Catalonia PAU Design II (Disseny II) common mistakes
Catalonia PAU Design II (Disseny II) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In the theory section, when asked to identify the Bauhaus or the Modern Movement, the candidate writes a vague label such as "modern style" and never names specific figures, schools, dates or objects, or attributes the International Style to the wrong decade.
The history syllabus is studied as a list of names to memorise, without building a timeline or linking each movement to its social context (industrialisation, post-war reconstruction, standardisation). Under exam pressure, the candidate recalls only the umbrella term and fills the gap with generic adjectives.
What to do instead
Build a one-page timeline for each movement with four fixed fields: approximate dates, geographic centre, key figures, and one representative object or building. For the Bauhaus, record Weimar/Dessau/Berlin phases and the shift from craft workshop to industrial prototyping. Practise writing a 40-word identification that always includes at least two proper nouns and one date.
When a statement asks to analyse a poster or a layout, the candidate describes what is depicted ("there is a red circle and some text") instead of analysing how formal decisions produce meaning and function.
Candidates confuse description with analysis. They have not internalised a checklist of visual elements and principles, so they list contents rather than discussing hierarchy, contrast, balance, rhythm or focal point and their communicative effect.
What to do instead
Use a fixed analytical sequence for every image: format and support, compositional structure and grid, hierarchy of the three reading levels, colour palette and its function, typographic choice and its connotation, then one sentence on the intended audience and message. Practise on unfamiliar posters so the sequence becomes automatic.
In the product-design question, the candidate proposes a form and then justifies it only aesthetically, omitting the functional requirement, the user's anthropometric data, the material choice and the manufacturing process.
Project work during the course is often assessed on the final rendering, so the candidate learns to defend decisions visually. Written justification of ergonomics and production is practised less and is the first thing dropped when time is short.
What to do instead
Adopt a four-line justification template for any object: function (what problem, for whom), ergonomics (which percentile, which dimension or reach), material and process (why this polymer or sheet metal, which forming method, why), and end-of-life. Answer in that order even in a short-answer question.
The candidate treats sustainability as a single word - writing "the design is sustainable because it uses recycled material" - without distinguishing material sourcing, energy in production, durability and repairability, disassembly, and end-of-life.
Sustainability is taught as a value rather than as a set of measurable decisions. The candidate reproduces the vocabulary of advertising instead of the vocabulary of design for circularity.
What to do instead
Memorise a short lifecycle checklist (material origin, manufacturing energy, transport, use phase, repair and modularity, disassembly, recovery) and always cite at least two specific stages with a concrete decision, for example a mono-material casing that avoids adhesive so it can be separated at end of life.
When asked to develop a design process, the candidate jumps from the brief straight to a finished solution, or presents a single idea as if it were the outcome of research, with no evidence of divergence, selection criteria or testing.
The candidate has not internalised the iterative nature of the double-diamond or similar models and treats the exam answer as a product description. Sketching and prototyping feel like classroom ritual rather than assessable evidence.
What to do instead
Structure every process answer in labelled stages: brief and constraints, research methods, ideation with a stated quantity of alternatives, selection criteria, low-fidelity prototype, user test with a named metric, iteration. Always show at least one idea that was rejected and say why.
In technical drawing, the candidate produces a perspective sketch labelled as a plan or elevation, omits the scale and units, leaves dimensions without arrows or extension lines, or gives a dimension that contradicts the drawn proportion.
Sketching is practised for presentation while orthographic projection and dimensioning are rehearsed less. The candidate also runs out of time and adds dimensions by eye without checking consistency.
What to do instead
Before drawing, state the view (plan, elevation, section, isometric) and the scale, for example 1:20. Apply the standard dimensioning rules - extension lines, arrowheads, dimension line outside the drawing, units once in the title block. Do a final consistency check that every stated measurement matches the scaled drawing.
The candidate answers a typography question by naming a typeface family but cannot state its classification, its structural features, or a justified context of use, and mixes up terms such as kerning, tracking and leading.
Typography is learned by browsing font menus rather than by anatomy. The candidate recognises a face visually but has no vocabulary to describe why it suits a given function, and the metric terms are memorised as a list without their meaning.
What to do instead
Learn the anatomy (x-height, ascender, descender, counter, terminal, stress, serif shape) and the standard classification with one example per group. Learn kerning as space between pairs, tracking as uniform spacing across a run, leading as line spacing. Practise justifying a typeface choice in one sentence linking form to reading context.
When asked about accessibility, the candidate writes only "it must be accessible" or mentions colour contrast alone, ignoring legibility sizes, redundant coding (not colour alone), tactile and auditory alternatives, and plain-language criteria.
Accessibility is treated as a legal add-on rather than a design constraint that shapes decisions from the brief. The candidate knows the slogan but not the operational checks.
What to do instead
Memorise a compact accessibility checklist: minimum contrast ratios for text, minimum type size and line length, information never conveyed by colour alone, alternative channels for signage, clear and simple language, and target sizes for interaction. Apply at least three items concretely to the case in the question.
In the branding question, the candidate designs a logo and calls it the identity, without distinguishing the mark from the identity system, the applications, the typographic and chromatic rules, or the brand values that justify them.
The visible logo is the most memorable part of the course and absorbs all attention. The systematic part of identity - the manual, the grid, the consistent application across supports - is abstract and harder to display in an exam answer.
What to do instead
Always answer branding questions in three layers: brand positioning and values, the visual system (mark, typography, palette, grid, tone of voice), and the applications with consistency rules. State one explicit rule the manual would contain, such as a minimum size or a clear-space margin.
The candidate writes long, unstructured prose that mixes the answer to several parts of a multi-part question, so the assessor cannot locate the response to each requirement, and the answer runs out of time before the final section.
Under time pressure the candidate writes continuously without planning, and does not allocate minutes per section or per mark. Multi-part Catalan exam questions are often marked requirement by requirement, so buried answers score poorly.
What to do instead
Spend the first two minutes writing a skeleton with one heading per requirement and an approximate time budget proportional to marks. Answer in the same order as the question, one idea per paragraph, and leave a line between sections. Reserve the last five minutes to check that every part has an explicit, labelled response.