Firstly we will briefly discuss the learning outcomes for the HCI 2 module and then provide a conclusion of our overall process which will show how the learning outcomes were satisfied. By all means this is not a comprehensive list of all our posts, so please take this into consideration.
Learning outcome 1: Explain and discuss practical and theoretical aspects of Human-Computer Interaction.
During the lifecycle of the project, we discussed both the theoretical aspects of HCI and its practicality which can be found here. We analyzed the theoretical aspects of creating persona's, conducting scenarios and designing prototypes as well as providing a mindmap for our target group.
Our case studies involved evaluating robotic component technology, to assess its suitability for integration into the Robot Teaching Assistant, which is the technology that is aimed at children.
We also considered factors such as ethics from attending Russell's lectures.
For more posts which satisfy this criteria, please see our conclusion below (after the learning outcomes)
Learning outcome 2: Apply HCI principles to practical problems.
Throughout the course of the project, we successfully applied the User-Centered Design process which is described in the conclusion below. To summaries, this involved creating persona's, scenarios, prototypes, questionnaires and a range of evaluation techniques.
For further reading which satisfies this criteria, please see our conclusion below (after the learning outcomes)
Learning outcome 3: Participate in analysis and design work in HCI.
We have fulfilled this criteria which is evident in our conclusion below.
Our Conclusion
The blog was created to comply with the Human Computer Interaction II module at the School of Computer Science. During the lifecycle of the project, our aim was to produce a new innovative tool that would help in assisting children at school, by going through the User-Centered Design process. This involved a continuous feedback loop which kept going back to the user – the persona's – (Serena, Ben, Tom, Jason).
We firstly began by forming a mind-map of the under 11 age group, this helped us to see what perceptions the group had for the under 11 age group. Furthermore, we then conducted a brainstorming session, in which the group suggested various ideas and were filtered over two stages. We then created a number of persona's a variety of children in our target audience (Under 11) to aid in the process of finalizing our prospective idea. During the persona stage, it was decided that two of the persona's were to be real and two to be imaginary to ensure that the process was applicable in the real world.
After the persona's, we then finalized our final idea which was the Robot Teaching Assistant. We decided that this was the most innovative and interactive of the ideas suggested, and furthermore, taking into account the rate of technology adoption in the educational sector, the project provided motivation. We carried out an analysis of the market. At this point we were faced with a major design decision, whether the teaching assistant should have a humanoid or robotic appearance.
After this, we then derived the requirements from analyzing the persona's. We began to develop scenarios in order to aid in the development process. The scenarios involved the persona's and observing their current educational environment in order to gain knowledge on how the Robot Teaching Assistant would interact in those environments.
Throughout the process, a number of case studies were conducted which researched into current robotic technologies and components that can be used in our prototype. This enabled us to create the creative design (and more designs here) of the teaching assistant based on the initial requirements gathered from analyzing the persona's. The creative design was important as it allowed us to create an initial prototype based on the needs of the persona's from assessing both the scenarios and persona's. Through discussion and evaluation of the requirements at the creative design stage, the first prototype was created named Miss Dawson. After the prototype was developed, testing and evaluation was conducted on these components:
- Video / Visual
- Audio
- Picture Quality
The next stage of our evaluation was to put the prototype in the scenarios described previousely to observe how the first prototype interacted with the persona's in the scenario using questionnaires. After the testing and evaluation on the prototype, we carried out a critical appraisal of the prototype which led to refinements (part of the redesign stage) being made in our redesign called iBot.
The redesign reflected the issues that were raised in the testing / evaluation of the first prototype based upon the persona's reactions in the scenarios. To assess the redesign, a number of evaluation techniques were considered. From this, we selected the heuristic evaluation and cooperative evaluation. The cooperative evaluation allowed the persona's to raise questions about iBot to the designers and allowed us to observe the persona's interactions with the iBot. The heuristic evaluation involved assessing iBot against a number heuristics. Furthermore, from our evaluations, we conducted a further assessment of any further refinements based upon the evaluations conducted in the previous stage.
