The IKEA frother completes the function but not in a very reliable manner. It would change from frothing at low speeds to high speeds without warning. Although it did manage to froth the milk even though it was cold.
The mapping was extremely straightforward since it is a simple device. Although some affordances could be that it is hard to open the bottom where the batteries are inserted. The button is located in a comfortable place for the thumb to control the button. The machine gives a lot of feedback when it is turned on by vibrating a lot. As well, it omits a small amount of noise from the vibrating and when splashing inside of the milk.
Some strengths are that the product is light, cheap, simple, and it gets the job done. Although some of these strengths can double as weaknesses. Since it is cheaper this could mean the product is lower quality and less durable. As well, the simple design can also be seen as plain. The frother in the middle of the device is also slightly off-centered causing it to vibrate more.
Disassembled IKEA frother
Laid out parts, taped down, labeled them.
Spreadsheet
By disassembling this device i have learned that not many different types of materials were used most likely being the reason it is so cheap. As well it was relatively easy to take apart so it is most likely not the greatest quality or can fall apart easily.
Up-scale device
Tested
It froths the milk very well. It has a constant and reliable feel to it. It does not vibrate too much or cause discomfort.
Possible affordances could be that the two buttons pressed to open the device and insert batteries could be mistaken for buttons that power the device. Although the image on the actual on/off button is clearly displayed. The mapping of the button is convenient for the thumb. The two buttons to release the bottom are placed conveniently so that they can pressed easily at the same time. Feedback it gives is some vibrating noise and a little vibration but not too much to cause annoyance or discomfort.
Strengths are that it completes the job in a simple and aesthetically pleasing manner. Although possible weakness could be again that it is too simple to the point of being plain. Since there are more materials and parts though it reassures that the product is of good quality and will last a good amount of time.
Carefully disassembled
Laid out, taped down, and labeled.
Spreadsheet
The cost differential is most likely due to the many more materials used in the higher-end frother. As well the many more parts that contributed to the design that allowed it to work better overall. A few of the hard plastic parts were a mesh of materials versus the simple one material IKEA device.
I would but the up-scale frother because it would last longer and be worth the money.
Tested our device
It completed the task but just barely. Compared to the IKEA device it is not even close to victory. It managed to froth but with much more man power and time.
Affordances could be that since it lacks the typical frother look and looks more like a whisk, it could be used for something besides its use. The mapping is straightforward, the long white part is the handle to be held as it is stirred. It takes a lot of man power, thus typically shaking the cup a lot as feedback.
Strengths are the straightforward design and the fact that it does not use electricity so it does not need batteries replaced or an outlet to plug into. Weaknesses are the not so pleasing aesthetics of the product since it is mainly composed of tape and wire. Although since it is made with so little materials it could be cheaper to produce.
To improve it i would change the adhesive we used to attach the balls. We used hot glue which although is better than tape, it may not be safe to use in foods. As well, i would organize the coils at the end better to complete the job with less motion.
