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 coherent routine involving feeding, walking, resting with music, and visits—illustrating how the robot restores purpose and joy.
(Potential) Improvements:
Add alternative paths (poor weather, fatigue mid‑walk, safety alerts) and explicit caregiver interactions during hand‑offs.
Personas
Meets the criterion:
Human and robot personas detail roles, capabilities, data handling, and context‑aware behaviour in line with the scenario.
(Potential) Improvements:
Elaborate and extend the short descriptions and, possibly, ensure persona constraints (battery limits, mobility, privacy preferences) appear as preconditions or guards in the scenario and UCs.
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:
Multiple UCs (walking initiation/activity/termination; seeking; companionship) feature actor roles, pre/post hints, and stepwise sequences.
Add full preconditions/postconditions and explicit exception flows (e.g., lost connectivity, obstacle encountered, user refusal) for each UC; include data dependencies (battery, localisation).
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:
Claims articulate test intentions for guidance clarity, companionship acceptance, and cue understanding, tied to walking/companionship functions.
(Potential) Improvements:
Ensure every UC step is covered by at least one claim; specify effect measures and side‑effects; list prerequisites (e.g., safe route availability) and validation methods.
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:
Objectives (autonomy, engagement, emotional comfort) are reflected in walking and companionship UCs and associated claims.
(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 acknowledged as needed for coordination (e.g., group games) but not specified according to the format provide in the lecture.
(Potential) Improvements:
Author a TDP for “Walking Companion with Human Oversight” according to the format of the lecture (picture and table), e.g., covering safety checks, escalation, and division of responsibility; add consequences and known uses.
Interaction Design Pattern (IDP)
Meets the criterion:
IDPs suggested for each walking phase and for seeking/companionship, with diagrams illustrating turn‑taking and cues, without communication specifications.
(Potential) Improvements:
Augment each IDP with the key characteristics of the communication according to the format presented in the lecture (e.g. concerning child-robot interaction with the positive backchanneling example with the Problem, Principle and Solution rubrics), and links to the claims they enable; add anti‑patterns.
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?”
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, Personas
Meets the criterion:
Coherent routine with alternative path for poor weather; shows restored purpose and joy.
(Potential) Improvements:
Add explicit caregiver hand-offs during walks and mid-activity fatigue; formalise safety boundaries in scenario text.
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:
UCs include actors, pre/postconditions, action sequences; step–IDP links present.
Companion and seeking behaviours broken into discrete UCs.
(Potential) Improvements:
Expand exception handling (lost connectivity, obstacles, refusal) and data dependencies (battery, localisation) explicitly per UC.
Use the Use Case template that was provided for this year course (an old version is used), b. Use Case with Claims - XWiki (ensure you are not logged in to access)
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:
Test ideas and metrics sketched for identification/acceptance; step mapping present in UC tables.
(Potential) Improvements:
Use the Use Case template that was provided for this year course (an old version is used), b. Use Case with Claims - XWiki (ensure you are not logged in to access)
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 pages exist and are linked to UCs.
(Potential) Improvements:
Use the Use Case template that was provided for this year course (an old version is used), b. Use Case with Claims - XWiki (ensure you are not logged in to access)
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 Pattern
Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Pattern
Meets the criterion:
Multiple IDPs illustrated with turn-taking/cue diagrams and linked to claims.
Pattern set covers initiation, activity, termination, seeking, companionship.
(Potential) Improvements:
Provide IDPs also 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:
Discernible mapping from RQs to UCs and claims.
(Potential) Improvements:
Link between Effects and Foundations could be articulated more strongly.
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
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, Personas
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 Pattern
Team Design Pattern; Interaction Design Pattern
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: