Changes for page Interaction Design Patterns

Last modified by Mathieu Jung-Muller on 2022/04/04 13:55

From 5.1 to 6.1 From 12.1 to 13.1

From version

6.1

edited by Sneha Lodha
on 2022/03/23 22:19

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

12.1

edited by Mathieu Jung-Muller
on 2022/03/30 00:36

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--XWiki.snehalodha
++XWiki.Mathieu

Content

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
--When Pepper is playing music this can clearly be heard by the PwD, and other evaluators around hence this IDP is empirically testable.
++When Pepper is playing music this can clearly be heard by the PwD, and other evaluators around, so this IDP is empirically testable.
  )))
  |(((
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
--This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper asking this question.
++This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper asking this question.
  )))
  |(((
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
--This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper reminding the PwD to do the task.
++This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper reminding the PwD to do the task.
  )))
  |(((
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
--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 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.
++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.
  )))
  |(((
  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
--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's as a physical being there might encourage the PwD to take such reminders with higher importance than a simple notification.
++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.
  )))
  |(((
@@ -204,7 +204,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
--This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper asking the PwD for confirmation.
++This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper asking the PwD for confirmation.
  )))
  |(((
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
--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.
++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.
  )))
  |(((
@@ -269,8 +269,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
--This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper asking the PwD for confirmation.
--
++This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper congratulating the PwD.
  )))
  |(((
  **DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
--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.
++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.
  )))
  |(((
@@ -289,10 +289,10 @@
  //Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
  This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
--* Asking for confirmation of having taken medication
--* Asking for confirmation of having eaten a meal
--* Asking for confirmation of having done an activity step
--The list can be further expanded as more crucial task usecases are added.
++* Congratulate the PwD for having taken medication
++* Congratulate the PwD for having eaten medication
++* Congratulate the PwD for doing a particular activity completely
++The list can be further expanded as more task usecases are added.
  )))
  |(((
  **DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@
  )))|(((
  //Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
--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.
++This IDP is quite basic and simply pre-programmed into Pepper. Simply congratulating the PwD for finishing a certain task or activity is sufficient.
  )))
  |(((
  **DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
@@ -309,11 +309,71 @@
  )))|(((
  //Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
++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.
--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.
++)))
++|(((
++**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
++)))|(((
++//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.//
++
++TBD (should we include or not?)
  )))
++
++
++== IDP06==
++{{html}}
++<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp6.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP06s" width="350"/>
++{{/html}}
++
  |(((
++**RANKING/ validation**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
++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.
++)))
++|(((
++**DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
++
++This design pattern is used by the HCP in order 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.
++)))
++|(((
++
++**CONTEXT (use when…)**
++
++)))|(((
++//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
++
++This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
++* PwD wants to perform a new activity
++* Pepper is not yet personalized to the particular PwD
++)))
++|(((
++**DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
++
++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.
++)))
++|(((
++**DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
++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.
++
++)))
++|(((
  **EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
  )))|(((
@@ -323,4 +323,63 @@
  )))
++== IDP07==
++{{html}}
++<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group04/download/Main/WebHome/idp7.jpg?rev=1.1" alt="IDP07" width="350"/>
++{{/html}}
++|(((
++**RANKING/ validation**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Notion of the validity (e.g., empirically tested)//
++This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around can hear Pepper saying a step to the PwD.
++
++)))
++|(((
++**DESIGN PROBLEM (what)**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Concise description of the intended interaction (effect on the user and/or user interaction with the system and/or other parties).//
++
++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.
++)))
++|(((
++
++**CONTEXT (use when…)**
++
++)))|(((
++//Contextual characteristics that are significant for the applicability of the pattern.//
++
++This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
++* PwD needs the next step for a gardening activity
++* PwD needs the next step for making a paper plane
++)))
++|(((
++**DESIGN SOLUTION (how)**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Essential characteristics of the design solution that express the interaction intention.//
++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.
++)))
++|(((
++**DESIGN RATIONALE (why)**
++
++
++)))|(((
++//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
++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.
++)))
++|(((
++**EXAMPLES (as seen on…)**
++
++)))|(((
++//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.//
++
++TBD (should we include or not?)
++)))
++
++