Wiki source code of TimeTable Table Format

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

version	line-number	content
2.2	1	= Week 1 =
1.1	2
	3
2.2	4	\|Member\|Task\|Reflection\|\\
	5	\|Tim Huisman\|Check if the MiRo robot can listen to a name/respond to a name\|The accounts weren't there yet so Harmen, Jeffrey, Tim, and Laura did some research on the necessary packages and code.\|\\
	6	\|Harmen Kroon\| Look into the sounds help\|The accounts weren't there yet so Harmen, Jeffrey, Tim, and Laura did some research on the necessary packages and code.\|\\
	7	\|Jeffrey Lim\|Look at the basic behavior of the MiRo robot (and maybe try it a bit)\|The accounts weren't there yet so Harmen, Jeffrey, Tim, and Laura did some research on the necessary packages and code.\|\\
	8	\|Doreen Mulder\|See if Bluetooth connection with MiRo would be possible (and if we can check distance)\|Doreen made connections between her phone and an Arduino and was able to let the Arduino detect when the distance was too great.\|\\
	9	\|Laura Ottevanger\|Check and possibly code a path tracking possibility in MiRo\|The accounts weren't there yet so Harmen, Jeffrey, Tim, and Laura did some research on the necessary packages and code.\|\\
	10	\|Rohan Sobha\|Work on the report: Operational demands: environments and stakeholders\|Rohan made the Environments and Stakeholders.\|\\
	11	\|Ricardo Vogel\| Work on the report: Personas and problem scenario\|Ricardo made personas.\|\\
1.2	12	\|All\|In the meeting (8-2) tasks were divided. The deadline is before the meeting next week.\| \|
1.1	13
2.2	14	= Week 2 =
1.1	15
2.2	16	\|Member\|Task\|Reflection\|\\
1.2	17	\|Tim Huisman\|Commandos/voice recognition, help with personas & scenarios\|Tim did research on voice recognition and which Python packages are necessary to implement that.
2.2	18	\|\\
	19	\|Harmen Kroon\| Harmen: Problem scenarios\|Harmen made the problem scenario.\|\\
	20	\|Jeffrey Lim\| Look into basic behavior, what does the dog do when touched/petted, etc.\|Jeffrey tested out with the blockly environment and the Python conversion.\|\\
	21	\|Doreen Mulder\|State diagram / Leash\|Doreen made a flowchart about the behavior of the robot.\|\\
	22	\|Laura Ottevanger\|Look into pathmaking \|Laura made the first storyboard.\|\\
	23	\|Rohan Sobha\|Robotic Partner / Music recognition\|Rohan made the part on Robotic Partner and Music recognition\|\\
1.1	24	\|Ricardo Vogel\|Personas & persona scenarios\|Ricardo extended the personas and made persona scenario.\|
1.2	25	\|All\|In the meeting (15-2) tasks were divided. The deadline is before the meeting next week. \|Wednesday morning we went to the robot lab and were able to upload a basic program to the robot. \|
	26
2.2	27	= Week 3 =
	28
	29	\|Member\|Task\|Reflection\|\\
	30	\|Tim Huisman\|Work on Objectives, and Humanoid Robot, and check if name recognition is possible without the mdk\|Made the Objectives and worked on humanoid Robot. Tim also found some Python libraries for name recognition. Tim also made user value stories for stakeholders \|\\
	31	\|Harmen Kroon\|Make Ontology\|Figured out the program to create an ontology but did not create the ontology yet\|\\
	32	\|Jeffrey Lim\|Work on use cases, figure out object/wall detection\|Did not work on use cases yet but did take a look at the color detection of the MiRo\|\\
	33	\|Doreen Mulder\|Extending the problem scenario section, and attempt at installing the MDK.\|Installed the MDK and made an explanation on how to install it. Doreen did not extend the problem scenario yet.\|\\
	34	\|Laura Ottevanger\|Make the rest of the storyboards and make the test program\|Made the storyboards and some test programs to test on the robot. \|\\
	35	\|Rohan Sobha\|Make Claims\|Made the claims\|\\
	36	\|Ricardo Vogel\|Make Design Patterns\|Made the Design Patterns with a drawing of the system.\|\\
1.2	37	\|All\|In the meeting (22-2) tasks were divided. \|We used Wednesday morning as our lab hours to work on the physical prototype with the MiRo. The MiRo had quite some difficulties in connecting with PCs\|
	38
2.2	39	= Week 4 =
	40
	41	\|Member\|Task\|Reflection\|\\
	42	\|Tim Huisman\|Extend functions and specify design patterns\|Worked on design patterns and the human factors design patterns. Extended/rewrote functions and found parts to discuss for during the lab.\|\\
