Skip to Content
Last modified by Mathieu Jung-Muller on 2022/04/04 13:55
From version Icon 14.1 Icon
edited by Pierre Bongrand
on 2022/03/30 00:47
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 11.1 Icon
edited by Mathieu Jung-Muller
on 2022/03/30 00:28
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.PierreBongrand
1 +XWiki.Mathieu
Content
... ... @@ -9,7 +9,9 @@
9 9  **RANKING/ validation**
10 10  
11 11  )))|(((
12 -When Pepper is playing music this can clearly be heard by the PwD, and other evaluators around, so this IDP is empirically testable.
12 +//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
13 +When Pepper is playing music this can clearly be heard by the PwD, and other evaluators around so this IDP is empirically testable.
14 +
13 13  )))
14 14  |(((
15 15  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
... ... @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
16 16  
17 17  
18 18  )))|(((
21 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
22 +
19 19  Here the interaction intention of the IDP is to gently remind/alert the PwD about the presence of Pepper around the room. This is in order not to startle the PwD by directly talking to them, but rather providing a gentle musical reminder of interaction about to take place. Sometimes the PwD might want to listen to some music for entertainment purposes and this IDP can also be applied in that scenario.
20 20  )))
21 21  |(((
... ... @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
23 23  
24 24  
25 25  )))|(((
30 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
26 26  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
27 27  * Alert the PwD before an interaction takes place
28 28  * Wake up reminder for PwD
... ... @@ -34,6 +34,8 @@
34 34  
35 35  
36 36  )))|(((
42 +//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
43 +
37 37  This IDP contains minimal interaction, and only consists of Pepper playing music. The musical tone that will play in a specific scenario is pre-programmed for each activity. Hence the solution for gentle reminders for interaction about to happen for PwD, is to simply play some gentle reminder music.
38 38  In the case where this IDP is used for the entertainment of the PwD (external usecase), a list of songs that the PwD enjoys can be programmed into Pepper and played when the usecase is activated.
39 39  )))
... ... @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@
42 42  
43 43  
44 44  )))|(((
52 +//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
53 +
45 45  According to many studies music has shown to have a dramatic effect on people with dementia in terms of improving recollection and making them feel more calm overall. (Citations needed) Due to these researches we decided to incorporate it not only for entertainment purposes, but also for some gentle reminder purposes.
46 46  )))
47 47  |(((
... ... @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
49 49  
50 50  
51 51  )))|(((
61 +//Illustration (eg. picture, screenshot, animated graphic, video etc.) of an implementation of the design solution in a ‘real-life’ application, and include a short explanation describing the context of use.//
62 +
52 52  TBD (should we include or not?)
53 53  )))
54 54  
... ... @@ -63,7 +63,8 @@
63 63  
64 64  
65 65  )))|(((
66 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper asking this question.
77 +//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
78 +This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper asking this question.
67 67  
68 68  )))
69 69  |(((
... ... @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@
71 71  
72 72  
73 73  )))|(((
86 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
87 +
74 74  It is important to understand whether the PwD did a particular task or not. Tasks such as taking medicine or eating a meal are crucial, and understanding whether the PwD has successfully done this is an important first step to many reminder tasks.
75 75  )))
76 76  |(((
... ... @@ -78,6 +78,8 @@
78 78  
79 79  
80 80  )))|(((
95 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
96 +
81 81  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
82 82  * Understanding whether the PwD has taken medication before reminding them
83 83  * Understanding whether the PwD has eaten a meal before reminding them
... ... @@ -88,6 +88,8 @@
88 88  
89 89  
90 90  )))|(((
107 +//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
108 +
91 91  The solution consists of explicitly asking the PwD whether they have already performed a particular task. The response from PwD can either be yes or no, and depending on that Pepper proceeds with the next step. Simply asking the PwD whether they have performed a task is the best way to ensure a clear and concise reply which is understandable.
92 92  
93 93  )))
... ... @@ -96,6 +96,8 @@
96 96  
97 97  
98 98  )))|(((
117 +//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
118 +
99 99  Here instead of assessing from visual cues whether the PwD has conducted a particular task, a verbal approach is taken. This is due to Pepper's limitations in constantly being around the PwD. Although simply verbally asking whether the PwD performed a certain task might seem too straightforward, it ensures that important information is conveyed in the most explicit manner.
