Wiki source code of Interaction Design Patterns

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

version	line-number	content
37.1	1
34.1	2	(% style="background-color:#ffffff; font-size:14px" %)
2.1	3
34.1	4	(% style="text-align:center" %)
39.1	5	= IDP01 =
33.1	6
35.1	7	(% style="text-align:center" %)
30.1	8	[[image:idp1.jpg\|\|width="400" height="350"]]
2.1	9
	10	\|(((
15.1	11	RANKING/ validation
2.1	12	)))\|(((
12.1	13	When Pepper is playing music this can clearly be heard by the PwD, and other evaluators around, so this IDP is empirically testable.
2.1	14	)))
	15	\|(((
15.1	16	DESIGN PROBLEM (what)
2.1	17	)))\|(((
	18	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.
	19	)))
	20	\|(((
	21	CONTEXT (use when…)
	22	)))\|(((
	23	This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
	24	* Alert the PwD before an interaction takes place
	25	* Wake up reminder for PwD
	26	* Entertainment for PwD
	27	* Useful for associating certain activities to certain musical sounds
	28	)))
	29	\|(((
	30	DESIGN SOLUTION (how)
	31	)))\|(((
	32	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.
	33	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.
	34	)))
	35	\|(((
	36	DESIGN RATIONALE (why)
	37	)))\|(((
17.1	38	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.
2.1	39	)))
	40
	41
37.1	42
	43
	44	(% style="text-align:center" %)
39.1	45	= IDP02 =
36.1	46	(% style="text-align:center" %)
	47	[[image:idp2.jpg\|\|width="400" height="350"]]
2.1	48
	49	\|(((
	50	RANKING/ validation
	51	)))\|(((
12.1	52	This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper asking this question.
2.1	53	)))
	54	\|(((
	55	DESIGN PROBLEM (what)
	56	)))\|(((
	57	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.
	58	)))
	59	\|(((
15.1	60	CONTEXT (use when…)
2.1	61	)))\|(((
	62	This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
	63	* Understanding whether the PwD has taken medication before reminding them
	64	* Understanding whether the PwD has eaten a meal before reminding them
	65	The list can be further expanded as more crucial task usecases are added.
	66	)))
	67	\|(((
15.1	68	DESIGN SOLUTION (how)
2.1	69	)))\|(((
15.1	70	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.
2.1	71	)))
	72	\|(((
	73	DESIGN RATIONALE (why)
	74	)))\|(((
	75	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.
	76	)))
	77
	78
37.1	79
	80	(% style="text-align:center" %)
39.1	81	= IDP03 =
37.1	82	(% style="text-align:center" %)
	83	[[image:idp3.jpg\|\|width="400" height="350"]]
2.1	84
37.1	85
2.1	86	\|(((
	87	RANKING/ validation
	88	)))\|(((
12.1	89	This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper reminding the PwD to do the task.
2.1	90	)))
	91	\|(((
15.1	92	DESIGN PROBLEM (what)
2.1	93	)))\|(((
5.1	94	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.
2.1	95	)))
	96	\|(((
	97	CONTEXT (use when…)
	98	)))\|(((
5.1	99	This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
	100	* Reminding the PwD to take medication if they have not done so already
	101	* Reminding the PwD to eat food if they have not done so already
	102	The list can be further expanded as more crucial task usecases are added.
2.1	103	)))
	104	\|(((
	105	DESIGN SOLUTION (how)
	106	)))\|(((
11.1	107	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.
2.1	108	)))
	109	\|(((
	110	DESIGN RATIONALE (why)
	111	)))\|(((
11.1	112	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.
2.1	113	)))
	114
	115
37.1	116
	117	(% style="text-align:center" %)
39.1	118	= IDP04 =
37.1	119	(% style="text-align:center" %)
	120	[[image:idp4.jpg\|\|width="400" height="350"]]
2.1	121
37.1	122
2.1	123	\|(((
	124	RANKING/ validation
	125	)))\|(((
12.1	126	This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper asking the PwD for confirmation.
2.1	127	)))
	128	\|(((
	129	DESIGN PROBLEM (what)
	130	)))\|(((
5.1	131	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.
2.1	132	)))
	133	\|(((
	134	CONTEXT (use when…)
	135	)))\|(((
5.1	136	This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
	137	* Asking for confirmation of having taken medication
	138	* Asking for confirmation of having eaten a meal
	139	* Asking for confirmation of having done an activity step
	140	The list can be further expanded as more crucial task usecases are added.
2.1	141	)))
	142	\|(((
	143	DESIGN SOLUTION (how)
	144	)))\|(((
5.1	145	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.
2.1	146	)))
	147	\|(((
	148	DESIGN RATIONALE (why)
	149	)))\|(((
12.1	150	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.
2.1	151	)))
	152
	153
37.1	154	(% style="text-align:center" %)
39.1	155	= IDP05 =
37.1	156	(% style="text-align:center" %)
	157	[[image:idp5.jpg\|\|width="400" height="350"]]
6.1	158
37.1	159
6.1	160	\|(((
15.1	161	RANKING/ validation
6.1	162	)))\|(((
12.1	163	This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper congratulating the PwD.
6.1	164	)))
	165	\|(((
	166	DESIGN PROBLEM (what)
	167	)))\|(((
12.1	168	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.
6.1	169	)))
	170	\|(((
	171	CONTEXT (use when…)
	172	)))\|(((
	173	This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
8.1	174	* Congratulate the PwD for having taken medication
	175	* Congratulate the PwD for having eaten medication
	176	* Congratulate the PwD for doing a particular activity completely
	177	The list can be further expanded as more task usecases are added.
6.1	178	)))
	179	\|(((
	180	DESIGN SOLUTION (how)
	181	)))\|(((
8.1	182	This IDP is quite basic and simply pre-programmed into Pepper. Simply congratulating the PwD for finishing a certain task or activity is sufficient.
6.1	183	)))
	184	\|(((
	185	DESIGN RATIONALE (why)
	186	)))\|(((
	187	//Argumentation that resulted in the chosen design solution.//
12.1	188	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.
8.1	189	)))
	190
	191
37.1	192	(% style="text-align:center" %)
39.1	193	= IDP06 =
37.1	194	(% style="text-align:center" %)
	195	[[image:idp6.jpg\|\|width="400" height="350"]]
8.1	196
37.1	197
6.1	198	\|(((
8.1	199	RANKING/ validation
	200	)))\|(((
13.1	201	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.
8.1	202	)))
	203	\|(((
	204	DESIGN PROBLEM (what)
	205	)))\|(((
13.1	206	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.
8.1	207	)))
	208	\|(((
	209	CONTEXT (use when…)
	210	)))\|(((
	211	This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
	212	* PwD wants to perform a new activity
	213	* Pepper is not yet personalized to the particular PwD
	214	)))
	215	\|(((
	216	DESIGN SOLUTION (how)
	217	)))\|(((
13.1	218	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.
8.1	219	)))
	220	\|(((
	221	DESIGN RATIONALE (why)
	222	)))\|(((
13.1	223	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.
8.1	224	)))
6.1	225
	226
37.1	227
	228	(% style="text-align:center" %)
39.1	229	= IDP07 =
37.1	230	(% style="text-align:center" %)
	231	[[image:idp7.jpg\|\|width="400" height="350"]]
9.1	232
37.1	233
9.1	234	\|(((
	235	RANKING/ validation
	236	)))\|(((
13.1	237	This can be empirically tested as the PwD, and other evaluators around, can hear Pepper saying a step to the PwD.
9.1	238	)))
	239	\|(((
	240	DESIGN PROBLEM (what)
	241	)))\|(((
	242	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.
	243	)))
	244	\|(((
	245	CONTEXT (use when…)
	246	)))\|(((
	247	This IDP can be used in the following contexts:
	248	* PwD needs the next step for a gardening activity
	249	* PwD needs the next step for making a paper plane
	250	)))
	251	\|(((
	252	DESIGN SOLUTION (how)
	253	)))\|(((
13.1	254	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.
9.1	255	)))
	256	\|(((
	257	DESIGN RATIONALE (why)
	258	)))\|(((
13.1	259	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.
9.1	260	)))
	261
	262
38.1	263
	264
	265	==References==
17.1	266	[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.
	267	[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