Skip to Content
Last modified by Mathieu Jung-Muller on 2022/04/04 13:55
From version Icon 29.1 Icon
edited by Sneha Lodha
on 2022/04/02 15:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 4.1 Icon
edited by Sneha Lodha
on 2022/03/23 20:20
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,21 +1,33 @@
1 1  (% style="background-color:#ffffff; font-size:14px" %)
2 2  
3 -== IDP01==
4 -[[image:idp1.jpg||width="150" height="150"]]
3 +== IDP001==
4 +{{html}}
5 +<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp1.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP001" width="350"/>
6 +{{/html}}
5 5  
6 6  |(((
7 -**RANKING/ validation**
9 +**RANKING/ validation**
10 +
8 8  )))|(((
9 -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 +
14 +TBD
10 10  )))
11 11  |(((
12 -**DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
17 +**DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
18 +
19 +
13 13  )))|(((
21 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
22 +
14 14  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.
15 15  )))
16 16  |(((
17 17  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
27 +
28 +
18 18  )))|(((
30 +//References to a list of the contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
19 19  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
20 20  * Alert the PwD before an interaction takes place
21 21  * Wake up reminder for PwD
... ... @@ -24,35 +24,64 @@
24 24  )))
25 25  |(((
26 26  **DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
39 +
40 +
27 27  )))|(((
42 +//Description of the essential characteristics of the solution that express the interaction intention.//
43 +
28 28  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.
29 29  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.
30 30  )))
31 31  |(((
32 32  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
49 +
50 +
33 33  )))|(((
34 -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 [1][2]. Due to these researches we decided to incorporate it not only for entertainment purposes, but also for some gentle reminder purposes.
52 +//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
53 +
54 +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.
35 35  )))
56 +|(((
57 +**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
36 36  
59 +
60 +)))|(((
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.//
37 37  
38 -== IDP02==
63 +TBD (should we include or not?)
64 +)))
65 +
66 +
67 +== IDP002==
39 39  {{html}}
40 -<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp2.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP02" width="350"/>
69 +<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp2.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP002" width="350"/>
41 41  {{/html}}
42 42  
43 43  |(((
44 44  **RANKING/ validation**
74 +
75 +
45 45  )))|(((
46 -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 +
79 +TBD
47 47  )))
48 48  |(((
49 49  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
83 +
84 +
50 50  )))|(((
86 +//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
87 +
51 51  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.
52 52  )))
53 53  |(((
54 -**CONTEXT (use when…)**
91 +**CONTEXT (use when…)**
92 +
93 +
55 55  )))|(((
95 +//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
96 +
56 56  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
57 57  * Understanding whether the PwD has taken medication before reminding them
58 58  * Understanding whether the PwD has eaten a meal before reminding them
... ... @@ -59,192 +59,417 @@
59 59  The list can be further expanded as more crucial task usecases are added.
60 60  )))
61 61  |(((
62 -**DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
103 +**DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
104 +
105 +
63 63  )))|(((
64 -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.
107 +//Description of the essential characteristics of the solution that express the interaction intention.//
108 +
109 +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.
110 +
65 65  )))
66 66  |(((
67 67  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
114 +
115 +
68 68  )))|(((
117 +//Trade-offs and the argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
118 +
69 69  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.
120 +
70 70  )))
122 +|(((
123 +**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
71 71  
125 +
126 +)))|(((
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.//
72 72  
73 -== IDP03==
129 +TBD (should we include or not?)
130 +)))
131 +
132 +
133 +== IDP003==
74 74  {{html}}
75 -<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp3.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP03" width="350"/>
135 +<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp3.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP003" width="350"/>
76 76  {{/html}}
77 77  
78 78  |(((
79 79  **RANKING/ validation**
140 +
141 +
80 80  )))|(((
81 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper reminding the PwD to do the task.
143 +//Provide a notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
144 +
145 +The ranking should indicate the validity of the patterns premise. It can help the reader to distinguish early pattern ideas from patterns confirmed in practice (Borchers, 2001b).
146 +
147 +
82 82  )))
83 83  |(((
84 -**DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
150 +**DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
151 +
152 +
85 85  )))|(((
86 -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.
154 +//Provide a concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
155 +
156 +The design problem describes the design problem in terms of the interaction intention. The intention of an interaction can be extracted from the user requirements. For the example of praise (the ePartner shall provide and/or facilitate situated praise) this could be to give the user a feeling of appraisal. If the requirement were about conducting small talk, the interaction intention would be something in line with making the user feel at ease with the ePartner.
157 +
158 +
87 87  )))
88 88  |(((
89 89  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
162 +
163 +
90 90  )))|(((
91 -This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
92 -* Reminding the PwD to take medication if they have not done so already
93 -* Reminding the PwD to eat food if they have not done so already
94 -The list can be further expanded as more crucial task usecases are added.
165 +//Provide a reference to the relevant use case(s) and a list of the contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
166 +
167 +The context describes the characteristics of the tasks, the users, and the environment for which the pattern can be applied. This should provide the designer insight in when the design pattern can be used, and when the design pattern is less suitable
168 +
169 +The use cases already provide the situational factors (e.g., dialogue partner(s), physical and social context, interaction platform, and dialogue context) that influence the design solution (specific embodiment of the dialogue). The design pattern should only list the contextual characteristics that determine in what situation the design solution can be applied.
170 +
171 +
95 95  )))
96 96  |(((
97 97  **DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
175 +
176 +
98 98  )))|(((
99 -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.
178 +//Provide a description of the essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
179 +
180 +The design solution provides a concrete description of the solution for the design problem. This encompasses the specific shape of the dialogue by describing what characteristics express the intended interaction within the given context. So what verbal and non-verbal communication should be used, what dialogue rules should be followed etc. Only the core of the solution should be described, references to other relevant patterns can be used.
181 +
182 +
100 100  )))
101 101  |(((
102 102  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
186 +
187 +
103 103  )))|(((
104 -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.
189 +//Provide the considered trade-offs and the argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
190 +
191 +The rationale provides insight in how the design pattern works, why it works and how it is based on underlying principles and mechanisms (Van Welie et al., 2000). It provides a convincing argumentation on the effects of the chosen design solution, including trade-offs. It includes premises that may need empirical validation.
192 +
193 +
105 105  )))
195 +|(((
196 +**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
106 106  
198 +
199 +)))|(((
200 +//Provide an 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.//
107 107  
108 -== IDP04==
202 +The examples should show successful uses of the pattern (e.g. best practices, as seen on….). It shows how the pattern can manifest itself differently in various ‘real-life’ applications.
203 +)))
204 +|**RELATED PATTERNS**|(((
205 +//Provide the names and/or links of related patterns.//
206 +
207 +Links to any related patterns should be mentioned here. For example, a parent pattern (similar interaction intention, higher in the abstraction hierarchy), sister pattern (similar interaction intention, same abstraction level) and/or other relating patterns (different interaction intention, but in another way related to context and/or product characteristics of the design solution).
208 +)))
209 +
210 +== IDP004==
109 109  {{html}}
110 -<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp4.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP04" width="350"/>
212 +<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp4.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP004" width="350"/>
111 111  {{/html}}
112 112  
113 113  |(((
114 114  **RANKING/ validation**
217 +
218 +
115 115  )))|(((
116 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper asking the PwD for confirmation.
220 +//Provide a notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
221 +
222 +The ranking should indicate the validity of the patterns premise. It can help the reader to distinguish early pattern ideas from patterns confirmed in practice (Borchers, 2001b).
223 +
224 +
117 117  )))
118 118  |(((
119 119  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
228 +
229 +
120 120  )))|(((
121 -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.
231 +//Provide a concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
232 +
233 +The design problem describes the design problem in terms of the interaction intention. The intention of an interaction can be extracted from the user requirements. For the example of praise (the ePartner shall provide and/or facilitate situated praise) this could be to give the user a feeling of appraisal. If the requirement were about conducting small talk, the interaction intention would be something in line with making the user feel at ease with the ePartner.
234 +
235 +
122 122  )))
123 123  |(((
124 124  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
239 +
240 +
125 125  )))|(((
126 -This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
127 -* Asking for confirmation of having taken medication
128 -* Asking for confirmation of having eaten a meal
129 -* Asking for confirmation of having done an activity step
130 -The list can be further expanded as more crucial task usecases are added.
242 +//Provide a reference to the relevant use case(s) and a list of the contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
243 +
244 +The context describes the characteristics of the tasks, the users, and the environment for which the pattern can be applied. This should provide the designer insight in when the design pattern can be used, and when the design pattern is less suitable
245 +
246 +The use cases already provide the situational factors (e.g., dialogue partner(s), physical and social context, interaction platform, and dialogue context) that influence the design solution (specific embodiment of the dialogue). The design pattern should only list the contextual characteristics that determine in what situation the design solution can be applied.
