Changes for page Manali - Self Reflection

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -38,7 +38,37 @@
38	38
39	39	I gave the first presentation for my team, and described the premise of the project we were working on: the personas, stakeholders, environment and problem scenario. It was intriguing to see what the other groups had been working on, and I did notice that ours was the only group which targeted patients at home, with family, and not in a care home. This gave us a whole new scenario we could work with, and more freedom to involve family members. The downside of this, as we realized, was that it will be costlier to deploy the robot for a single patient, compared to that in a care home.
40	40
41		-We were taught the design of use cases, along with the team design pattern, which I feel is the heart of the project. It gives a detailed overview of the whole project and provides a visualization of how the team envisions the project to work. We give a reasoning behind why each feature was chosen, what features were debated and not chosen, and the reasoning behind it.
	41	+We were taught the design of use cases, along with the team design pattern (TDP), which I feel is the heart of the project. It gives a detailed overview of the whole project and provides a visualization of how the team envisions the project to work. We give a reasoning behind why each feature was chosen, what features were debated and not chosen, and the reasoning behind it.
42	42
43	43
44	44	**Week 5**
	45	+
	46	+We learn about team design pattern (explained above) and interaction design pattern (IDP). The latter shows how the designers expect the different actors to interact with each other in the context of the robot. The IDP shapes the TDP. It is shown that postures, gestures and expressions of the robot can have an impact on the user: it is essential because it makes the robot more human like, and the users feel more connected to it.
	47	+
	48	+We learn how to evaluate our prototype robots: there are different factors to consider:
	49	+
	50	+~1. Practical issues: We could not evaluate with actual patients, and did not have the time to build all the features we wanted, like a story template, or a robot which recognized the patient's mood and decides the story.
	51	+
	52	+2. HREC: To evaluate prototypes with participants, we must have permission from the Ethics committee, which we had for this course.
	53	+
	54	+3. Formative vs Summative Evaluation: For the project, we go ahead with a summative final evaluation due to limited time to perform a formative evaluation.
	55	+
	56	+4. Measures and their levels: We used the Godspeed questionnaire as it seemed relevant to measure how human like and likeable the robot was in the use case. We added custom questions pertaining to the use case. This used the interval level of measurement.
	57	+
	58	+5. Tools: Qualtrix for the survey
	59	+
	60	+We also gained an insight into ontologies: what they mean and how they can represent the users and their properties in one diagram. It is an explicit representation of knowledge: the entities used in the system, what they are and their structure. Ontologies represent classes (patient with dementia), their instance (Georgina), relationship (mother of Sam) and properties (80 years old).
	61	+
	62	+
	63	+**Week 6**
	64	+
	65	+We understood the meaning of an inclusive design, and how we can use it in our projects as well. An inclusive design is one which not only considers the "average users" but also special cases, like minorities and persons with disabilities. We were encouraged to look into our own projects and see how we can better our design and make it inclusive. We must not assume anything about users, but quite the opposite, think outside the box and see how the design can cater to a larger population, those including people with disabilities.
	66	+
	67	+Secondly, we must gather users' needs BEFORE the start of the design, and not assume what they may or may not need, because more often than not, designs turn out to be redundant for the users themselves.
	68	+
	69	+-> pilot study
	70	+
	71	+**Week 7**
	72	+
	73	+
	74	+