To conclude we managed to create “iBot” using the user-centered design approach. As a group, we feel that we have fulfilled this to an extent, however, there are criticisms. During the project, we did make a number of assumptions, for example, that AI technology was so advanced that it could detect human emotions and that some of the components discussed in our cases were readily available. In relation to the User-Centered Design process, we felt that if we had a bit more time we could have conducted further investigations regarding the end user, which would aid in helping us understand more the needs of our target group. We have followed the user centered design process and feel that the process conducted has resulted in a technology being developed that our target group will use.
Thursday 29 March 2007
Tuesday 20 March 2007
iBot’s Ethical Dilemma
When designing the Robot Teaching Assistant there were a number of ethical issues raised. After yesterdays lecture, Russell discussed ethical issues that as Computer Scientists we face when designing systems.
In relation to our Robot Teaching Assistant, we felt it was important to highlight the ethical issues associated with robots.
In a recent report on BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6432307.stm), South Korean scientists have begun drawing up an ethical code to protect robots from being abused by humans and vice versa.
This ethical code is based on three laws set by Isaac Asimov: -
- A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
A similar set of principles was also popularized in the iRobot movie starring Will Smith.
One of the key assumptions that we are making in our overall design is that the Robot Teaching Assistant follows these principles. In making this assumption, we should also appreciate the problems associated with this such as iBot having the ability to recognize humans from other similar looking things such as "...chimpanzees, statues and humanoid robots" (BBC News (2007), see URL above).
Another issue, which is important to highlight is the Robot Teaching Assistant’s ability to access the School Database. This raises issues regarding Data Protection, and whether or not, iBot should be allowed to access the children’s information and medical records. We could counter this argument and assert that iBot should be seen as a member of staff at the school, and not an outside entity.
In relation to our Robot Teaching Assistant, we felt it was important to highlight the ethical issues associated with robots.
In a recent report on BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6432307.stm), South Korean scientists have begun drawing up an ethical code to protect robots from being abused by humans and vice versa.
This ethical code is based on three laws set by Isaac Asimov: -
- A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law
A similar set of principles was also popularized in the iRobot movie starring Will Smith.
One of the key assumptions that we are making in our overall design is that the Robot Teaching Assistant follows these principles. In making this assumption, we should also appreciate the problems associated with this such as iBot having the ability to recognize humans from other similar looking things such as "...chimpanzees, statues and humanoid robots" (BBC News (2007), see URL above).
Another issue, which is important to highlight is the Robot Teaching Assistant’s ability to access the School Database. This raises issues regarding Data Protection, and whether or not, iBot should be allowed to access the children’s information and medical records. We could counter this argument and assert that iBot should be seen as a member of staff at the school, and not an outside entity.
Monday 19 March 2007
Case Study: CBBC Survey
Today I came across an interesting survey conducted by CBBC that questioned a number of children regarding technology that they think would be implemented in schools in 15 years time. Many children believe that robots will be serving their dinners and eye scans will replace registers.
This survey illustrates that children are embracing technology in the educational environment and the concept of a teaching assistant is feasible.
Source
This survey illustrates that children are embracing technology in the educational environment and the concept of a teaching assistant is feasible.
Source
Tuesday 13 March 2007
Further Refinements
In today’s meeting we analyzed the results from the evaluations and identified the areas that need to be improved in the prototype.
1.iBot should be more interactive in terms of helping children even when help has not been requested
This issue was raised in the cooperative evaluation when Tom commented about the lack of assistance from iBot. This refinement involves iBot offering assistance when it senses a child is in distress.
2.iBot should support different languages in order to cater to different children’s needs and to teach foreign languages
Multi language support is a refinement that is vital taking into account multi cultural societies, furthermore, this would allows iBot to teach foreign languages. Furthermore Serena highlighted this issue when iBot was unable to read a French sentence.
3.iBot should have ability to download tutorials which further expands its knowledgebase
This issue was raised by Serena during the cooperative evaluation stage. She requested that iBot help her in playing her violin and iBot responded in that it was unable to play the istrument. Under this refinement, if a student asks iBot regarding a specific subject area and iBot has no prior knowledge, iBot can download new tutorials from the iBot online knowledgebase
4.iBot should synchronize with other iBots to share information / knowledge
This refinement would allows the iBot in question to expands its knowledge base by synchronising with other iBots. The knowledge base consists of experience that the iBot has not been in, for example, a new situation.
