do so. -Melissa
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Melissa which part do you think will overlap? Did you have a chance to read the Design Considerations section? I am writing the blurb now on designs that fail that might still fit with yours (like you mentioned before). I will have a look at my account settings to see if my time zone is listed there.
Melissalk (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure, you mentioned above that there might be an overlap. I haven't had a chance to re-read the article in the sandbox, I'm trying to finish my section first, I apologize. As for the timezones, I don't think you can change it. It is based on the Coordinated Universal Time, which places everyone that edits on the same timezone in a global scale. I might be wrong, but I believe that is the case here. -Melissa
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I added in the section "Product Designs That Fail" and the write-up under it. Have a read through that section and if you can come up with a better title let me know. Also I added in the appropriate references. I still feel that those 2 sections are not a substantial edit. I want to add in a third. I'll update you shortly.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I added in bullets under the "Application" section. Do you think we should be consistent and keep the bullets or keep the numbers? If we stick with numbers only do either of you know how to put a new number on each line? It was all on 2 lines before I switched it. Also, I'm adding in a section titled "Demand-pull and Invention-push". I'm just writing it now.
Melissalk (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Alright, I'm done with my part, sorry for taking so long. Two things that I need to ask/ point out. First, I plan to clear out the entire Product Design Process in order to implement my edit, does anyone have any edits they made that they wish to keep? I recreated that section since it was too broad and didn't specify enough in material that was covered, but if there's anything cruical you wish to keep, please let me know. Also, my entire section is based on a book, do I cite each and every single process and line? I'm worried it might get too convuluted. -Melissa
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC) The larger edits I made were under the sections "Product Design Considerations" and "Product Designs That Fail" so as long as you don't delete them, I'm good! As for citing, I cited all lines that weren't common knowledge. It seems like a lot but I'm not sure what else to do. I'll have a look at some more Wikipedia pages to see how they do it.
KayriaT (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC) CassandraDoubleyew I think Product Design Fails should go under Future Trends In Product Design. Also, how about changing the name to Trends in Product Design. I think it sounds better and I also feel that Trends in Product Design suits the content of that section a lot better since it can be applied to the past, present and future when analyzing product design trends. Finally, before you guys go sleep on your last post on this talk page at the end of the message write (OFFLINE) so we know that you are offline and we are not waiting on you.
Melissalk (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I've added my section, please read over it and make sure it is alright. I've started reading over, and the only thing that I'm worried about is that the introduction is very sloppy and might need some editing. Does anyone want to take it over? Or should I edit it? -Melissa
KayriaT (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'll look over it Melissa. Do you mind looking over mine? Once we are all done we should all go through the entire page and make sure everything is as perfect as can be. Everything looks great so far. I'm really glad I got to be apart of a team of dedicated people. Anyways if possible I would rather we finish this tonight. However if anyone is unable to we need to schedule a time in the morning to meet back here and complete the assignment.
Melissalk (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Sounds good! I agree, it was wonderful to work with the two of you! I'm certain we'll finish by tonight, but just in case, for times tomorrow, I'm in class from 9 to 12, so I'm a bit limited on that. Anyway, edits for your blurb, I'm finding a lot of little mistakes, that would just jumble all this up. Why can't we edit or add notes to the sandbox? We'll edit it out, and I'll be sure to make it clear so that we don't forget it. -Melissa
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I added in the section "Demand-pull Innovation and Invention-push Innovation" and the write-up under it. I am just about to do the citation and then I will look over your sections ladies for any edits to grammar, spelling, etc.
Melissalk (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Also, just an additional note, the Application section is just a condensed reiteration of my section, so I'm not certain what it's doing there?
KayriaT (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Application was the section I was going to work on but when I realized that it overlapped with yours I decided to do something else instead. We can remove that section if we want. I asked and they said we can. I'll post the email I got from Michael in a minute.
Alright so I just read through the first part of your section Melissa and this is what I recommend. 1. Instead of The main idea here is to figure out what is required, brainstorm possible ideas, create mock prototypes, and then generate the product.
how about The process focuses on figuring out what is required, brainstorming possible ideas, creating mock prototypes, and then generating the product.
2. Instead of However, that is not the end of the process, since the designers need to execute the idea, making it into an actual product, and then evaluate its success by seeing if any improvements are necessary
how about However, that is not the end of the process. Designers at this point would still need to execute the idea, making it into an actual product, and then evaluate its success by seeing if any improvements are necessary.
3. Instead of Although the design process is not linear, it follows a loose guideline involving three main sections
how about The design process follows a guideline involving three main sections
Over all I think you've done great. Also can you specify what needs to be fixed on mine.
KayriaT (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Michael's email:
Hi Kayria,
If that's part of what's involved in your editing then fine, but "substantive edits" also means you're adding to the article. If there's an entire section in need of an overhaul and you're not working on it, it may be better to flag it as being problematic for other editors (e.g. by leaving a comment on the article's talk page, among other things).
Best, Mike
And on blackboard Dr. McEwen said that it was up to us to decide if we want to. I think we should.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I just read about how to cite multiple references to the same footnote and I'm going to try that out now. Melissa, do you have page numbers for your footnotes and can you add in your book to the reference section? If you need any help I'm still online.
KayriaT (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Speaking of references I was just reading the Reference: Wiki Code (I'm assuming it's the same one you are referring to Cassandra) and it said we need to be consistent in the reference style we use. Just to make sure, is everyone using APA?
KayriaT (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Update: I removed the image that was on the page. I think we can find better and more appealing images. Do you think we need images? I'll look into it if you want images.
KayriaT (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC) CassandraDoubleyew I think you might have missed this but this is my suggestion that I posted earlier: CassandraDoubleyew I think Product Design Fails should go under Future Trends In Product Design. Also, how about changing the name to Trends in Product Design. I think it sounds better and I also feel that Trends in Product Design suits the content of that section a lot better since it can be applied to the past, present and future when analyzing product design trends.
Let me know what you think.
Melissalk (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'll change those in a minute, thank you for looking it over! For your part, here's what I found:
You wrote "...of all elements in a products" It isn't gramatically correct, it should be: "...of all elements in a product"
You wrote "Elements such as colour tone,..." The official name of the element is just colour, and should remain like that to maintain it as a professional reference.
You wrote: "Therefore it is in the product designers best interest..." You're missing an apostrophe, it should be: "Therefore it is in the product designer's best interest" or "Therefore it is in the product designers' best interest"
You wrote: "Keeping in mind about how consumers ..." It's convoluted, it should be: "Keeping in mind how consumers..."
You wrote: "The solution to that is to create a product, that in its designed appearance and function, expresses..." In order to make it flow better, since the commas here are used as a parenthesis, it should be: "The solution to that is to create a product that, in its designed appearance and function, expresses..." That way, if you were to take out the part between the commas, the sentence would still flow.
You wrote: "...subject to peoples judgment..." You're missing an apostrophe again. It should be: "...subject to people's judgment..."
The comparison you used about the pretty and abusive person seems a bit out of place, maybe pretty and rude would be a bit better?
But apart from that, I liked it a lot! I will get to reading the last two sections, sorry for the long list, they're minor things really. And I agree with needing a more appealing image to represent the page.
To add, Cassandra, for the book I used, I actually used a slideshow from my Design Thinking class, which references that book, so I wasn't sure what to cite it as, does anyone have any ideas for that? As for the format I used, I just used the automatic cite button at the top of the editor.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I fixed the cited footnotes on the 3 sections that I worked on: "Demand-pull...", "Product Design Considerations", and "Product Designs That Fail". I made multiple references link to the same footnote in those sections. Now there's only 1 instance of them in the Notes section. Melissa, I can fix yours too but I want to first know if you have any page numbers. Is it all from the same page?
Melissalk (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I actually wouldn't know, like I said, it's based off the slides I have from my class. Just put something akin to "no pg" or the APA equivalent to it.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Kayria I used the style suggested on the Wikipedia:Citing sources page under, "How to place an inline citation using ref tags". Melissa I'm going to merge all of your footnotes if that's ok with you since they're all from the same source. I will also have a look at your edited sections and see if there's any more edits I can make and suggest them on here. Please take a look at my 3 sections "Design Considerations", "Demand-pull...", and "Product Designs That Fail" too see if you find any mistakes, etc. Kayria, sorry for the late response, I will move my section (as per your suggestion) after you two have had a look at it. Thanks!
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Melissa, I combined all of your multiple footnotes for your section, into 1. Should we stick to your style of referencing or mine? Let's be consistent. Also, when we've decided that I will fix the current references. I am now going to read over your sections and I will follow-up shortly.
