The example reviews are deliberately limited in scope . Through them, we seek to demonstrate the effectiveness of user-centered performance evaluations without necessarily attempting to evaluate the technologies inherit in the products themselves. These reviews are therefore not reviews of technical virtuosity as much as they are expert predictors of satisfaction, usability and productivity.

Part of the rationale for this limited scope lies with the fact that a number of highly competent and properly equipped laboratories already exist for the purpose of measuring the throughput and output performance of the flashlights we've reviewed. When appropriate, we've made reference to those labs for further research.

In addition to restrictions on the extent of the evaluations, we also chose to restrict the range of products to be reviewed for purpose of demonstration and to simplify comparisons between products serving the same or similar market niche. Specifically, we decided to limit our reviews to small personal flashlights of 20.0" or shorter. This project is a 'pilot' proof of concept and may be continued or decommissioned at any time.

We use the Primary Evaluation Module of the Transcendent-UX Suite of practice tools as the fundamental method and process for performing these expert reviews. Omitted from our methodology were component formal user-evaluations, which are also part of the tool-set. The decision to omit profiled user evaluations was based on the budgetary constraints of this pilot. Ideally, our expert reviews and panel interpretation sessions would have been supplemented by comprehensive user-evaluations. Such evaluations would have involved a level of effort by additional human resources not within the budgetary scope of this exercise. As a result, we consider our reviews to be a partial 'window' into product performance metrics.

Given these limitations, we approached the expert reviews with the point of view of the typical user while maintaining expert vigilance over every aspect of the reviews-since personal technology products happen to be ones that we, the reviewers, also utilize in our personal and professional lives. As such, our objective is to qualify and quantify our findings-and to help enthusiasts and potential buyers of these flashlights make informed decisions based on expert findings rather than merely casual opinions. In addition, this feedback should be valuable to manufacturers intent on improving their products, increasing market share, and satisfying their customers' needs.

Form Factor & Build - The size and shape of the product in relation to both the user (hand, body, head etc) as well as in relation to related accessories, apparel and carry or stowage options. This is information about the product itself -its shape,form, heft, geometry and other physical attributes. Ruggedness and finish are also relevant
Ergonomics & Mount Options - The relationship between the product's form-factor/ build and the physical part of the end-user's body that contacts the product itself.This research includes cognitive models, interaction models and procedural models. Mount options refer to how the product is carried, stored,mounted, deployed, tethered and protected from damage or loss.
Affordances- Information and feedback about controls and switches such as dimmers & on/off switches, battery compartments, unscrewable bezels and other sections,accessory threads,loops,holes and so on. This includes information about constraints such as non-modifiable, non-user replaceable components or non-disassemblable components or the lack of switches, easy battery replaceability or attachment/stowage options.These are directly user-manipulatable interface components or 'touchpoints' that allow for fast/easy product use with the minimum of error, loss or security risk.
Human Factors & Usability -Information about how easy the product is to operate and how well it performs tasks for the user and how task performance translates into mission acomplishment. These are behavioral characteristics that reflect the dynamics of product functionality as well as user task and goal attainment. This category reflects findings related to how well a product fulfills requirements set forth by the end-user population for which a product is presumed to be designed. The emphasis is on predicting experience not technological virtuosity.
Beam Quality & Characteristics-As objective an articulation and demonstration as possible- of what the beam looks like when projected on a wall at a standard target- Discussion of the resultant subject illumination beam. Specifically, it's geometrical shape, smoothness, relative distribution of brightness, tonal gradation, artifacting & anomalies, angle of coverage as well as ability to sufficiently reveal the users' surroundings and illuminate a target subject.
Light Quality - Discussion of predominant color balance in ºK, color variance across all parts of the beam and color shifts with changes in illumination brightness (due to voltage drops). To an extent, some discussion of how light quality affects task performance also come into play.
Brightness- This is a discussion that reports on subject levels of illumination that translate into successful subject identification and accurate perception of subjects. In other words, perceived / experienced brightness versus measured brightness. These discussions are based on criteria such as subject distance from the source of light, level of ambient illumination, interactions between ambient light color and beam color, atmospheric modulators such as water vapor or airborne particles, relationship of the user's visual system and preferences to the subject and beam colors and the influence of subject, flashlight and user motion on successful subject identification.
Noticability- In the case of personal as well as traffic safety devices, this factor speaks to how quickly and effectively a light is noticed by target emergency rescuers and at what distance and under which specific circumstances, Factors such as vehicular speed, angle/line of sight as well as environmental factors are taken into consideration.
Environmental Stress- Trials that report on the ability of a light to function even when it has been subjected to less than ideal 'real-world' environmental exposure. Such exposure might include:
-Extreme heat & cold
-Accidental drop onto concrete from 10'
-5 minute submersion in 6' of water

Brief summaries of all the reviewers' observations and experiences with a product- taken as a whole and resulting in brief listings of positive (pro) and negative (con)highlights with a final determination of value or in the case of measured evaluations- a score in stars- with 5-Stars being a perfect or flawless implementation and 3-Stars, an average or median implementation.Specifiying quality quantitatively helps customers compare one flashlight under consideration with another one under consideration or against a recognized 'best-in-class'- benchmark. We hope that manufacturers can benefit by seeing how thier products compare with those of thier competitors.

Supporting photographic images - illustrating product build, finish, features, affordances, functionality, and interface points of interest as well as ergonomics, beam-characteristic 'portraits' and where applicable- evaluation scenarios.

Provisional as well as established evaluation standards such as:
Maximum Distance for Object Identification or (MDOI)
Standardized Flashlight Hold Positions (SFHP)
Context Inclusive Illumination Window (CIIW)
Context Exclusive Illumination Window (CEIW)
Baseline Noticability Index (BNI)
Beam Profile Matrix (grid)
Beamshot set-up