5.iBot needs better synchronization with the school timetable database
This issue was raised by Ben during the cooperative evaluation, as iBot had no knowledge about next weeks timetable.
6.Online interface to iBot through instant messaging services. Will allow children to communicate with iBot at home
This refinement is taking into account the Internet society in which we live in, for example, Ben is a member of many social networks. This refinement can also have an educational benefit in the sense that children can learn from iBot through the online interface, for example, ask questions regarding homework.
1.iBot should be more interactive in terms of helping children even when help has not been requested
This issue was raised in the cooperative evaluation when Tom commented about the lack of assistance from iBot. This refinement involves iBot offering assistance when it senses a child is in distress.
2.iBot should support different languages in order to cater to different children’s needs and to teach foreign languages
Multi language support is a refinement that is vital taking into account multi cultural societies, furthermore, this would allows iBot to teach foreign languages. Furthermore Serena highlighted this issue when iBot was unable to read a French sentence.
3.iBot should have ability to download tutorials which further expands its knowledgebase
This issue was raised by Serena during the cooperative evaluation stage. She requested that iBot help her in playing her violin and iBot responded in that it was unable to play the istrument. Under this refinement, if a student asks iBot regarding a specific subject area and iBot has no prior knowledge, iBot can download new tutorials from the iBot online knowledgebase
4.iBot should synchronize with other iBots to share information / knowledge
This refinement would allows the iBot in question to expands its knowledge base by synchronising with other iBots. The knowledge base consists of experience that the iBot has not been in, for example, a new situation.
5.iBot needs better synchronization with the school timetable database
This issue was raised by Ben during the cooperative evaluation, as iBot had no knowledge about next weeks timetable.
6.Online interface to iBot through instant messaging services. Will allow children to communicate with iBot at home
This refinement is taking into account the Internet society in which we live in, for example, Ben is a member of many social networks. This refinement can also have an educational benefit in the sense that children can learn from iBot through the online interface, for example, ask questions regarding homework.
Thursday 8 March 2007
Heuristic Evaluation
This heuristic evaluation is based on the scenario where children are playing outside in the playground with iBot.
Feedback:
iBot can give information and feedback to the children.
Scenario: iBot tracked the score of the rounders game and informed the children.
Everyday Language:
Currently iBot can only speak English. In the future, iBot will be capable of using multiple languages. In order to do this, iBot would be able to download languages when required. This would allow iBot to help children learning other languages, or communicate with a child who speaks a different language.
Scenario: When a child communicates in a different language iBot can respond.
Undo:
iBot doesn't malfunction when a minor accident occurs.
Scenario: If a rounders ball hit iBot, it would continue playing.
Consistency:
Sometimes iBot performs actions that are unpredictable. Therefore, improvements must be made so that iBot can perform consistently. In the future iBot will respond in similar ways to children’s actions.
Scenario: If a child hit the ball up in the air iBot would try and catch it.
Recognition not Recall:
As mentioned above, iBot is not consistent all of the time making it difficult for children to predict its actions. Children should be able to familiarise themselves with it's behaviour and predict its actions. The children would be able to predict iBot’s behaviour and actions in the same way as they would predict their teacher’s.
Scenario: If iBot caught a ball the child could expect iBot to catch the next ball thrown.
Simple Design:
iBot’s appearance is now robotic and available in several colours.
Scenario: The children were very enthusiastic about the robotic appearance of iBot and found it much more interesting than its previous appearance.
Expert Use:
Teachers in control of iBot are able to assign new tasks to iBot’s schedule, which then can be used in children’s lessons.
Scenario: A teacher can set iBot a new task like playing hide and seek in the playground.
Error Recovery:
iBot has an in-built recovery system to handle serious malfunctions. First the teacher is notified and then iBot connects to its server and attempts to repair itself.
Scenario: If iBot fell over while running to a base, iBot can get back up.
