Updated group selfie of the team
Hello, this week our team was present in the workshop as a whole and contributed equally in making the trend map. This Monday we conducted a meeting at TUT to work on some of the matters related to this week' assignments. As a result - we came up with some text walls and thoughts about trends, standards and other related topic.
Team Homework # 1
Pavel Chistov was responsible for finalising the trend map.
What is on our trend map and why?
Presented mindmap our team came up with has a specified structure which is based on a interconnected fields of the technology that has a potential for the future.
- AI development (mainly in terms of learning and actual robotic vision)
- Social robots (that utilizes some of the principles of current psychology achievements and theories)
- Education (which partly contains other areas’ items to support learning process)
- Exoskeletons (presumably for medical care and rehabilitation)
- Industry robots (automated tech and actual robo-assistants)
- Economics (e.g. accessibility to certain types of robots for masses)
- Microbots
- Cloud robotics
What do we consider and why for each trend?
For AI, we considered machine learning, voice control virtual assistant and automatic navigation. Since our topic is related to how education systems will look in future, we concentrated on what features or trends will make the robot more intuitive in use and give enough freedom for user to interact with the robot. Moreover, we looked into the social robotics where we came across expressive robots, robots in education, medical robot, and zoomorphic robot. We looked into all these trends to support us with our design ideas, btu further estimation or need if we require something from other areas is yet to be defined. Also - from economical standpoint - we wuld like to look into the hardware cost tendencies and drops to keep our design cost effective.
What and why are most potential for our work or why are we not using any of what we identified (reasoning)?
For us, it would be efficient to consider the social robotics, AI and virtual agents. As we assume that our potential robotic assistant needs to interact with students and teachers in order to assist them, it was important for us that it needs to be socially interactive, has the ability to communicate and handle its users' query. However, we did not take microbots and industry robots into consideration due to mostly social direction taken for the design thinking process. Microbots are used in medical purposes mostly and has no general value to the educational environment. However, for our purpose, we would think of the robot or its systems to be of scale that people can communicate but not refuse or stressed out by the appearance or even attitude. Industrial robots, on the other hand, are mostly purposed to deliver some service, which are used to carry out certain tasks by manually controlling the robot. In most cases, they have very low level (or even absense of such) communication with human being.
Team Homework # 2
In our case of usable stardards for our project, we are going to consider 2 following standards: ISO 9241 and ISO 9126.
ISO 9241
We are going to implement this standard by interviewing the users about their needs and requirements. On the basis of that, we will build a low fidelity prototype and test it again with the user. In that way, the user gets to interact with the system and give feedback about the interaction
ISO 9126
This standard deals with assurance of software quality. It is very vital that the software works as intended, since it needs to handle interaction with students and teacher. Therefore, any sort of issue in the software might create a lot of hassle and simply ruin positive experience. We are going to keep that standart in mind by considering testing the system after each possible iteration during design process.
Comments
Post a Comment