1. Narrative Coherence -- “Does the Design Scenario effectively narrate a future vision, showing how the proposed System resolves the core issues identified in the Problem Scenario?”
Applies to: Design Scenario; Personas
Design Scenario
Meets the criterion:
Presents a home‑based scenario where the robot initiates dancing/exercise and offers conversation to address boredom and inactivity.
(Potential) Improvements:
Tighten focus on one primary activity loop to avoid scope creep; include refusal/interrupt flows, safety boundaries, and hand‑offs to caregivers.
Personas
Meets the criterion:
Multiple human personas (e.g., Alice, Pauline, Hank) provide rich motivational anchors for the scenario.
(Potential) Improvements:
Ensure persona constraints (hearing loss, tech aversion, privacy sensitivities) feed into scenario decisions (volume, consent prompts, camera usage).
2. Use Case Detail -- “Are the Use Cases detailed and formal, clearly describing the sequence of Interactions between Actors to achieve a specific Goal?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims
Use Cases with Claims
Meets the criterion:
Provides several use cases (setup, music‑bingo, dancing, companion mode) with action sequences and example dialogues.
(Potential) Improvements:
Normalize the UC set around the declared scenario (home dancing) to maintain coherence; add full pre/postconditions, triggers, exceptions, and data requirements for each UC.
Resolve cross‑context artefacts (e.g., group bingo) if not part of the home scenario; otherwise, justify their inclusion and adaptation.
3. Core Logic Loop -- “Does each Use Case explicitly link a Function (the what) to an Effect (the result) through a well‑formed, testable Claim (the why)?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims
Use Cases with Claims
Meets the criterion:
Defines high‑level claims (physical and mental well‑being) and associates them to dancing and conversation functions.
Create specific claim entries per UC/function with measurable Effects (e.g., step count increase, mood rating change) and list known downsides (fatigue, annoyance).
State prerequisites (e.g., consent captured, safe environment) and reference which UC steps operationalise each claim.
4. Objective Alignment -- “Is there a clear mapping showing how the specified Use Cases and Functions serve a higher‑level Objective?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims; Objectives/Requirements
Objectives & Requirements
Meets the criterion:
Requirements articulate capabilities (stay physically fit, converse, remember preferences) aligned with dancing and companionship.
(Potential) Improvements:
The link between objectives and human factors concepts from the foundations could be more clearly articulated.
5. Pattern Application -- “Are recurring design problems addressed using clearly documented Design Patterns, with a clear distinction between Team Design Patterns (Task Level) and Interaction Design Patterns (Interaction Level)?”
Applies to: Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Pattern
Team Design Pattern (TDP)
Meets the criterion:
TDP section acknowledged as needed.
(Potential) Improvements:
Define a home‑care TDP covering monitoring boundaries, escalation to human support, and safeguarding; include forces and consequences.
Interaction Design Pattern (IDP)
Meets the criterion:
Provides a menu item to fill to provide the IDP.
(Potential) Improvements:
Document IDPs in a format as presented in the lectures (e.g. concerning child-robot interaction with the positive backchanneling example with the Problem, Principle and Solution rubrics); the picture in this page shows a TDP without text.
Link the IDPs to specific claims and UC steps.
6. Traceability to Foundation -- “Is there clear traceability showing how the specified Functions, Claims, and Requirements are derived from the analysis in the Foundation stage?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims; Requirements
Traceability
Meets the criterion:
Specification echoes human values and needs presented in personas and scenario.
(Potential) Improvements:
The link between objectives and human factors concepts from the foundations could be more clearly articulated.
1. Do we only have to mention the persona links in Design Scenario, or also somewhere else?
3. It is mentioned that our use case format is using an old template, but we unfortunately do not have access to the link. This one matches the example xwiki that we were given in an announcement though.
5. To confirm, is the IDP just i.e. the text on positive backchanneling? Is there no actual diagram that goes with it, or is there something specific that we are missing in ours?
Finally, is there anything else that we are missing that is quite important?
1. Narrative Coherence: "Does the Design Scenario effectively narrate a future vision, showing how the proposed System resolves the core issues identified in the Problem Scenario?"
Applies to: Design Scenario, Personas
Design Scenario
Meets the criterion:
Clear activity focus (dancing) with motivational framing and scope notes.
(Potential) Improvements:
Provide a more detailed step-by-step description of the scenario (possibly with a visual storyboard with panels for each step)
Narrow to one primary loop in scenario text; add refusal/interrupt flows and safety boundaries (fatigue, fall risk).