Documentation:
Only part of the required documentation is currently available to the teacher, but in the future detailed online documentation will be available.
Scenario: N/A
Other:
In the future children would be able to communicate with iBot after school hours, while iBot is charging. An instant messenger service could be used to enable this communication.
Farhad Bahramy
Matthew Walker
Feedback:
iBot can give information and feedback to the children.
Scenario: iBot tracked the score of the rounders game and informed the children.
Everyday Language:
Currently iBot can only speak English. In the future, iBot will be capable of using multiple languages. In order to do this, iBot would be able to download languages when required. This would allow iBot to help children learning other languages, or communicate with a child who speaks a different language.
Scenario: When a child communicates in a different language iBot can respond.
Undo:
iBot doesn't malfunction when a minor accident occurs.
Scenario: If a rounders ball hit iBot, it would continue playing.
Consistency:
Sometimes iBot performs actions that are unpredictable. Therefore, improvements must be made so that iBot can perform consistently. In the future iBot will respond in similar ways to children’s actions.
Scenario: If a child hit the ball up in the air iBot would try and catch it.
Recognition not Recall:
As mentioned above, iBot is not consistent all of the time making it difficult for children to predict its actions. Children should be able to familiarise themselves with it's behaviour and predict its actions. The children would be able to predict iBot’s behaviour and actions in the same way as they would predict their teacher’s.
Scenario: If iBot caught a ball the child could expect iBot to catch the next ball thrown.
Simple Design:
iBot’s appearance is now robotic and available in several colours.
Scenario: The children were very enthusiastic about the robotic appearance of iBot and found it much more interesting than its previous appearance.
Expert Use:
Teachers in control of iBot are able to assign new tasks to iBot’s schedule, which then can be used in children’s lessons.
Scenario: A teacher can set iBot a new task like playing hide and seek in the playground.
Error Recovery:
iBot has an in-built recovery system to handle serious malfunctions. First the teacher is notified and then iBot connects to its server and attempts to repair itself.
Scenario: If iBot fell over while running to a base, iBot can get back up.
Documentation:
Only part of the required documentation is currently available to the teacher, but in the future detailed online documentation will be available.
Scenario: N/A
Other:
In the future children would be able to communicate with iBot after school hours, while iBot is charging. An instant messenger service could be used to enable this communication.
Farhad Bahramy
Matthew Walker
Cooperative evaluation
On making our refinements we have decided to evaluate our new design using a cooperative evaluation method in collaboration with our personas. We conducted out cooperative evaluation in an individual environment with our target age group of 5 to 9.J
This individual environment is similar to that constructed during the scenario phase the project (Posted: http://hcigroup2007.blogspot.com/2007/02/scenarios.html)
Interacting in an individual environment
During the process, we observed the personas interact with iBot to see how they would react to the Teaching Assistant.
Personas: -
Serena Sondhi
Ben Manvir
Jason Powers
Tom Green
Summary of interaction
Serena seemed excited when being introduced to the iBot in her reading tutorial. She was eager to read to the iBot to impress the iBot and to see how the robot would rate her reading skills. This attitude seems to be in contrast to our initial humanoid design, which did not receive this desired response.
Her reading tutorial, however, did make her late for her next lesson. This raised concerns regarding iBot’s synchronisation with the local school database timetable.
Ben thought it would be a good feature if he could communicate with iBot outside school hours via instant messenger.
Tom raised issues regarding iBot’s interactivity in relation to help/support.
The following questions were raised to us: -
1. Serena asked, “There was a part in the book which iBot did not understand because it was written in French. Why is this?”
We have noted this concern as iBot only supports the English language.
2. Jason asked, “Why doesn’t the iBot move its mouth when it is talking?”
At this point of time, there is a speaker inside iBot’s mouth, which outputs the sound. This issue was not raised in the previous prototype design, as it was humanoid robot.
3. Tom asked, “Why didn’t iBot help me when I was struggling through my reading?”
iBot only offers help if the child requests help. This raises issues of interactivity between iBot and its interactions.
4. Ben asked, “Why doesn’t iBot wear clothes?”
iBot’s outer shell is its main form of clothing. We questioned Ben further; he compared the iBot to Miss Dawson (the original prototype design which had clothing).
The following questions were raised to iBot: -
1. Ben asked, “What are we doing next week?”
iBot replied that information was not available at this time. This raises issues regarding iBot’s access to future scheduling information.
2. Ben asked, “Are you on Hi5 or Bebo?”
iBot questioned what Hi5 and Bebo was.
This illustrates the enthusiasm the personas had for iBot outside school hours.
3. Serena asked, “Can you help me with playing my violin?”
iBot replied that it was unable to play the violin. This issue was similar to the issue raised by Ben which relates to information / data download.
4. Tom asked, “Do you have any iBot friends?”
iBot replied no. This raised issues regarding synchronisation with other iBots to gain information in any environment.
Conclusion
From this cooperative evaluation a number of issues have been raised: -
- iBot should be more interactive in terms of helping children even when help has not been requested
- iBot should support different languages in order to cater to different children’s needs and to teach foreign languages.
- iBot should download lessons / tutorials which further expands its knowledgebase.
- iBot should synchronise with other iBots to share information / knowledge.
- iBot needs better synchronisation with the school timetable database
- Online interface to iBot through instant messaging services. Will allow children to communicate with iBot at home.
Gaurav Chander
Bobby Biran Singh
This individual environment is similar to that constructed during the scenario phase the project (Posted: http://hcigroup2007.blogspot.com/2007/02/scenarios.html)
Interacting in an individual environment
During the process, we observed the personas interact with iBot to see how they would react to the Teaching Assistant.
Personas: -
Serena Sondhi
Ben Manvir
Jason Powers
Tom Green
Summary of interaction
Serena seemed excited when being introduced to the iBot in her reading tutorial. She was eager to read to the iBot to impress the iBot and to see how the robot would rate her reading skills. This attitude seems to be in contrast to our initial humanoid design, which did not receive this desired response.
Her reading tutorial, however, did make her late for her next lesson. This raised concerns regarding iBot’s synchronisation with the local school database timetable.
Ben thought it would be a good feature if he could communicate with iBot outside school hours via instant messenger.
Tom raised issues regarding iBot’s interactivity in relation to help/support.
The following questions were raised to us: -
1. Serena asked, “There was a part in the book which iBot did not understand because it was written in French. Why is this?”
We have noted this concern as iBot only supports the English language.
2. Jason asked, “Why doesn’t the iBot move its mouth when it is talking?”
At this point of time, there is a speaker inside iBot’s mouth, which outputs the sound. This issue was not raised in the previous prototype design, as it was humanoid robot.
3. Tom asked, “Why didn’t iBot help me when I was struggling through my reading?”
iBot only offers help if the child requests help. This raises issues of interactivity between iBot and its interactions.
4. Ben asked, “Why doesn’t iBot wear clothes?”
iBot’s outer shell is its main form of clothing. We questioned Ben further; he compared the iBot to Miss Dawson (the original prototype design which had clothing).
The following questions were raised to iBot: -
1. Ben asked, “What are we doing next week?”
iBot replied that information was not available at this time. This raises issues regarding iBot’s access to future scheduling information.
2. Ben asked, “Are you on Hi5 or Bebo?”
iBot questioned what Hi5 and Bebo was.
This illustrates the enthusiasm the personas had for iBot outside school hours.
3. Serena asked, “Can you help me with playing my violin?”
iBot replied that it was unable to play the violin. This issue was similar to the issue raised by Ben which relates to information / data download.
4. Tom asked, “Do you have any iBot friends?”
iBot replied no. This raised issues regarding synchronisation with other iBots to gain information in any environment.
Conclusion
From this cooperative evaluation a number of issues have been raised: -
- iBot should be more interactive in terms of helping children even when help has not been requested
- iBot should support different languages in order to cater to different children’s needs and to teach foreign languages.
- iBot should download lessons / tutorials which further expands its knowledgebase.
- iBot should synchronise with other iBots to share information / knowledge.
- iBot needs better synchronisation with the school timetable database
- Online interface to iBot through instant messaging services. Will allow children to communicate with iBot at home.
Gaurav Chander
Bobby Biran Singh
Evaluation
At this point the refinement will be evaluated using cooperative and heuristic evaluation to discover any further refinements. The evaluations will place the prototype into one of the scenarios developed with a number of personas.
There are many types of evaluation that could have been followed:
Heuristic Evaluation – is an evaluation technique which analyses a product against a set of principles known as heuristics.
We have chosen to use heuristic evaluation due to a number of reasons:
We have chosen to use co-operative e evaluation due to a number of reasons:
Think-Aloud - “is a form of observation where the user is asked to talk through what he is doing as he is being observed; for example, describing what he believes is happening, why he takes an action, what he is trying to do”[2].
Interviews - is a technique used to gather information about the user's thoughts and preferences on particular issues. This technique is not suitable as the children may have difficulty in expressing themselves, hence, invalid results.
[1] Source
[2] Source
There are many types of evaluation that could have been followed:
Heuristic Evaluation – is an evaluation technique which analyses a product against a set of principles known as heuristics.
We have chosen to use heuristic evaluation due to a number of reasons:
- The evaluation can be based upon the personas and applied to the scenarios which is a key component of user-centred design
- The evaluation offers a quick indication into the current state of the system/product
- The evaluation can be conducted early in the development cycle
We have chosen to use co-operative e evaluation due to a number of reasons:
- User involvement at the evaluation stage.
- If any problem arises they can be clarified and solved with the users' help.
Think-Aloud - “is a form of observation where the user is asked to talk through what he is doing as he is being observed; for example, describing what he believes is happening, why he takes an action, what he is trying to do”[2].
Interviews - is a technique used to gather information about the user's thoughts and preferences on particular issues. This technique is not suitable as the children may have difficulty in expressing themselves, hence, invalid results.
[1] Source
[2] Source
Tuesday 6 March 2007
iBot - Teaching Assistant Refined Design
This is an external shell design of the iBot - Teaching Assistant: -
Please click above for a larger screenshot
This is an internal shell design of the iBot - Teaching Assistant: -
Please click above for a larger screenshot
We began firstly by analysing the responses of our questionnaire put foward to our personas regarding our first design and based on the responses of this we looked at possible refinements to the design of the Teaching Assistant.
Furthermore from this, we will further evaluate the design through using heuristic techniques and cooperative evaluation with the personas.
Component Details:
[1] Touch Sensors
[2] Microphone
[3] Speaker
[4] Camera
[5] Movement
[6] Memory
[7] WiFi
[8] Facial Expression
Please click above for a larger screenshot
This is an internal shell design of the iBot - Teaching Assistant: -
Please click above for a larger screenshot
We began firstly by analysing the responses of our questionnaire put foward to our personas regarding our first design and based on the responses of this we looked at possible refinements to the design of the Teaching Assistant.
Furthermore from this, we will further evaluate the design through using heuristic techniques and cooperative evaluation with the personas.
Component Details:
[1] Touch Sensors
[2] Microphone
[3] Speaker
[4] Camera
[5] Movement
[6] Memory
[7] WiFi
[8] Facial Expression
Saturday 3 March 2007
Case Study: DaimlerChrysler's Robotic Production Assistants
DaimlerChrysler's have developed a number of autonomous forklift trucks that can navigate freely around an industrial environment. The key feature of the forklifts is that they operate via laser scanning sensors that enable the forklifts to detect objects. This technology has been successfully applied by DaimlerChrysler in a industrial environment, hence, movement and health/safety issues can be resolved by implementing this technology in the teaching assistant.
Source
Source
Thursday 1 March 2007
Refinement
Refinement Session Photographs:
Please click on the image above for a full sized screenshot
Sensors:
Height:
Network Features:
Looks:
Other:
Please click on the image above for a full sized screenshot
Sensors:
Height:
Network Features:
Looks:
Other:
Critical appraisal of prototype
After analysing the questionnaires we have refined the prototype based upon a number of factors.
