Changes for page TimeTable Table Format

Last modified by Laura Ottevanger on 2022/04/05 10:59

From 1.1 to 1.2 From 1.4 to 2.1

From version

1.2

edited by Laura Ottevanger
on 2022/04/05 10:10

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

1.4

edited by Laura Ottevanger
on 2022/04/05 10:43

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -99,13 +99,13 @@
  * Look into "Design scenarios" (lecture 3 probably): a story that conveys a new vision, including activity: narratives of typical or critical services, information: details on info provision, interaction: details of user interaction & feedback
  * Write inclusive design page
  * Change every mention of Miro to MiRo
--* Write in Evaluation the Test about the little interview she had with Erik and how the product was perceived by a hard of hearing person.
++* Write in Evaluation the Test about the little interview she had with Erik and how the product was perceived by a hard-of-hearing person.
  |
  * Added the sources for SDT claims
  * Worked on the Design Scenarios.
  * Inclusive design page has been created.
  * Made MiRo consistent
--* Write evaluation on hard of hearing person
++* Write an evaluation on a hard-of-hearing person
  |
  |Laura Ottevanger|
  * Review use cases
@@ -140,15 +140,93 @@
  * Completed including the caretaker in the final week
  * -
  |
--|All|In the meeting (15-3) tasks were divided to work on for week 6 and week 7|In week 6 we did the first test run of the evaluation and in week 7 we performed the entire evaluation.|
++|All|In the meeting (15-3) tasks were divided to work on for week 6 and week 7|In week 6 we did the first test run of the evaluation and in week 7 we performed the entire evaluation. In addition to their tasks, Doreen, Tim, Ricardo, and Harmen created the presentation.|
  =Week 8= End presentation
  |Member|Task|Reflection|
--|Tim Huisman|||
--|Harmen Kroon|||
--|Jeffrey Lim|||
--|Doreen Mulder|||
--|Laura Ottevanger|||
--|Rohan Sobha|||
--|Ricardo Vogel|||
--|All|||
++|Tim Huisman|
++* Read through robotic partner and add one citation in the todo
++* Remove Snoezelen from Objectives and expand Objectives
++* Move everything Snoezelen related to future work and make a coherent story
++* Write about the suggestions for other tests from the presentation in Future work e.g. test way of attention-grabbing
++*  Write a nice end chapter/conclusion on how it went and summarize the results.
++|
++* Changed robotic partner and added the citation
++* Removed Snoezelen and expanded Objectives
++* Move everything Snoezelen related to future work and make a coherent story
++* Wrote about other tests in future work
++* Wrote the conclusion and summary
++|
++|Harmen Kroon|
++* Write 2 sentences as an intro for stakeholders and problem scenario
++* Read through stakeholders and problem scenario
++* Cite some references in Ontology
++* Expand Claims
++* Add second Ontology
++|
++* Intro has been written
++* Has been read through
++* Cited some references in Ontology
++* Expanded claims
++* Added extra ontology
++|
++|Jeffrey Lim|
++* Music and Cognition: Explanation of how doglike sounds and movements could be beneficial based on literature and motivate why music is inappropriate for our use case.
++* Group's core theoretical foundation: Talk about people with dementia getting lost, if walking helps by PwD, how good walking is for people, budget care homes
++* Music management: Explanation of why we do not use music + what we do use + talk about the video of alarm here
++* Add limitations and how we would solve them in future work.
++|
++* Added why doglike sounds are beneficial for walking and added a small chapter on music and cognition
++* Wrote text in the theoretical foundation
++* -
++* -
++|
++|Doreen Mulder|
++* Measuring Instruments: cite papers about what we use for evaluation
++* Inclusive design: Clean up sources or notify what needs to be done on the page
++* Add Discussion after the results and ensure that the results are just numbers
++* In future work: Talk about having only 8 participants, not a correct room (not a care home hallway but a single room), using PwD as test subjects = more realistic test.
++|
++* Cited papers in teamwork with Rohan
++* Added sources and created the page
++* Added Discussion and changed results
++* Has been put in Test as it might suit better for now
++|
++|Laura Ottevanger|
++* Introduction - Rewrite: problem, solution, what is where.
++* Move MiRo difficulties to Technology
++* Specify specific limitations and technical options for MiRo
++* Add code to Gitlab
++* Talk about the code in the Prototype chapter
++* Add limitations and how we would solve them in future work.
++* Perform Wilcoxon test on testdata
++|
++* Created a small introduction
++* Rewrote difficulties a bit to add it to Technology
++* Specified specific limitations and technical options for MiRo for the next group as well
++* Add code as snippets to Gitlab
++* Talked about the code in the Prototype chapter
++* Added limitations and how we would solve them in future work.
++* Wilcoxon test has been performed
++|
++|Rohan Sobha|
++* Measuring Instruments: cite papers about what we use for evaluation
++* Human-agent teamwork: Talk about humans and robots working together based on literature
++* Use cases: Read through and check for (grammatical) mistakes
++* Test: Rewrite to make it a bit more specific, ensure that the test is reproducible, add the Wilcoxon test
++* Future work: Add Snoezelen in context of evaluation
++* Conclusion: Write a nice end chapter/conclusion on how it went and summarizing results.
++|
++* Cited papers in teamwork with Doreen
++* Added the Human-agent teamwork page and elaborated on working together
++* Use cases have been read through
++* Test page has been rewritten to adhere to the requirements
++* Added Snoezelen in future work
++* Wrote a nice end chapter/conclusion.
++|
++|Ricardo Vogel|
++
++|
++
++|
++|All|The final presentation occurred. Doreen, Tim, Ricardo, and Harmen did the presentation. We divided tasks at 31-3 and 1-4 |We evaluated the tasks on 5-4.|