Our secondary research involved gathering feedback from customers, studying forums, and conducting market research to identify pain points and product opportunities. From our findings, we derived personas, use scenarios, and our overall product strategy. We also brought on an expert diving instructor to validate and guide our product development.

To encourage a creative and exploratory ideation process, I embraced divergent thinking by sketching ideas, even in the midst of unrelated daily tasks. Additionally, I crafted low-fidelity models using matboard and paper to quickly test and validate concepts. Promising ideas were further developed into rough 3D models using Rhinoceros 3D.

In total, I made about 20 rough CAD models before selecting the top five for SLA 3D printing and review. My ability to visualize three-dimensional objects in my mind, transfer them from pen to paper, and quickly create rough CAD models enabled me to generate ideas effectively.

As we moved into the next phase, we converged our focus to one main concept, drawing inspiration from other ideas. We received the initial PCB assembly file from the electrical engineer and the internal structure from the mechanical engineer. it quickly became evident that the overall size of the PCB assembly exceeded my initial expectations. In response, I referenced anthropometric data on wrist sizes and express my concerns to the engineers. Unfortunately, I was told there was no room for adjustments.

As I continued to refine the design using CAD, it was clear that the dive computer would be too large unless modifications were made to the PCB assembly. Throughout the process, I consistently voiced my concerns and advocated for necessary changes.

While we were still going back and forth with the size of the PCBA, we received an investor’s interest that needed our attention. The CEO requested a high-fidelity prototype and renderings for a pitch presentation. To speed up the process, I detailed the current design, aware that it was larger than ideal, and sent the CAD files to a prototyping company in China.

The resulting prototype featured a case made of machined polycarbonate, with the bezel, buttons, and caseback CNC’ed from stainless steel. The crystal was crafted from silkscreened glass and the display featured a placeholder UI. Unfortunately, this photo is the only one I have of the prototype.

After receiving the high-fidelity prototype, it became apparent that the size was indeed too large, as I had predicted. However, the CEO was pleased with the overall look and feel of the design. He was able to convince the engineers to rework the PCBA, and I also collaborated with them to suggest alternative ways of stacking the components.

To address the size issue, I went through the iterative design process once again. This involved a lot of sketching, creating rough models, and developing CAD models to explore various solutions to decrease the overall volume and perceived size of the design.

With the form now mostly finalized, I moved on to specifying the color, material, and finish (CMF) for the product. My experience working with factories in Taiwan and China has allowed me to accumulate a collection of plastic sample chips in boxes under my desk, as well as a cabinet full of samples in the office, which I refer to for CMF decisions.

For color, I rely on my trusted Pantone formula guide. While aesthetics play a significant role in color selection, other factors such as product positioning, brand identity, and target audience are also taken into consideration.

Choosing the right material involves assessing properties such as touch and feel, tensile and compression strength, durability, weight, cost, hardness, tolerance, run size, production method, water exposure, oxidation, weatherability, and many other considerations. Our engineers and manufacturing partners are involved in conducting extensive tests to ensure that our product is 10-bar water resistant.

When considering the finish, it’s essential to go beyond aesthetics and take into account other factors. Some textures can provide grip, while other finishes are more resistant to wear. The chosen finish must also work well with the selected material. Taking all these factors into account is crucial to delivering a product that is not only visually appealing but also functional and durable.

With the industrial design and user interface design nearing their finalization, it was time to create renderings that would bring it to life. Visual communication shares similarities with other forms of communication, it is just as essential to identify the audience, intent, and message. The key distinction lies in conveying the message through visual elements rather than words.

In addition to my responsibilities for the ID, UI, and UX design of GALACTIQ, I took the initiative to create dedicated product web pages, covering all aspects from design and copywriting to website development. Having previously identified our target audience during the “Define” design phase, structuring the website and crafting the copy played a crucial role in clarifying the intent and message behind the required visuals.

I sketched numerous thumbnails to explore various compositions for rendering. Using KeyShot, I focused on arranging the layout, applying textures, fine-tuning the lighting, and selecting optimal camera angles to breathe life into the product through rendering and compositing.

Although Blender’s physical inaccuracy may not always be suitable for industrial design, it is a powerful tool for creating scenes and visual simulations. After leaving the company, I taught myself how to use Blender, which is polygon-based software that differs from the NURBS-based Rhinoceros 3D and solid-based modeling Solidworks that I was familiar with. I discovered that Blender excels in creating visual simulations, and I was able to simulate GALACTIQ’s interaction with water using Blender’s built-in mantaflow. This was a useful addition to my current workflow of rendering.

Given the limited space available on a wristwatch-sized device and the inclusion of a depth sensor, the number of button configurations was restricted to a finite range of 1 to 5 buttons. Further constraints imposed by the logic boards provided by our vendor narrowed down the possibilities to just 3 buttons. However, since the dive computer required more than 3 inputs and had numerous functions, the interface needed to accommodate this by assigning multiple functions to each button while ensuring ease of use.

In menus and lists, the button configuration followed an intuitive pattern: the top button acted as the “up” function, the bottom button as the “down” function, and the middle button as the “enter” function. This navigation scheme allowed for movement within a level and deeper into a “child” level but lacked the option to return to the “parent” level. To address this, I considered incorporating a “long press” functionality to the middle button, which was not ideal. After careful consideration, I introduced a touch panel as an additional input method.

Gestural interactions, such as swipes and taps, added extra layers of interaction to the user interface above water, which I further explored. The gestural inputs allowed for swiping right and tapping an onscreen “back” button to return to the “parent” level. However, it’s important to note that these touch-based interactions would not function underwater due to the interference caused by water on the touch panel’s capacitive nature. Consequently, the underwater interface needed to be more concise in its design.