247 +
248 +
131 131  )))
132 132  |(((
133 133  **DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
252 +
253 +
134 134  )))|(((
135 -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.
255 +//Provide a description of the essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
256 +
257 +The design solution provides a concrete description of the solution for the design problem. This encompasses the specific shape of the dialogue by describing what characteristics express the intended interaction within the given context. So what verbal and non-verbal communication should be used, what dialogue rules should be followed etc. Only the core of the solution should be described, references to other relevant patterns can be used.
258 +
259 +
136 136  )))
137 137  |(((
138 138  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
263 +
264 +
139 139  )))|(((
140 -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.
266 +//Provide the considered trade-offs and the argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
267 +
268 +The rationale provides insight in how the design pattern works, why it works and how it is based on underlying principles and mechanisms (Van Welie et al., 2000). It provides a convincing argumentation on the effects of the chosen design solution, including trade-offs. It includes premises that may need empirical validation.
269 +
270 +
141 141  )))
272 +|(((
273 +**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
142 142  
275 +
276 +)))|(((
277 +//Provide an 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.//
143 143  
144 -== IDP05==
279 +The examples should show successful uses of the pattern (e.g. best practices, as seen on….). It shows how the pattern can manifest itself differently in various ‘real-life’ applications.
280 +)))
281 +|**RELATED PATTERNS**|(((
282 +//Provide the names and/or links of related patterns.//
283 +
284 +Links to any related patterns should be mentioned here. For example, a parent pattern (similar interaction intention, higher in the abstraction hierarchy), sister pattern (similar interaction intention, same abstraction level) and/or other relating patterns (different interaction intention, but in another way related to context and/or product characteristics of the design solution).
285 +)))
286 +
287 +== IDP005==
145 145  {{html}}
146 -<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp5.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP05" width="350"/>
289 +<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp5.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP005" width="350"/>
147 147  {{/html}}
148 148  
149 149  |(((
150 -**RANKING/ validation**
293 +**RANKING/ validation**
294 +
295 +
151 151  )))|(((
152 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper congratulating the PwD.
297 +//Provide a notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
298 +
299 +The ranking should indicate the validity of the patterns premise. It can help the reader to distinguish early pattern ideas from patterns confirmed in practice (Borchers, 2001b).
300 +
301 +
153 153  )))
154 154  |(((
155 155  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
305 +
306 +
156 156  )))|(((
157 -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.
308 +//Provide a concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
309 +
310 +The design problem describes the design problem in terms of the interaction intention. The intention of an interaction can be extracted from the user requirements. For the example of praise (the ePartner shall provide and/or facilitate situated praise) this could be to give the user a feeling of appraisal. If the requirement were about conducting small talk, the interaction intention would be something in line with making the user feel at ease with the ePartner.
311 +
312 +
158 158  )))
159 159  |(((
160 160  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
316 +
317 +
161 161  )))|(((
162 -This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
163 -* Congratulate the PwD for having taken medication
164 -* Congratulate the PwD for having eaten medication
165 -* Congratulate the PwD for doing a particular activity completely
166 -The list can be further expanded as more task usecases are added.
319 +//Provide a reference to the relevant use case(s) and a list of the contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
320 +
321 +The context describes the characteristics of the tasks, the users, and the environment for which the pattern can be applied. This should provide the designer insight in when the design pattern can be used, and when the design pattern is less suitable
322 +
323 +The use cases already provide the situational factors (e.g., dialogue partner(s), physical and social context, interaction platform, and dialogue context) that influence the design solution (specific embodiment of the dialogue). The design pattern should only list the contextual characteristics that determine in what situation the design solution can be applied.
324 +
325 +
167 167  )))
168 168  |(((
169 169  **DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
329 +
330 +
170 170  )))|(((
171 -This IDP is quite basic and simply pre-programmed into Pepper. Simply congratulating the PwD for finishing a certain task or activity is sufficient.
332 +//Provide a description of the essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
333 +
334 +The design solution provides a concrete description of the solution for the design problem. This encompasses the specific shape of the dialogue by describing what characteristics express the intended interaction within the given context. So what verbal and non-verbal communication should be used, what dialogue rules should be followed etc. Only the core of the solution should be described, references to other relevant patterns can be used.
335 +
336 +
172 172  )))
173 173  |(((
174 174  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
340 +
341 +
175 175  )))|(((
176 -//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
177 -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.