Melissalk (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)I see, but the actual editor carries a format template, but thank you very much! I think we should use the format I'm using, since it is in APA, but now I'm realizing that we need to make all the titles in lower case. I already looked at the Demand-pull section and it looks fine! As for the Product Designs that Fail, you wrote: "Product designers need to consider all of the details..." Wouldn't it be better to write it as: "Product designers need to consider all the details..." I'm not too sure about this, but just something to consider.
For the Future Trends In Product Design, you wrote: "The design of products of every type is clearly linked..." It's too convoluted, maybe try: "Every type of Product Design is clearly linked..."
You wrote: "...impetus..." I think that is too fancy of a word to use here, just write push, it's more fitting, I think.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Melissa: for "Product Design Process" >> There are various different product design processes, and they are all focused on different aspects. (Delete the word different as "various" means of different kinds.)
>> The process shown here is "The Seven Universal Stages of Creative Problem-Solving," outlined by Don Koberg and Jim Bagnell. (Instead of the word here perhaps use "below"? Do you have a reference for this?)
>> It helps designers to formulate their product from ideas. (Delete the word to.)
>> Designers at this point would still need to execute the idea, making it into an actual product, and then evaluate its success by seeing if any improvements are necessary. (Re-work the sentence by starting it with: At this point, product designers... )
>> To break it down even more, the seven stages specifies how the process works. (Replace specifies with specify)
>> Analysis consists of two stages, Concept is only one stage, and Synthesis encompasses the other four. (Analysis consists of two stages: concept is only one stage and synthesis encompasses the other four.)
>> Accept Situation: Here, the designers decide on committing to the project, and finding a solution to the problem. (Remove comma)
>> Analyze:" In this stage, everyone in the team starts researching. (Replace with begins research)
>> Select: By now, the designers have narrowed down their ideas to a select few, ones which can be guaranteed successes, and from there they can outline their plan to make the product. (Remove comma)
>> Implement: Here is where the prototypes are built, the plan outlined in the previous step is realized, and the product starts to become an actual object. (Replace here with this)
>> Evaluate: In the last stage, the product is tested, and from there, improvements can be made. (Remove commas and change can be to are)
>> Keep in mind that although this is the last stage, it does not mean that the process is over, since it might happen that the finished prototype does not work as well as hoped, and new ideas need to be brainstormed.[4] (Run-on sentence: Although this is the last stage, it does not mean that the process is over. The finished prototype may not work as well as hoped so new ideas need to be brainstormed.)
KayriaT (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks Melissa for the feedback! I appreciate it. I'm making changes right now.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Kayria I merged "Product Designs That Fail" into "Product Design Trends" and deleted "future" in the heading. Thanks for the feedback Melissa, although I didn't write the original "Future Trends In Product Design" - does that make sense? Wow, I'm getting tired. Let's get this thing done and dusted in the next 20 minutes, ok?
Melissalk (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, let's, I'm tired as well. Thank you for your feedback Cassandra, I changed them all except for the sixth one, since a colon wouldn't fit, since the three are separate sections, not within the Analysis section. Also, you were asking for a reference, but I'm not sure what you're refering to?
Melissalk (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Also, because I forgot to reply, Cassandra, even though you did not write it, I imagine you can still edit it, maybe not the impetus if you do not want to, but it's up to you.
KayriaT (talk) 05:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I agree. Let's finish this asap. In the references section I'm trying to add --> Schifferstein, H., & Hekkert, P. (2008). Product experience . (1 ed., pp. 333-349). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science but I don't know how to add a reference with two authors.
Melissalk (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) What I did was put the first author in the last name section, and the second author in the first name section, and it worked.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I moved the 6 steps in New Product Design and re-named it. Do you think it should stay where it is now? Does it fit?
KayriaT (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I just completed my section. I'm going to fix my reference, look for a picture/s and then I'll go over the whole page.
Melissalk (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'm still confused about those 6 steps, since it seems like another product design process to me. I think that it should be removed, in my opinion.
KayriaT (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I agree. Also, application should be removed too.
Melissalk (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I agree with that too, should I remove it then?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Removed. ;)
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Kayria, I think you should remove your example because it doesn't quite "fit" For example, as humans our appearance as well as our actions are subject to people's judgment when they are making a first impression of us. People usually do not appreciate an rude person even if they are good looking. Melissa what do you think?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I need to fix my references and give it all a once over then I'm done. Give me 20 minutes, I'm moving from the library to rez. Thanks.
Melissalk (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC) That fits much better that what I had originally suggested. Also, it should be a rude person, no 'n.' Also, for my 'book' reference, I'll add it now. I just need to find the ISBN.
KayriaT (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback Cassandra and Melissa. I've decided to leave it in because I feel that it fits.
Cassandra how did you do your citations? What was the code you used? I'm asking because on the notes section yours are the only ones that look organized.
Melissalk (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'm truly sorry guys, but I'm falling asleep on my chair, what do we still need to finish?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Kayria, I used the citation that Wikipedia suggested on their citation page. Should I change mine or not?
KayriaT (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) No keep yours. Can you post the code here please. I've tried copying yours it didn't work out for me.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC) name=WhatYouNamedit>Last, First. Title. Publisher, Year, p. pagenumber. Add in the open and closed ref tags too.
Melissalk (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Guys, what do we still need to add here?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC) We just need to fix the referencing.
Melissalk (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC) If that's it, I think I'll be calling it a night, I need to be up pretty early. So, Kayria, are you doing the printing then?
KayriaT (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Yes I'll take care of the printing and the submission.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC) No printing required it's due via an email to Rachel:
Due on March 29th before lecture to your TA via e-mail. Please have the group's "designated spokesperson" send your TA the information below as either a Word Doc or PDF file attached to an e-mail. Please combine all the required information into one document so that you submit a single file to your TA. The document should be no more than 3 or 4 pages.
We need to send Kayria our student numbers. I don't have your email Kayria. Can we private message on here somehow?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) And we need to make our page go live, don't we?
KayriaT (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I've sent you an email check ur inbox. I'm also gonna call it a night too. I'll be here at 9am until class starts. I'll work on the citations and adding the photo/s tomorrow. Let me know when you guys can meet on this page tomorrow.
KayriaT (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Oh true I almost forgot about the launch. Thanks for the reminder. Is it ok if we work on it tomorrow though? Its almost 3am right now.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Ya no probs. I'll be online around 11am tomorrow. Talk to you then. Goodnight
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC) What inbox are you talking about Kayria?
Melissalk (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I'm online now, and I'm curious too, what inbox are you talking about?
KayriaT (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I meant email inbox. Here's my email *** (just erase it from here when you have copied it down. Thanks.) Alright so I'm going to UTM in an hour and so we'll hopeful meet back at 10 maybe 11. Melissa I know you said you have class so just meet with us on this page when your done.
Melissalk (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I see. Shouldn't I leave it so that Cassandra can also send in her number? I hope this class ends early, do you have any idea where you'd be?
KayriaT (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Ok thats fine. Let me know when you've copied down my email cassandra.
KayriaT (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Melissa I send you something on your email did you get it?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Hey ladies, I'm online. Kayria, I sent you an email with my student number.
KayriaT (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) What do both of you think about removing the banner that suggests combining the Product design page with the Industrial design page? I personally think we should remove it because we have expanded this page and by doing that we have disproved the banner.
Melissalk (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I agree, we maybe should take it out, if we're allowed. The problem before was that the article was too short, and did not constitute a full article, but now that we explained and expanded this, as Kayria said, we should be able to take it out.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I edited your book reference, Kayria. I think the banner should go, if that is allowed.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Kayria: for your book reference, should Shifferstein go first or second? Let's keep the footnote and book reference consistent.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Which reference style should we keep? So we can edit the rest...
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Did anyone find out about copyright issues with photographs?
Melissalk (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC) On the matter of the banner, I think we should leave it on, and let Wikipedia's Ambassadors to figure it out. I don't think we're certified to remove banners that were put up by them, and taking it out wouldn't be too professional of us.
KayriaT (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Just fixed my references Cassandra. About photo's I was thinking that they are not really necessary for our topic. I agree with you Melissa know that I think of it. What do you think Cassandra?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I alphabetized the book reference list. Yes, leave the banner. Yes, no photos are fine with me.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Edited the footnote citation for the "Design-pull..." section so that it is in-line with APA 6th edition.
Melissalk (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I am done with my section, I just need to make the title lower case, and Kayria can screenshot everything.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I edited the footnote citations for the "Trends" and "Design Considerations" sections. They are now all in APA 6th edition.
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Should we edit the previous author's citation to reflect APA 6th Edition?
CassandraDoubleyew (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC) The Product Design Wikipedia page is live.