Archive for the 'Concept Test II Results' Category
[Three Musketters] – Concept Test II Results for Prototype I: [Laser Tag]

When discussing with the residents about our project they were all very excited.

  1. State the question you asked.
    • Is this a game you would like to play?
    • What would you like to see added to the game?
    • On a scale of 1 to 10, how interested are they in a game system like this?
      What would they be willing to pay for a system like this?
      How many people would play at the same time?
      What other games would they like to play that are similar?
      Do they have stationary computers to run the server software?
      Do they have mobile computers or laptops to run the server software?
      On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being simplest, for the server software would they prefer simple start-up or more game-play options?
      On a scale of 1 to 10, how interested are they in having game boundaries for limiting the play area?
      On a scale of 1 to 10, how interested are they in having a digital display on each client device?
      How would they like to hold or attach the client device?
      How would they like to interact with the client device?
      What additional features would they like to have?
  2. Report in general terms the feedback you received from the question. 
    • All of the respondents liked the idea.
    • Only one respondent didn’t care for the ease of wheelchair attachment (she uses a walker)
    •  The respondents are hoping for a large play area.
    •  All of the respondents would pay 200 dollars or less, the facility said they would consider purchase of a system for ‘fun days’.
    •  All of the respondents would be able to use the system easily.
  3. Summarize specific comments from respondents
    • One respondent suggested the feasibility of an add on handle for the control joystick with a trigger in it to be able to fire and move with the control stick.  If we have time this will be implemented.
[Lucky 13] – Concept Test II Results for Prototype I: [Battery Assisted Grabber]

Here’s a quick rundown of the feedback and suggestions that we got on Tuesday night:

The “Business End”

  1. The device will need a source of friction to help pick up and securely hold items.
  2. The moving arm might benefit from a wider piece of material at the end that would allow for more contact with items to be picked up.
  3. There was interest in having a means to judge how much pressure is being exerted on the object. For example, residents want to be able to securely pick up a glass without any danger of it breaking.

The Handle/Arm

  1. There is still a good deal of interest in the potential for telescoping action. Even if it is not automated, this is something to look into.
  2. A smaller/lighter motor is already in the design for Prototype 2 but of course residents expressed their desire for a lightweight device.
  3. One of the most important features will be a comfortable grip. Because residents have varying levels of dexterity it will be imperative to find a way to allow for multiple ways of gripping. One resident suggested a grip that resembled the looped handle of a mug since she has no individual use of her fingers.
  4. In order to maintain affordability, rechargeable batteries are a must. It will be important to find a balance between a battery pack that offers a good amount of power without becoming too cumbersome.

Miscellaneous Notes/Observations

  1. With this design, heavier items are very difficult to pick up (gee thanks physics). Because multiple residents have expressed interest in the ability to pick up heavier items, some method of adding leverage will need to be contemplated. This will likely be some sort of adapter to allow the device to be attached directly to a wheel chair.
  2. Multiple residents have issues with dropping their current grabber-type devices so some sort of strap would be a good addition to make.
  3. In manufacturing it will be very important to use latex-free materials in order to prevent allergic reactions.

Overall everyone seemed reasonably interested in and impressed with the grabber prototype (which was awesome considering it had recently caught on fire…) so we’re moving in the right direction!

[Team Bravo Squad #7] – Concept Test II Results for Prototype I: [GPS Locator Device]

This device will attach to your motorized wheelchair’s battery and monitor the amount of charge left. When it detects that the battery is critically low, it will automatically broadcast your geographical location to a pre-determined emergency contact, notifying them that you need assistance. For any other kinds of emergencies, there will be a manual switch that broadcasts your location to the emergency contact, in case you are in need of assistance and do not have any kind of cell phone. The device will be designed to run on low power, and recharge automatically with your chair; and its functions will be kept simple so that it requires little to no maintenance, putting emphasis on reliability when needed.

For our first Prototype, we showed how the system would work. Our device showed it was looking for a satellite. It was connected to the computer to show coordinates of the location of the device once it found a satellite. 

We didn’t have a whole lot of people stop by our table, but of those that did, we had some good feedback. 