	43	\|Harmen Kroon\|Make the Ontology and write the human factors ontology page\|Made ontology. Started on human factors ontology, made some code for demo\|\\
	44	\|Jeffrey Lim\|Use Cases and work on mid-term presentation \|Made use cases and presented presentation\|\\
	45	\|Doreen Mulder\|Extend the problem scenario and work on the wristband for the prototype. Also, make a "hondenriem" prototype (out of cardboard)\|Extended problem scenario, and started working on a physical prototype\|\\
	46	\|Laura Ottevanger\|Work on Evaluation and work on mid-term presentation \|Made and presented the presentation, made a start on evaluation and made some code for the demo.\|\\
	47	\|Rohan Sobha\|Work on Evaluation and work on mid-term presentation \|Made a start on evaluation, made the presentation, and presented the presentation.\|\\
	48	\|Ricardo Vogel\|Specify design patterns and work on the human factors design patterns page\|Worked on design patterns and the human factors design patterns\|\\
1.2	49	\|All\|In the meeting (1-3) tasks were divided. \|In addition to the common Wednesday morning in the Insyght lab, Rohan, Jeffrey, and Laura spend Wednesday afternoon working on the presentation. In the lab we made some small videos for the mid-term presentation:
	50
	51	* Snoezelen = for which we will use the demo version of MiRo,
	52	* The Wristband = Doreen creates it with an Arduino
	53	* Walking = We will Wizard of Oz it with a remote control
	54	* When a PwD walks in the wrong direction = Harmen will create some code for it
	55	* Ask for attention = Harmen and Laura look into mimicking a barking dog
	56	* Positive response = Laura will create some code where MiRo is barking, wagging its tail, etc. \|
	57
2.2	58	= Week 5 =
	59
	60	Mid-term presentation
	61
	62	\|Member\|Task\|Reflection\|\\
	63	\|Tim Huisman\|Design pattern diagrams, reread all XWiki pages to check for consistency and todos. Also, refactor some pages\|Reread all XWiki pages to check for consistency and made a full to-do list for the rest of the project. Also gave feedback on the evaluation form\|\\
	64	\|Harmen Kroon\|Make an extra ontology schema, make human factors ontology, and do some research on existing robot dogs\|Due to Harmen being sick, he worked a little bit on some research for existing robot dogs but couldn't finish ontology.\|\\
	65	\|Jeffrey Lim\|Make some MiRo code for an alarm when a PwD falls and for snoezelen with different levels of movement.\|Made and tested the four pieces of code Wednesday. \|\\
	66	\|Doreen Mulder\|Elaborate on evaluation and collaborate with Rohan on experimental setup\|Elaborated evaluation and worked on experimental setup\|\\
	67	\|Laura Ottevanger\|Also do some research on existing robot dogs and make 4 pieces of code for the prototypes: snoezelen low movement, medium movement, a lot of movement, and the alarm mode\|Started with some research on existing robot dogs and made the four prototypes mentioned\|\\
	68	\|Rohan Sobha\| Elaborate on evaluation and collaborate with Doreen on experimental setup\|Elaborated evaluation and worked on experimental setup\|\\
	69	\|Ricardo Vogel\|Going to work on ethics and test if we can connect MiRo to a server and/or with packets\|Worked on ethics\|\\
1.2	70	\|All\|In the meeting (9-3) tasks were divided. This was in the Insyght lab as during the lecture hours there were presentations\|We decided to combine the pieces of code for alarm from Jeffrey and Laura to create an alarm mode. The snoezelen we decided to scrap as we noticed that it would be difficult to test snoezelen with the MiRo, the MiRo is too easy to break\|
	71
2.2	72	= Week 6 and 7 =
	73
	74	\|Member\|Task\|Reflection\|\\
	75	\|Tim Huisman\|\\
	76
1.2	77	* Update flowchart to remove snoezelen to be coherent with the current idea of MiRo
	78	* Add a textual description of walking with MiRo to incorporate what MiRo should do if PwD stops to talk during the walk
	79	* Create value stories for indirect stakeholders
	80	* Incorporate Schwartz's value model in the value stories
	81	* Describe every single signal, sound, a movement that the PwD will receive/MiRo will make, the reasoning behind it, and its desired effect
	82	* Link to Technology - Music Management for the explanation of why we do not use music.