100 100  
101 101  )))
... ... @@ -104,6 +104,8 @@
104 104  
105 105  
106 106  )))|(((
127 +//Illustration (eg. picture, screenshot, animated graphic, video etc.) of an implementation of the design solution in a ‘real-life’ application, and include a short explanation describing the context of use.//
128 +
107 107  TBD (should we include or not?)
108 108  )))
109 109  
... ... @@ -118,7 +118,8 @@
118 118  
119 119  
120 120  )))|(((
121 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper reminding the PwD to do the task.
143 +//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
144 +This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper reminding the PwD to do the task.
122 122  
123 123  )))
124 124  |(((
... ... @@ -126,6 +126,8 @@
126 126  
127 127  
128 128  )))|(((
152 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
153 +
129 129  The idea of this design pattern is to verbally remind the PwD of an upcoming task. Such tasks can include medicine reminders, meal reminders etc. The intended effect on the user would be that they are reminded to do this particular task if they have not done it already. It also takes some of the burden away from primary caregivers and partners to do such a reminding job constantly.
130 130  )))
131 131  |(((
... ... @@ -133,6 +133,8 @@
133 133  
134 134  
135 135  )))|(((
161 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
162 +
136 136  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
137 137  * Reminding the PwD to take medication if they have not done so already
138 138  * Reminding the PwD to eat food if they have not done so already
... ... @@ -143,6 +143,8 @@
143 143  
144 144  
145 145  )))|(((
173 +//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
174 +
146 146  The design solution consists of Pepper reminding the PwD to do a particular task if they have not done it already. We ensure this reminder is only activated when the PwD has not performed the task in order not to overwhelm them with something they have already done. The goal of the pattern is to successfully remind and encourage the PwD to perform an essential task they should do.
147 147  )))
148 148  |(((
... ... @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@
150 150  
151 151  
152 152  )))|(((
182 +//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
153 153  A verbal reminder here works better than a simple reminder on the phone, as would happen commonly these days. Also we believe that having Pepper as a physical being there might encourage the PwD to take such reminders with higher importance than a simple notification. On top of that, phone reminders would mean that the PwD is familiar with this kind of technology, which is not necessarily the case.
154 154  
155 155  )))
... ... @@ -157,6 +157,8 @@
157 157  **EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
158 158  
159 159  )))|(((
190 +//Illustration (eg. picture, screenshot, animated graphic, video etc.) of an implementation of the design solution in a ‘real-life’ application, and include a short explanation describing the context of use.//
191 +
160 160  TBD (should we include or not?)
161 161  )))
162 162  
... ... @@ -171,7 +171,8 @@
171 171  
172 172  
173 173  )))|(((
174 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper asking the PwD for confirmation.
206 +//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
207 +This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper asking the PwD for confirmation.
175 175  
176 176  )))
177 177  |(((
... ... @@ -179,6 +179,8 @@
179 179  
180 180  
181 181  )))|(((
215 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
216 +
182 182  This design pattern occurs hand in hand with Pepper just having told the PwD to do a certain task or activity step. The intention is to understand whether this task was successfully done by the PwD. This ensures the PwD had indeed successfully completed a certain task, which in some case may be crucial.
183 183  )))
184 184  |(((
... ... @@ -186,6 +186,8 @@
186 186  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
187 187  
188 188  )))|(((
224 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
225 +
189 189  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
190 190  * Asking for confirmation of having taken medication
191 191  * Asking for confirmation of having eaten a meal
... ... @@ -197,6 +197,8 @@
197 197  
198 198  
199 199  )))|(((
237 +//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
238 +
200 200  The design solution consists of Pepper asking for a verbal confirmation of having done a task. The user is prompted with a closed question such as "have you done it?," and is expected to reply in a truthful manner. Pepper will not move on unless a positive confirmation is given, in order to ensure successful completion of crucial tasks.
201 201  )))
202 202  |(((
... ... @@ -204,13 +204,17 @@
204 204  
205 205  
206 206  )))|(((
207 -The solution consists of explicitly asking the PwD whether they have already performed a particular task. The response from PwD can either be positive or negative, and depending on that Pepper proceeds with the next step. Simply asking the PwD whether they have performed a task is the best way to ensure a clear and concise reply which is understandable.
246 +//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
208 208  
248 +The solution consists of explicitly asking the PwD whether they have already performed a particular task. The response from PwD can either be yes or no, and depending on that Pepper proceeds with the next step. Simply asking the PwD whether they have performed a task is the best way to ensure a clear and concise reply which is understandable.
249 +
209 209  )))
210 210  |(((
211 211  **EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
212 212  
213 213  )))|(((
255 +//Illustration (eg. picture, screenshot, animated graphic, video etc.) of an implementation of the design solution in a ‘real-life’ application, and include a short explanation describing the context of use.//
256 +
214 214  TBD (should we include or not?)
215 215  )))
216 216  
... ... @@ -225,7 +225,8 @@
225 225  
226 226  
227 227  )))|(((
228 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper congratulating the PwD.
271 +//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
272 +This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper congratulating the PwD.
229 229  )))
230 230  |(((
231 231  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
... ... @@ -232,7 +232,9 @@
232 232  
233 233  
234 234  )))|(((
235 -This design pattern is used to verbally congratulate the PwD, and make them feel about about a task that they just accomplished. This is to lift the spirits of the PwD and make them enjoy and want to do certain tasks.
279 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
280 +
281 +This design pattern is used to verbally congratulate the PwD, and make the feel about about a task that they just accomplished. This is to lift the spirits of the PwD and make the enjoy and want to do certain tasks.
236 236  )))
237 237  |(((
238 238  
... ... @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@
239 239  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
240 240  
241 241  )))|(((
288 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
289 +
242 242  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
243 243  * Congratulate the PwD for having taken medication
244 244  * Congratulate the PwD for having eaten medication
... ... @@ -250,6 +250,8 @@
250 250  
251 251  
252 252  )))|(((
301 +//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
302 +
253 253  This IDP is quite basic and simply pre-programmed into Pepper. Simply congratulating the PwD for finishing a certain task or activity is sufficient.
254 254  )))
255 255  |(((
... ... @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@
258 258  
259 259  )))|(((
260 260  //Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
261 -This IDP was added in order to give the PwD a feeling of accomplishment after doing a task that might have been challenging for them. Giving some encouragement can aid in finding enjoyment in and remembering such tasks.
311 + This IDP was added in order to give the PwD a feeling of accomplishment after doing a task that might have been challenging for them. Giving some encouragement can aid in finding enjoyment in and remembering such tasks.
262 262  
263 263  )))
264 264  |(((
... ... @@ -265,6 +265,8 @@
265 265  **EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
266 266  
267 267  )))|(((
318 +//Illustration (eg. picture, screenshot, animated graphic, video etc.) of an implementation of the design solution in a ‘real-life’ application, and include a short explanation describing the context of use.//
319 +
268 268  TBD (should we include or not?)
269 269  )))
270 270  
... ... @@ -279,7 +279,8 @@
279 279  
280 280  
281 281  )))|(((
282 -This can be tested by performing some other IDPs, which refer to utilizing the breakdown of a particular activity. Since this is for now hard-coded into Pepper, it is not empirically testable.
334 +//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
335 +This can be tested by performing some other IDPs, which refer to utilizing the breakdown of a particular activity. Since this some programmed into Pepper, it is not empirically testable.
283 283  )))
284 284  |(((
285 285  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
... ... @@ -286,7 +286,9 @@
286 286  
287 287  
288 288  )))|(((
289 -This design pattern is used by the HCP (or a relative) to enter some activities into Pepper, that the PwD might personally enjoy. This is so that Pepper's system contains the breakdown to certain desired activities.
342 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
343 +
344 +This design pattern is used by the HPC inorder to enter some activities into Pepper, that that the PwD might personally enjoy. This is so that Pepper's system contains the breakdown to certain desired activities.
290 290  )))
291 291  |(((
292 292  
... ... @@ -293,6 +293,8 @@
293 293  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
294 294  
295 295  )))|(((
351 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
352 +
296 296  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
297 297  * PwD wants to perform a new activity
298 298  * Pepper is not yet personalized to the particular PwD
... ... @@ -302,7 +302,9 @@
302 302  
303 303  
304 304  )))|(((
305 -The interface has not been implemented. Ideally, the interface designed is easy to use, HCP and relatives are not required to have very high technical knowledge.
362 +//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
363 +
364 +Here in order to easy configuration of Pepper, we will utilize the tablet feature where the HPC can enter activity steps. This is so that the caregiver also has some autonomy over Pepper rather than just the developers. The interface designed is easy to use as, HCPs are not required to have very high technical knowledge.
306 306  )))
307 307  |(((
308 308  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
... ... @@ -309,7 +309,8 @@
309 309  
310 310  
311 311  )))|(((
312 -We allow the HCP to provide steps as they are the ones that have spent a significant amount of time with the PwD and know about their likes and dislikes. In this case, they can also provide the steps in the complexity they think the PwD will understand, rather than simply having some arbitrary steps from the internet.
371 +//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
372 +We allow the HPC to provide steps has they are they ones that have spent a significant amount of time with the PwD and know about their likes and dislikes. In this case they can also provide the steps in the complexity they think the PwD will understand, rather than having some arbitrary step up of steps from the internet.
313 313  
314 314  )))
315 315  |(((
... ... @@ -316,6 +316,8 @@
316 316  **EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
317 317  
318 318  )))|(((
379 +//Illustration (eg. picture, screenshot, animated graphic, video etc.) of an implementation of the design solution in a ‘real-life’ application, and include a short explanation describing the context of use.//
380 +
319 319  TBD (should we include or not?)
320 320  )))
321 321  
... ... @@ -330,7 +330,8 @@
330 330  
331 331  
332 332  )))|(((
333 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper saying a step to the PwD.
395 +//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
396 +This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper saying a step to the PwD.
334 334  
335 335  )))
336 336  |(((
... ... @@ -338,6 +338,8 @@
338 338  
339 339  
340 340  )))|(((
404 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
405 +
341 341  This design pattern is used to tell the PwD the next step in a certain activity breakdown. This activity can be anything, and the steps are added by the HCP into Pepper's system as a prerequisite.
342 342  )))
343 343  |(((
... ... @@ -345,6 +345,8 @@
345 345  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
346 346  
347 347  )))|(((
413 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
414 +
348 348  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
349 349  * PwD needs the next step for a gardening activity
350 350  * PwD needs the next step for making a paper plane
... ... @@ -354,7 +354,8 @@
354 354  
355 355  
356 356  )))|(((
357 -Here, already having the activity broken down into certain steps is very crucial. Also Pepper needs to say these steps verbally so the user can hear and act appropriately.
424 +//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
425 +Here already having the activity broken down into certain steps is very crucial. Also Pepper needs to stay these steps verbally so the user can hear and act appropriately.
358 358  )))
359 359  |(((
360 360  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
... ... @@ -361,12 +361,15 @@
361 361  
362 362  
363 363  )))|(((
364 -A verbal step here works better than merely following steps from a website, as would happen commonly these days. Also we believe that having Pepper as a physical being there might encourage the PwD to perform activities they used to enjoy, with higher frequency as Pepper would come up to them and ask them if they want to take part in an activity they enjoy.
432 +//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
433 +A verbal step here works better than a simply following steps from a website, as would happen commonly these days. Also we believe that having Pepper's as a physical being there might encourage the PwD to perform activities they used to enjoy with higher frequency as Pepper would come up to them and ask them in they want to take part in an activity they enjoy.
365 365  )))
366 366  |(((
367 367  **EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
368 368  
369 369  )))|(((
439 +//Illustration (eg. picture, screenshot, animated graphic, video etc.) of an implementation of the design solution in a ‘real-life’ application, and include a short explanation describing the context of use.//
440 +
370 370  TBD (should we include or not?)
371 371  )))
372 372