We took into account that there were some children that were frightened that Miss Dawson looked like a human. From this we have come to the conclusion that the teaching assistant must have a “robotic” appearance otherwise the advantages of being a robot is lost and the children will soon lose interest. For example,
This is a quote from Prof Hiroshi Ishiguro the creator of Repliee Q1Expo, this illustrates that the advantage of being a robot is lost, hence, the adoption of a robotic appearance.
Additionally, we have decided that the teaching assistant should have a unisex design so that the teaching assistant is approachable by both genders. As the appearance is robotic, there is no need for silicon to give the appearance of skin, and the outer shell of the robot will be plastic.
The teaching assistant should also be the same height of an average 5 to 9 age group (110 to 134cm) child; this will make the children more comfortable when approaching the teaching assistant. In terms of looks, when analysing the questionnaires, we have decided that the children will react more favourably to different colours of the teaching assistant. This, we hope, will ease any fears the children have surrounding the robot.
Human Appearance - Miss Dawson
Height: - Average Female Height
Weight: - 70 Kilos
Walking Speed: - 5KM / PH
Running Speed: - 12KM / PH
Operational Time: - 8 hours fully charged
Degrees of Movement: - 40 Degrees of movement
Robot Appearance - iBot (Refinement)
Height: - 110 to 134cm
Weight: - 50 Kilos
Walking Speed: - 5KM / PH
Running Speed: - 12KM / PH
Operational Time: - 8 hours fully charged
Degrees of Movement: - 34 Degrees of movement
Due to the problems identified in the questionnaire results the speech recognition software has been improved and implanted into the teaching assistants ears and included microphones in other areas such as the hands. Furthermore, children did highlight the issue with the teaching assistant being unable to see children from a distance. As a result the internal camera component will be improved to 10 mega-pixels.
To make the teaching assistant appeal to both boys and girls the robot will be unisex and now will be called "iBot".
The next post will contain photos of the refinement session.
We took into account that there were some children that were frightened that Miss Dawson looked like a human. From this we have come to the conclusion that the teaching assistant must have a “robotic” appearance otherwise the advantages of being a robot is lost and the children will soon lose interest. For example,
“We have found that people forget she is an android while interacting with her”
This is a quote from Prof Hiroshi Ishiguro the creator of Repliee Q1Expo, this illustrates that the advantage of being a robot is lost, hence, the adoption of a robotic appearance.
Additionally, we have decided that the teaching assistant should have a unisex design so that the teaching assistant is approachable by both genders. As the appearance is robotic, there is no need for silicon to give the appearance of skin, and the outer shell of the robot will be plastic.
The teaching assistant should also be the same height of an average 5 to 9 age group (110 to 134cm) child; this will make the children more comfortable when approaching the teaching assistant. In terms of looks, when analysing the questionnaires, we have decided that the children will react more favourably to different colours of the teaching assistant. This, we hope, will ease any fears the children have surrounding the robot.
Human Appearance - Miss Dawson
Height: - Average Female Height
Weight: - 70 Kilos
Walking Speed: - 5KM / PH
Running Speed: - 12KM / PH
Operational Time: - 8 hours fully charged
Degrees of Movement: - 40 Degrees of movement
Robot Appearance - iBot (Refinement)
Height: - 110 to 134cm
Weight: - 50 Kilos
Walking Speed: - 5KM / PH
Running Speed: - 12KM / PH
Operational Time: - 8 hours fully charged
Degrees of Movement: - 34 Degrees of movement
Due to the problems identified in the questionnaire results the speech recognition software has been improved and implanted into the teaching assistants ears and included microphones in other areas such as the hands. Furthermore, children did highlight the issue with the teaching assistant being unable to see children from a distance. As a result the internal camera component will be improved to 10 mega-pixels.
To make the teaching assistant appeal to both boys and girls the robot will be unisex and now will be called "iBot".
The next post will contain photos of the refinement session.
Group discussion
Making the design will not only help us of how our robot will work but also give us an in-depth view of how the robot will be used to interact with the children. The practical side to it will show us what our end product will look like, our personas will help us do this and also the group can interact and make recommendations as to what will be needed. Our prototype is made and now we can work on refining it, so that our product meets what the children want.