  1. Is this something you think would be useful for the residents?

    We had 3 non-residents who don’t use a wheelchair stop by and agree that it is something people need.They say some residents don’t have cell phones and this product would be good for them. They agreed that CPRF residents are on a limited income and would need to set up a monthly payment plan to make it affordable for them. One person said they had a couple residents get stuck out in the cold all night because their wheelchairs got stuck and they had no way of communicating their emergency. We had about 3 residents stop by our table and they agreed that this is a useful product and we are doing well with it. 

  2. How much would you be willing to pay for this device? Of the 6 respondents interviewed, the 3 non-residents who don’t use a wheelchair said that this device would have to be affordable for these residents. Under $200 was the general consensus and payments plans may help. One of the non-residents said that it would probably be best to aim this device towards family and friends who worry about the residents and want to make sure they are safe, therefore, the family and loved ones would be the ones paying for it. The 3 residents that responded said the residents are on a limited income and would need something reasonable affordable. One resident said $50 for this device would be ideal. Another resident said anything under $200 would be affordable. 
  3. Where would be the best location for this device? All 6 of the 6 respondents agreed this device would work best if the switch was located on the side panel where it was not too easy to push on accident. Also, 2 of the respondents said that they would like the GPS box with satellite was somewhere out of the way and easily detachable and attachable, but would not accidentally fall off the wheelchair. 

This concept test was a success. Everyone seemed to think we were on the right track and agree it was something that can be useful. It is a device that people would invest their money in. Some things we recognized were that we needed to contact AT&T and see how they could work with us to provide our customers this emergency messaging device at a reasonable price without monthly fees. Also, we need to decide who our primary target market is, whether it is the wheelchair user or their family and loved ones. We need to continue to work on this device and how we can keep costs down. One person asked us if we had a way to let the person in the wheelchair know that someone is coming to help them. We currently do not have the system set up for this. It is something we will be working on. We want to be able to send them a message back letting those in an emergency  know help is on the way. Overall, it was a good experience and we learned a whole lot and we know what we need to work on and how we need to market this device. 

Team Alpha – Concept Test II Results for Prototype I: TrueView Camera System

During the second concept test,more focus was directed towards observing the interaction of CPRF members.  This proved to be far less structured than directly asking questions, but provided spontaneous feedback which I feel is more valuable for this stage of development.

Only a small number of residents were asked specific questions (4 residents).  Remaining feedback was provided as a result of spontaneous questioning or comments.

  1. Answers to specific questions
    •  Which feature of this product most interests you?
      • 4 out of 4 residents questioned (along with almost everyone else) were very interested in the motion tracking of the Kinect sensor.
    • Can you think of any unique challenges that could be overcome by this product?
      • 2 out of 4 residents were concerned with the system’s ability to represent distances related to water. 
      •  2 out of 4 residents was interested in the ability of the system to detect edges and drop-offs.
    • What feature should be added to this product to make it more usable?
      • A number of residents (3) informed me that a distance scale added to the screen would be very beneficial.
        • (Our team had existing plans to add this functionality, but feedback will help with direction.)
        • 1 out of 4 residents expressed concerns about his ability to feel a vibration and suggested that we add the ability for the system to produce a loud sound.
      • One resident suggested looking into a solar powered charger as he did not feel comfortable with the system running off of his wheelchair’s main battery.

     

  2. Feedback
    • One resident made the comment that the camera should be aimed to show a little bit of the ground.  This would help him to determine if he was coming upon an object that would prohibit his safe travel.
    • 2 out of 4 residents were interested in the ability to show a splitscreen view of the distance gradients and live feed.
      • The other 2 out of 4 residents were interested in a seamless integration of the distance gradients and the live feed.
    • Almost all of the residents expressed a desire to have distance markers shown directly on objects on the screen (overlay).

     

  3. Comment Summary
    • Debra Hinkson feels that this system would help her when she is navigating a raised deck.  She also feels that it would help her to avoid becoming high-centered which prohibits her wheelchair from moving.
    • Debra also brought up the ability of the system to detect glass and the walls of an aquarium.  (This impressed our group very much!)
    • Ron informed us that he is unable to feel vibrations from his cell phone and would prefer an auditory means to warn him of ‘impending disaster’.
    • In regards to the distance gradient/live-feed display… Sheridan had the following to say: ‘Cool’, ‘That is nuts!’
    • Others felt that the display of technology was ‘incredible’ and proved to provoke excitement amongst many (this sounds a bit biased on my part…)
    • Joshua provided excellent feedback regarding the systems ability to detect cars coming up from behind him.  He often travels on the sides of streets and is concerned about being struck by a vehicle.
      • The distance detection capabilities of the system are limited, but cars could be seen in the live feed.  This is an interesting challenge.
    • Joshua brought to light that many residents enjoy leaning back in their wheelchair.  He feels that mounting it to the backrest of the wheelchair would not work correctly as the backrest is adjusted many times per day.  He informed us that the majority of wheelchairs have fixed armrests and suggested somehow mounting the camera to the armrest frame.
Team 5 – Concept Test Results #2 for Prototype I: Rescue Lifter

This concept test was conducted at the CPRF with all team members present.  The prototype was a hand push power lifter from CPRF modified with power driven wheels, battery, control logic features, and a harness.  The Lifter was able to be commanded (move the lifter) by either a joystick mounted on the Lifter or control logic downloaded from a PC for a predetermined path.  The lifter itself (move the harness) was able to be commanded with pre-existing controls mounted on the Lifter.  Specific interviews were not conducted, but discussions with several of the CPRF residents were conducted.  All of the residents spoken to displayed a great amount of excitement with the Lifter.  One resident who generated the idea even said “very sharp, like it, just what I had in mind.”

The common theme of the discussions was maneuverability into the harness and user-ability in general.  It seems the residents were mainly concerned with their interaction of the Lifter.  Where will the controls be located at, what device will be on me, can I reach the controls, etc, were popular concerns.  With all of the questions about the harness and type of harnesses, it seems at this point, a logical solution would be to offer several different type of harnesses that would be accustomed to the user (in a personalized sense).  The harness will need to be kept as a simple interchangeable component to not accrue the cost of several product lines.  These are all simple things and must be considered before final product.  However, the main concentration at this point should be the locating and command system (be able to locate and come to an individual who has fallen). 

OnTheFly – Concept Test #2 Results for Home Automation Framework

Due to the fluid nature of the concept test, and the movement of the residents, this concept test reflects more observations and quotations and less surveying/interviewing. More surveying/interviewing will be conducted during the third concept test.

General Usage

  • If you could use our device in your home what would be the first three things you would use it on and why?
    • 3 out of 3 residents wanted this product for their blinds and lights.
    • 2 out of 3 residents wanted this product for their (ceiling) fan.
    • One resident wanted this product to turn his computer on and off.
  • On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not important at all and 5 being very important, how important is the look/aesthetics of the device to you, and why did you give that rating?
    • Out of 3 respondents the average score was a 3. All 3 respondents wanted the device to look like an integrated part of the door/lamp/fan as much as possible.

Controlling the Device

  • If you were able to control the device through the internet…
    • Would you use the internet to control the device and why?
      • 3 out of 3 wanted the internet.
      • 2 out of 3 wanted the internet for increased range/flexibility.
      • 1 out of 3 wanted the internet so they’d have one less remote to worry about.
  • If you were able to control the device via remote control…
    • Would you use the remote to control the device and why?
      • 1 out of 3 also wouldn’t mind having a remote control in case their internet wasn’t working.

Feedback

  • What needs of yours is this product fixing? What important needs is it not addressing but has the potential to do so? What else should we consider?
    • “Makes my life a lot simpler around the house and it gives me the ability to do things I want, when I want to do them.”
    • Can we apply this to a mailbox?
    • Could you utilize the blinds concept on a pet door?
    • “I would like this product even better if you could get the blinds to go up and down, and adjust the speed settings on the fan.”
    • “I’ve wanted a product like this for years. How soon can you put this in my house?”
    • “I would like to see the control icons be more personalized; lamp picture for a lamp, fan picture for a fan, etc.”
    • “If you can get the blinds to go up and down you would eliminate the choking hazard associated with the blinds.”
    • “I wouldn’t buy this if the remote control isn’t as easy to use as the internet, since I don’t have the internet.”

-Mike Ditch Jr.