Adding electronics to anything (not to mention bluetooth) that doesn’t need it just adds so much cost and complication… especially in something that is so heavily regulated and with another functional science project added in of modularity. I think it comes from McKinsey or Bain but there is something called the “1 step principle” … to paraphrase how I’ve heard it stated in new product development basically you should only take one step away from the current product offering to make a successful (time, cost, easy user/retailer/sales understanding) product. So in this case adding a functional use of electronics would be a single step, adding modularity would be a single step, adding both would be two steps and have too many inherent risks. Like anything these platitudes can be distorted to block good ideas, but I’ve found this one helpful to argue against feature creep.
Iab, your points are well made and valid, not arguing there. I guess I’m just wondering if this level of thinking/knowledge isn’t too much expectation on the level of project? Some of that answer depends on the parameters of the project. Was this a couple of weeks of work, or an entire term? Were their opportunities to show professionals in the field and solicit their feedback?..
Lastly, I’ll say this is a good argument for how to use this forum differently. Instead of posting a final project, posting it in progress could have had the positive effect of getting this feedback when the project was at a lower fidelity state and it could have influenced the final. I just wrapped up teaching a term at the New School of Architecture and Design Domus program and I encouraged my students to post in here as they went to seek more feedback outside of myself and the professionals I brought… but not a single one did. They wanted to wait until the project was over. That in itself is a learning process.