343 +//Provide the considered trade-offs and the argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
344 +
345 +The rationale provides insight in how the design pattern works, why it works and how it is based on underlying principles and mechanisms (Van Welie et al., 2000). It provides a convincing argumentation on the effects of the chosen design solution, including trade-offs. It includes premises that may need empirical validation.
346 +
347 +
178 178  )))
349 +|(((
350 +**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
179 179  
352 +
353 +)))|(((
354 +//Provide an 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.//
180 180  
181 -== IDP06==
356 +The examples should show successful uses of the pattern (e.g. best practices, as seen on….). It shows how the pattern can manifest itself differently in various ‘real-life’ applications.
357 +)))
358 +|**RELATED PATTERNS**|(((
359 +//Provide the names and/or links of related patterns.//
360 +
361 +Links to any related patterns should be mentioned here. For example, a parent pattern (similar interaction intention, higher in the abstraction hierarchy), sister pattern (similar interaction intention, same abstraction level) and/or other relating patterns (different interaction intention, but in another way related to context and/or product characteristics of the design solution).
362 +)))
363 +
364 +== IDP006==
182 182  {{html}}
183 -<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp6.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP06s" width="350"/>
366 +<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp6.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP006" width="350"/>
184 184  {{/html}}
185 185  
186 186  |(((
187 187  **RANKING/ validation**
371 +
372 +
188 188  )))|(((
189 -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.
374 +//Provide a notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
375 +
376 +The ranking should indicate the validity of the patterns premise. It can help the reader to distinguish early pattern ideas from patterns confirmed in practice (Borchers, 2001b).
377 +
378 +
190 190  )))
191 191  |(((
192 192  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
382 +
383 +
193 193  )))|(((
194 -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.
385 +//Provide a concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
386 +
387 +The design problem describes the design problem in terms of the interaction intention. The intention of an interaction can be extracted from the user requirements. For the example of praise (the ePartner shall provide and/or facilitate situated praise) this could be to give the user a feeling of appraisal. If the requirement were about conducting small talk, the interaction intention would be something in line with making the user feel at ease with the ePartner.
388 +
389 +
195 195  )))
196 196  |(((
197 197  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
393 +
394 +
198 198  )))|(((
199 -This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
200 -* PwD wants to perform a new activity
201 -* Pepper is not yet personalized to the particular PwD
396 +//Provide a reference to the relevant use case(s) and a list of the contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
397 +
398 +The context describes the characteristics of the tasks, the users, and the environment for which the pattern can be applied. This should provide the designer insight in when the design pattern can be used, and when the design pattern is less suitable
399 +
400 +The use cases already provide the situational factors (e.g., dialogue partner(s), physical and social context, interaction platform, and dialogue context) that influence the design solution (specific embodiment of the dialogue). The design pattern should only list the contextual characteristics that determine in what situation the design solution can be applied.
401 +
402 +
202 202  )))
203 203  |(((
204 204  **DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
406 +
407 +
205 205  )))|(((
206 -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.
409 +//Provide a description of the essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
410 +
411 +The design solution provides a concrete description of the solution for the design problem. This encompasses the specific shape of the dialogue by describing what characteristics express the intended interaction within the given context. So what verbal and non-verbal communication should be used, what dialogue rules should be followed etc. Only the core of the solution should be described, references to other relevant patterns can be used.
412 +
413 +
207 207  )))
208 208  |(((
209 209  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
417 +
418 +
210 210  )))|(((
211 -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.
420 +//Provide the considered trade-offs and the argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
421 +
422 +The rationale provides insight in how the design pattern works, why it works and how it is based on underlying principles and mechanisms (Van Welie et al., 2000). It provides a convincing argumentation on the effects of the chosen design solution, including trade-offs. It includes premises that may need empirical validation.
423 +
424 +
212 212  )))
426 +|(((
427 +**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
213 213  
429 +
430 +)))|(((
431 +//Provide an 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.//
214 214  
215 -== IDP07==
433 +The examples should show successful uses of the pattern (e.g. best practices, as seen on….). It shows how the pattern can manifest itself differently in various ‘real-life’ applications.
434 +)))
435 +|**RELATED PATTERNS**|(((
436 +//Provide the names and/or links of related patterns.//
437 +
438 +Links to any related patterns should be mentioned here. For example, a parent pattern (similar interaction intention, higher in the abstraction hierarchy), sister pattern (similar interaction intention, same abstraction level) and/or other relating patterns (different interaction intention, but in another way related to context and/or product characteristics of the design solution).
439 +)))
440 +
441 +== IDP007==
216 216  {{html}}
217 -<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp7.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP07" width="350"/>
443 +<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp7.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP007" width="350"/>
218 218  {{/html}}
219 219  
220 220  |(((
221 221  **RANKING/ validation**
448 +
449 +
222 222  )))|(((
223 -This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper saying a step to the PwD.
451 +//Provide a notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
452 +
453 +The ranking should indicate the validity of the patterns premise. It can help the reader to distinguish early pattern ideas from patterns confirmed in practice (Borchers, 2001b).
454 +
455 +
224 224  )))
225 225  |(((
226 226  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
459 +
460 +
227 227  )))|(((
228 -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.
462 +//Provide a concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
463 +
464 +The design problem describes the design problem in terms of the interaction intention. The intention of an interaction can be extracted from the user requirements. For the example of praise (the ePartner shall provide and/or facilitate situated praise) this could be to give the user a feeling of appraisal. If the requirement were about conducting small talk, the interaction intention would be something in line with making the user feel at ease with the ePartner.
465 +
466 +
229 229  )))
230 230  |(((
231 231  **CONTEXT (use when…)**
470 +
471 +
232 232  )))|(((
233 -This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
234 -* PwD needs the next step for a gardening activity
235 -* PwD needs the next step for making a paper plane
473 +//Provide a reference to the relevant use case(s) and a list of the contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
474 +
475 +The context describes the characteristics of the tasks, the users, and the environment for which the pattern can be applied. This should provide the designer insight in when the design pattern can be used, and when the design pattern is less suitable
476 +
477 +The use cases already provide the situational factors (e.g., dialogue partner(s), physical and social context, interaction platform, and dialogue context) that influence the design solution (specific embodiment of the dialogue). The design pattern should only list the contextual characteristics that determine in what situation the design solution can be applied.
478 +
479 +
236 236  )))
237 237  |(((
238 238  **DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
483 +
484 +
239 239  )))|(((
240 -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.
486 +//Provide a description of the essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
487 +
488 +The design solution provides a concrete description of the solution for the design problem. This encompasses the specific shape of the dialogue by describing what characteristics express the intended interaction within the given context. So what verbal and non-verbal communication should be used, what dialogue rules should be followed etc. Only the core of the solution should be described, references to other relevant patterns can be used.
489 +
490 +
241 241  )))
242 242  |(((
243 243  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
494 +
495 +
244 244  )))|(((
245 -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.
497 +//Provide the considered trade-offs and the argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
498 +
499 +The rationale provides insight in how the design pattern works, why it works and how it is based on underlying principles and mechanisms (Van Welie et al., 2000). It provides a convincing argumentation on the effects of the chosen design solution, including trade-offs. It includes premises that may need empirical validation.
500 +
501 +
246 246  )))
503 +|(((
504 +**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
247 247  
506 +
507 +)))|(((
508 +//Provide an 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.//
248 248  
249 -[1] Baird, A., & Samson, S. (2015). Music and dementia. Progress in brain research, 217, 207-235. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003477.pub2/abstract.
250 -[2] McDermott, O., Orrell, M., & Ridder, H. M. (2014). The importance of music for people with dementia: the perspectives of people with dementia, family carers, staff and music therapists. Aging & mental health, 18(6), 706-716. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13607863.2013.875124
510 +The examples should show successful uses of the pattern (e.g. best practices, as seen on….). It shows how the pattern can manifest itself differently in various ‘real-life’ applications.
511 +)))
512 +|**RELATED PATTERNS**|(((
513 +//Provide the names and/or links of related patterns.//
514 +
515 +Links to any related patterns should be mentioned here. For example, a parent pattern (similar interaction intention, higher in the abstraction hierarchy), sister pattern (similar interaction intention, same abstraction level) and/or other relating patterns (different interaction intention, but in another way related to context and/or product characteristics of the design solution).
516 +)))
Icon idp1.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.snehalodha
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -77.9 KB
Content Icon
Icon idp2.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.snehalodha
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -86.2 KB
Content Icon
Icon idp3.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.snehalodha
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -90.9 KB
Content Icon
Icon idp4.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.snehalodha
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -84.4 KB
Content Icon
Icon idp5.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.snehalodha
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -88.5 KB
Content Icon
Icon idp6.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.snehalodha
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -91.1 KB
Content Icon
Icon idp7.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.snehalodha
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -88.5 KB
Content Icon