Clarify who authorises/monitors sessions and how escalation works at home.
2. Use Case Detail: "Are the Use Cases detailed and formal, clearly describing the sequence of Interactions between Actors to achieve a specific Goal?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
Action sequences and pre/postconditions present; Clean-up transitions defined.
(Potential) Improvements:
Update template to match the latest version (see comment on your questions above).
CL001: PwD physical well-being seems to lack the actual claim statement.
3. Core Logic Loop: "Does each Use Case explicitly link a Function (the "what") to an Effect (the "result") through a well-formed, testable Claim (the "why")?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
Claims capture intended physical/mental outcomes; some downside risks acknowledged.
(Potential) Improvements:
Update template to match the latest version (see comment on your questions above).
Add prerequisites (consent, environment safety) to claims and potential alternative flow procedures.
4. Objective Alignment: "Is there a clear mapping showing how the specified Use Cases and Functions serve a higher-level Objective?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
Requirements exist for conversation and preference storage.
(Potential) Improvements:
Update template to match the latest version (see comment on your questions above).
Publish explicit objective IDs and acceptance criteria; connect to UC steps and claims.
5. Pattern Application: "Are recurring design problems addressed using clearly documented Team/Interaction Design Patterns with forces, solution, consequences, and links to UCs/Claims?"
Applies to: Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Patterns
Provide IDPs in a typical pattern language format (e.g., Example Here).
6. Traceability to Foundation: "Is there clear traceability from Foundation findings to Specification artefacts (Functions/Claims/Requirements) and forward to planned Measures?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
Some forward references exist from RQs to UCs.
(Potential) Improvements:
Ensure persona constraints feed into preconditions and requirements.
Project home
1. Narrative Coherence -- “Does the Design Scenario effectively narrate a future vision, showing how the proposed System resolves the core issues identified in the Problem Scenario?”
Applies to: Design Scenario; Personas
2. Use Case Detail -- “Are the Use Cases detailed and formal, clearly describing the sequence of Interactions between Actors to achieve a specific Goal?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims
3. Core Logic Loop -- “Does each Use Case explicitly link a Function (the what) to an Effect (the result) through a well‑formed, testable Claim (the why)?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims
4. Objective Alignment -- “Is there a clear mapping showing how the specified Use Cases and Functions serve a higher‑level Objective?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims; Objectives/Requirements
5. Pattern Application -- “Are recurring design problems addressed using clearly documented Design Patterns, with a clear distinction between Team Design Patterns (Task Level) and Interaction Design Patterns (Interaction Level)?”
Applies to: Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Pattern
6. Traceability to Foundation -- “Is there clear traceability showing how the specified Functions, Claims, and Requirements are derived from the analysis in the Foundation stage?”
Applies to: Use Cases with Claims; Requirements
1. Do we only have to mention the persona links in Design Scenario, or also somewhere else?
3. It is mentioned that our use case format is using an old template, but we unfortunately do not have access to the link. This one matches the example xwiki that we were given in an announcement though.
5. To confirm, is the IDP just i.e. the text on positive backchanneling? Is there no actual diagram that goes with it, or is there something specific that we are missing in ours?
Finally, is there anything else that we are missing that is quite important?
https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/wiscetemplatesimple/view/2.%20Specification/b.%20Use%20Cases/
You should be able to access this link for the current IDP template if you are not logged in now
See also comment on Criteria 5 below regarding your Question 5 on documenting IDP.
Feedback on Revised Draft
1. Narrative Coherence: "Does the Design Scenario effectively narrate a future vision, showing how the proposed System resolves the core issues identified in the Problem Scenario?"
Applies to: Design Scenario, Personas
Design Scenario
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
2. Use Case Detail: "Are the Use Cases detailed and formal, clearly describing the sequence of Interactions between Actors to achieve a specific Goal?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
3. Core Logic Loop: "Does each Use Case explicitly link a Function (the "what") to an Effect (the "result") through a well-formed, testable Claim (the "why")?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
4. Objective Alignment: "Is there a clear mapping showing how the specified Use Cases and Functions serve a higher-level Objective?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
5. Pattern Application: "Are recurring design problems addressed using clearly documented Team/Interaction Design Patterns with forces, solution, consequences, and links to UCs/Claims?"
Applies to: Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Patterns
Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Patterns
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements:
6. Traceability to Foundation: "Is there clear traceability from Foundation findings to Specification artefacts (Functions/Claims/Requirements) and forward to planned Measures?"
Applies to: Use Case with Claims
Use Case with Claims
Meets the criterion:
(Potential) Improvements: