Canary Islands PAU Design common mistakes
Canary Islands PAU Design · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When asked to analyse a composition, the candidate names the elements present ("there is a diagonal, there is red, there is a large circle") and stops, without stating the relational effect: balance, hierarchy, tension, rhythm or focal point that those elements produce together.
Candidates learn the vocabulary list of design elements (point, line, plane, colour, texture) as a checklist and treat 'identify' as the whole task, because naming terms feels like earning marks and describing effects feels subjective and risky.
What to do instead
Force every element statement into an effect sentence of the form 'X does Y to the viewer's reading of Z' (the red circle pulls the eye to the upper right, so the title is read second). Practise by taking any poster and writing three sentences that each begin with an element and end with a consequence; if a sentence has no consequence, delete or rewrite it.
The candidate uses colour terms loosely and interchangeably, writing 'warm colour' or 'contrasting colour' without specifying hue, value and saturation separately, and predicting emotional effects (calm, energetic) without linking them to those three variables.
Everyday language collapses colour into a single impression, and candidates carry that habit into an exam where the marker is checking whether they can distinguish a value contrast from a hue contrast and from a saturation contrast.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-part description before any interpretation: name the hue family, state whether value is high or low and whether the contrast is value-based or hue-based, then state the saturation. Only after that sentence, offer the effect and tie it explicitly to one of the three variables. Build a personal bank of ten colour pairs described in this format.
In the design process question, the candidate presents the stages as a rigid straight line (research, then ideas, then prototype, then final) and never mentions evaluation feeding back into earlier stages, iteration, or discarded alternatives.
Textbook diagrams show a linear arrow chain, and candidates reproduce the diagram rather than describing how design work actually loops; they also fear that mentioning failure looks like admitting a weak project.
What to do instead
Always draw or describe at least one feedback arrow and name a concrete decision that changed because of testing (a grip widened after a user fumbled the prototype). In written answers, use the phrase pattern 'the first version did X; testing showed Y; therefore the second version changed Z', and include one abandoned idea with the reason it was dropped.
When asked to sketch or develop ideas, the candidate produces one polished drawing and labels it 'final idea', skipping the visible sequence of quick alternatives, annotations and selection criteria that the question is actually assessing.
Candidates optimise for the look of the sheet rather than the evidence of thinking, and under time pressure they draw the solution they already have in mind instead of generating and comparing options.
What to do instead
Budget the sketch time explicitly: at least four small alternatives before any enlargement, each with a one-line note on what it tests, plus a short written justification of the chosen direction against stated criteria (cost, ergonomics, manufacture). Rehearse this format on past prompts so the sequence becomes automatic under exam timing.
In typography and layout tasks the candidate describes type only by typeface name ('a sans serif') and never addresses measurable properties: x-height, stroke contrast, letter spacing, measure, leading, alignment and the resulting reading order.
Candidates recognise font categories but have not practised looking at spacing and measure, and they assume naming a category is the analytical answer the examiner wants.
What to do instead
For any layout, measure and state three numbers: characters per line, relative leading, and number of alignment axes. Then explain one consequence for reading (long measure forces head movement and slows reading). Practise by measuring real pages and writing a three-sentence critique using only measurable properties before mentioning any typeface name.
On signage and wayfinding questions, the candidate designs a sign as a graphic object (attractive panel, logo, colour scheme) and ignores the viewing situation: distance, mounting height, viewing angle, lighting, legibility of letter height, pictogram comprehension and consistency across a sign family.
Signage is taught visually in portfolios, so candidates default to aesthetics, and they have not internalised that sign legibility is calculated from distance and letter height rather than judged by eye.
What to do instead
Begin every signage answer by stating the viewer's situation (standing two metres away in a corridor, or driving past at speed), then derive letter height and contrast from that. Check the answer against a three-point list: can it be read at the stated distance, can it be understood without language, and does it match the other signs in the system.
In product design questions the candidate describes form and aesthetics and treats ergonomics as a single sentence ('it is comfortable'), without giving dimensions, hand or body reference data, or a specific posture and task the object supports.
Candidates are confident about styling and less confident about anthropometric numbers, so they generalise to avoid stating a figure they might get wrong.
What to do instead
Carry a small memorised set of reference dimensions relevant to typical exam objects (grip diameter, seat height, reach envelope, control size) and always attach a number to an ergonomic claim. Structure the answer as task, posture, dimension, consequence, so comfort is argued rather than asserted.
When sustainability is examined, the candidate writes 'uses recycled materials, so it is sustainable' and stops, without considering the whole life cycle: energy in production, number of uses, repairability, disassembly, end-of-life route and transport.
Recycled content is the one sustainability fact most candidates know, and it gives a quick, morally satisfying answer that appears to close the question.
What to do instead
Answer with a life-cycle sequence and one trade-off: material source, manufacture, use phase, repair, end of life, and name a case where the 'green' choice conflicts with durability or with recycling infrastructure. State which stage dominates the impact for that product and justify why.
In the history and theory question the candidate lists movement names, dates and famous names as a timeline, without connecting a movement to the social, technological or economic conditions that produced it, or to a specific formal consequence in the work.
History is revised as dates and names because those are easy to test oneself on, while causal explanation requires synthesis that candidates have not rehearsed.
What to do instead
For each movement, prepare a three-part card: condition (war, mass production, new material), response (what designers changed in form or method), and evidence (one specific object or building and the feature that shows it). In the exam, answer in that causal order and make the evidence concrete rather than naming a designer alone.
On technical drawing tasks the candidate produces a freehand perspective when an orthographic view, section or dimensioned plan was asked for, omits scale and units, and leaves hidden edges and line weights undifferentiated.
Candidates rehearse presentation drawings far more than standardised views, and they read the prompt quickly, assuming any drawing will earn the representation marks.
What to do instead
Before drawing, underline the requested view type and scale in the prompt and write the units on the sheet first. Follow a fixed checklist: correct projection, consistent line weights for visible, hidden and centre lines, dimensions with units, and a title block. Practise converting one object into front, plan and side views within a strict time limit.
When accessibility or ethics is examined, the candidate adds a generic closing sentence ('it should be accessible to everyone' or 'designers must be ethical') without naming a specific barrier, the group affected, a legal or standards reference, or the design decision that removes the barrier.
These topics are treated as values statements rather than design problems, so candidates write sentiment instead of analysis and believe length signals seriousness.
What to do instead
Convert every accessibility or ethics claim into barrier, affected user, standard or principle, and design change (a 5 mm tactile marker plus high value contrast so a low-vision user finds the stair edge). Keep a short list of widely cited references and practise writing the four-part sentence until it is the default response.