2.2	83
	84	\|\\
	85
	86	* Updated flowchart
1.2	87	* Added the textual description
	88	* -
	89	* -
	90	* Describing the sounds has been completed in the final week.
	91	* Link to technology has been completed in the final week.
2.2	92
	93	\|\\
	94	\|Harmen Kroon\|\\
	95
1.2	96	* Add research on interactions between elderly people and/or PwD's and robots + any other relevant research on the effect of pets/robots on PwD's.
	97	* Add ontology image to XWiki
2.2	98
	99	\|\\
	100
1.2	101	* Added research on existing robots/dogs
	102	* Ontology image has been added
2.2	103
	104	\|\\
	105	\|Jeffrey Lim\|\\
	106
1.2	107	* Expand product vision with Snoezelen and check incorporation in objectives
	108	* Explain why music is not suitable for our goal/case
2.2	109
	110	\|\\
	111
1.2	112	* -
2.2	113	* -
	114
	115	\|\\
	116	\|Doreen Mulder\|\\
	117
1.2	118	* Add sources for self-determination theory claims
	119	* 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
	120	* Write inclusive design page
	121	* Change every mention of Miro to MiRo
1.3	122	* 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.
2.2	123
	124	\|\\
	125
1.2	126	* Added the sources for SDT claims
	127	* Worked on the Design Scenarios.
	128	* Inclusive design page has been created.
	129	* Made MiRo consistent
1.3	130	* Write an evaluation on a hard-of-hearing person
2.2	131
	132	\|\\
	133	\|Laura Ottevanger\|\\
	134
1.2	135	* Review use cases
	136	* Add a future work page indicating our future work, and also that we would have liked to incorporate snoezelen
	137	* Elaborate on limitations of MiRo
	138	* Add research on interactions between elderly people and/or PwD's and robots + any other relevant research on the effect of pets/robots on PwD's.
2.2	139
	140	\|\\
	141
	142	* Reviewed use cases and made small changes
	143	* Asked for the future work page and mentioned snoezelen in future work
	144	* Elaborated on the limitations
	145	* Did research on existing robots
	146
2.3	147	\|\\
2.2	148
2.3	149	\|Rohan Sobha\|
2.2	150
1.2	151	* Review current claims and perhaps add upon sections with small amounts of text/description
	152	* Add sources on why autonomy is important (basically just link to Self Determination Theory)
	153	* Check if we can validate claims with evaluation
2.2	154
	155	\|\\
	156
1.2	157	* Reviewed current claims
	158	* Added the sources on why autonomy is important
2.3	159	* Validated claims with evaluation
2.2	160
2.3	161	\|\\
2.2	162	\|Ricardo Vogel\|\\
	163
1.2	164	* Lecture slides state "Persona's need to have goals". Cornelia and Constantijn have these (to some extent), but Marcus does not yet
	165	* Create a technology disliking persona scenario
	166	* Create for each scenario a 'before' and 'after technology' piece
	167	* Make team design pattern into something that is not drawn
	168	* Make team design pattern including the caretaker
	169	* Create diagrams for IDP's
2.2	170
	171	\|\\
	172
1.2	173	* Added goals for Marcus
	174	* Created a new persona
	175	* Created for each scenario a 'before' and 'after technology' piece
	176	* Completed new design pattern drawing in the final week
	177	* Completed including the caretaker in the final week
	178	* -
	179
2.2	180	\|\\
	181	\|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.\|\\
	182
	183	= Week 8 =
	184
4.1	185	End presentation
2.2	186
	187	\|Member\|Task\|Reflection\|\\
4.1	188	\|Tim Huisman\|
2.2	189
2.1	190	* Robotic Partner: Read through robotic partner and add one citation in the todo
	191	* Objectives: Remove Snoezelen from Objectives and expand Objectives
	192	* Future work: Move everything Snoezelen related to future work and make a coherent story
	193	* Future work: Write about the suggestions for other tests from the presentation in Future work e.g. test way of attention-grabbing
	194	* Conclusion: Write a nice end chapter/conclusion on how it went and summarize the results.
2.2	195
	196	\|\\
	197
1.3	198	* Changed robotic partner and added the citation
	199	* Removed Snoezelen and expanded Objectives
	200	* Move everything Snoezelen related to future work and make a coherent story
	201	* Wrote about other tests in future work
	202	* Wrote the conclusion and summary
2.2	203
	204	\|\\
	205	\|Harmen Kroon\|\\
	206
2.1	207	* Stakeholders and Problem Scenario: Write 2 sentences as an intro for stakeholders and problem scenario
	208	* Stakeholders and Problem Scenario: Read through the stakeholders and problem scenario
	209	* Human factors - Design pattern and ontology: Cite some references in Ontology
	210	* Claims: Expand Claims
	211	* Ontology: Add a second Ontology
2.2	212
	213	\|\\
	214
1.3	215	* Intro has been written
	216	* Has been read through
	217	* Cited some references in Ontology
	218	* Expanded claims
	219	* Added extra ontology
2.2	220
	221	\|\\
	222	\|Jeffrey Lim\|\\
	223
1.3	224	* 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.
	225	* 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
1.4	226	* Music management: Explanation of why we do not use music + what we do use + talk about the video of alarm here
2.1	227	* Future Work: Add limitations and how we would solve them in future work.
2.2	228
	229	\|\\
	230
1.3	231	* Added why doglike sounds are beneficial for walking and added a small chapter on music and cognition
1.4	232	* Wrote text in the theoretical foundation
1.3	233	* -
	234	* -
2.2	235
	236	\|\\
	237	\|Doreen Mulder\|\\
	238
1.3	239	* Measuring Instruments: cite papers about what we use for evaluation
	240	* Inclusive design: Clean up sources or notify what needs to be done on the page
2.1	241	* Discussion: Add Discussion after the results and ensure that the results are just numbers
	242	* 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.
2.2	243
	244	\|\\
	245
1.3	246	* Cited papers in teamwork with Rohan
	247	* Added sources and created the page
1.4	248	* Added Discussion and changed results
	249	* Has been put in Test as it might suit better for now
2.2	250
	251	\|\\
	252	\|Laura Ottevanger\|\\
	253
1.4	254	* Introduction - Rewrite: problem, solution, what is where.
2.1	255	* Technology: Move MiRo difficulties to Technology
	256	* Technology: Specify specific limitations and technical options for MiRo
1.4	257	* Add code to Gitlab
2.1	258	* Prototype: Talk about the code in the Prototype chapter
	259	* Future Work: Add limitations and how we would solve them in future work.
	260	* Perform Wilcoxon test on test data
2.2	261
	262	\|\\
	263
1.4	264	* Created a small introduction
	265	* Rewrote difficulties a bit to add it to Technology
	266	* Specified specific limitations and technical options for MiRo for the next group as well
	267	* Add code as snippets to Gitlab
	268	* Talked about the code in the Prototype chapter
	269	* Added limitations and how we would solve them in future work.
	270	* Wilcoxon test has been performed
2.2	271
	272	\|\\
	273	\|Rohan Sobha\|\\
	274
1.3	275	* Measuring Instruments: cite papers about what we use for evaluation
1.4	276	* Human-agent teamwork: Talk about humans and robots working together based on literature
	277	* Use cases: Read through and check for (grammatical) mistakes
	278	* Test: Rewrite to make it a bit more specific, ensure that the test is reproducible, add the Wilcoxon test
2.1	279	* Future work: Add Snoezelen in the context of the evaluation
	280	* Conclusion: Write a nice end chapter/conclusion on how it went and summarize the results.
2.2	281
	282	\|\\
	283
1.3	284	* Cited papers in teamwork with Doreen
1.4	285	* Added the Human-agent teamwork page and elaborated on working together
	286	* Use cases have been read through
	287	* Test page has been rewritten to adhere to the requirements
	288	* Added Snoezelen in future work
	289	* Wrote a nice end chapter/conclusion.
2.2	290
	291	\|\\
	292	\|Ricardo Vogel\|\\
	293
2.1	294	* Environments and Personas: Write 2 sentences as an intro on the basic Operational Demands page.
	295	* Environments and Personas: Read through and check if correct.
	296	* Human factors - Design pattern and ontology: Cite some references
4.1	297	* Design patterns: Reread and change the picture
2.1	298	* Design patterns: Add caretaker in team design pattern
2.2	299
	300	\|\\
	301
2.1	302	* The introduction for Environments and Personas has been made
	303	* Have been read through
	304	* References in the design patterns have been made
	305	* New picture has been created
	306	* Caretaker has been added
2.2	307
	308	\|\\
4.1	309	\|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.\|\\