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:
Explains caretaker-led setup (upload family photos/descriptions) and Pepper-facilitated gameplay with hints and rule explanations.
There seems to be some duplicated text describing the design scenario.
Add alternative paths (privacy refusal, emotional distress, disengagement, network/sensor failure) and clear end/timeout rules.
Personas
Meets the criterion:
Human and robot personas capture motivations, tone, privacy needs; robot framed as a friendly companion (“Peppa”).
(Potential) Improvements:
Task Demands in the human persona should be articulated more focused on the activities in service of an outcome they want to achieve, rather than some desired state from a design perspective (e.g., “React to the stories told by Pepper” is surely some behavior, but it is not really a task).
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:
Use-cases look formally complete.
(Potential) Improvements:
There seem to be multiple use-cases that could be duplicates of one another. It is not fully clear which ones are placeholders or variants. These should be separated out clearly.
Add exception handling (e.g., emotional upset)
Tie into the formulated IDP.
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 map functions to intended effects and relevant action sequences.
(Potential) Improvements:
Tie into the formulated IDP (e.g., in terms of steps in the action sequence used from the pattern).
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:
Implicit objectives (engagement, reminiscence, emotional well-being) are reflected in personalised game UCs and related 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 documents division of labour (robot leads routine play; caregiver uploads media and supervises distress) and consequences/risks.
(Potential) Improvements:
No notes.
Interaction Design Pattern (IDP)
Meets the criterion:
IDPs specify rule explanation, feedback, engagement triggers, and completion.
(Potential) Improvements:
No notes.
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
Meets the criterion:
The specification reflects the Foundation.
(Potential) Improvements:
The link between objectives and human factors concepts from the foundations could be more clearly articulated.
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:
Explains the end-to-end game setup and intent (recall, family connection, relaxation).
Add safety/hygiene, accessibility, and session boundaries.
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:
Use-cases look formally complete.
(Potential) Improvements:
Add exception handling (e.g., emotional upset)
Tie into the formulated IDP.
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")?"
Claims ideally should be separated from how they are evaluated in comparative terms (i.e., providing each game presumably has some effect (and negative side-effects). Your hypothesis in the evaluation would be a way to verify these claims about your design for providing different games.
Tie into the formulated IDP (e.g., in terms of steps in the action sequence used from the pattern).
4. Objective Alignment: "Is there a clear mapping showing how the specified Use Cases and Functions serve a higher-level Objective?"
The link between the Objectives and the Foundations could be articulated more strongly.
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:
TDP introduces co-located roles and supervision logic; IDP sequence covers rule explanation, card selection feedback, engagement monitoring with triggers.
(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:
Some implicit traceability from TDP→UC1→claims.
(Potential) Improvements:
The link between objectives and human factors concepts from the foundations could be more clearly articulated.
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: