Embodied Interaction Agility Agility - LAURA WIEGAND · 2018. 8. 31. · 3. Theory 39 3.1...

Embodied Interaction Agility

! of !1 94

Juulia Enqvist, Moa Sävenryd, Laura Wiegand, Li Xiwen

Embodied InteractionMaster Program Human-Computer Interaction

Uppsala UniversitySpring 2016

AgilityDomain and Design Analysis


Table of Contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Domain Analysis 6

2.1 Methods 72.2 Observations 8

2.2.1 First Observation - Beginner’s Training 8 2.2.2 Second Observation - Professional Training 16

2.3. Competition Videos 202.3.1 Different kinds of handling the dog 20 2.3.2 Dealing with different obstacles 23 2.3.3 ’Wrong’ movements 24

2.4 Field visit 252.4.1 Planning and Methods 25 2.4.2 Result 27 2.4.4 Reflection 30

2.5 Interview with professional agility trainer 302.6 Doing Agility 322.7 Reflection on the Methods 35

2.7.1 Methods for gathering knowledge 35 2.7.2 Methods to analyse & understand the knowledge 35 2.7.3 Further resources 36 2.7.4 Final understanding 36 2.7.5 DOING agility 36

2.8 Final Domain Analysis 37

3. Theory 39 3.1 Literature Research 393.2 Connection to course literature 39

3.2.1 Embodiment 39 3.2.2 Phenomenology 40 3.2.3 Tacit Knowledge 40 3.2.4 Somaesthetics 40 3.2.5 Body Schema & Kinesphere 41 3.2.6 Embodied Interaction - Design methods & frameworks 41 3.2.7 Proxemics, Space, Environment, Orientation and connected concepts 41 3.2.8 Intersubjectivity & Intentionality 42

4. Problems 42

! of !2 94


4.1 Research Questions 434.1.1 Clarification 43

5. Design Analysis 44 5.1 Design Iteration 1 44

5.1.1 Design Idea 1 - Limited reflection 45 5.1.2 Design Idea 2 - Detailed reflection 49 5.1.3 Design Idea 3 - Direct feedback 51 5.1.4 Evaluation 52 5.1.5 Results 54

5.2 Design Iteration 2 555.2.1 Feedback 55 5.2.2 Ideation - Bringing the ideas together 55 5.2.3 Combined design solution 56 5.2.4 Evaluation 60 5.2.5 Testing 64 5.2.6 Results 67

6. The Final Vision 69 6.1 Measurements 69

6.1.1 Full Body Sensors 69 6.1.2 Pressure sensor on the contact obstacle 70

6.2 Reflection by showing Movement 716.2.1 Movement flow 71

6.3 Scenarios and Use Cases 736.3.1 Use Case 1 - Reflecting on one round of training 73 6.3.2 Use Case 2 - Reflecting & comparing several rounds 74

6.4 Interaction with the System 756.4.1 Boundary Bubble 75 6.4.2 Movement visualisation 77 6.4.3 Example Use Cases 78 6.4.4 Marking 78 6.4.5 Visualisation of the dog movement 80 6.4.6 Control of the system 80

6.5 Discussion 816.6 The final prototyping 83

6.6.1 Video prototype 83 6.6.2 Physical prototype 87 6.6.3 Testing 89 6.6.4 Evaluation 91

7. Conclusion 93! of !3 94


7.1 Reflection & Lessons learned 93 7.2 Use of phenomenology 94 7.3 Future work 94

! of !4 94


1. Introduction This project is part of the course Embodied Interaction at Uppsala University. The goal is to come up with a design solution that uses the concept of qualified self in an embodied perspective in the domain dog agility.

Qualified self is related to quantified self in the sense that they both make use of self measurements. The difference between them is that quantified self focuses on how to make sense of the measured data and therefore goes beyond just measuring (Boam & Webb, 2014). Furthermore, the perspective of embodied interaction gives the project a focus on the body and how to use it when interacting with technology and the environment (Dourish, 2004). The domain agility has been chosen because it is a domain that affords a lot of bodily interaction - not only with the own body but with other objects and humans or animals.

Observations and interviews are used in order to understand the domain. After the initial analysis three different design proposals have been developed, tested and later combined in to one final proposal. The final design solution is prototyped by a physical and a video prototype. The first part of the report concerns the domain analysis followed by the design iterations of the project. Finally, there is a discussion about the final design.

! of !5 94


2. Domain Analysis Empirical Investigation for a Design Project

This chapter gives an overview of the chosen domain for the project and the creation of the domain analysis by elaborating on the conducted methods.

Agility is a dog sport where the dog follows the handler’s directions to master an obstacle course in the shortest time possible. It affords different abilities, interactions and a good relationship between the handler and the dog (Svenska Kennelklubben, 2016).

In order to learn about the sport and the different ways of using the body to interact with the dog, several agility clubs in Uppsala were contacted. Thanks to a high interest, we could agree to meet Lena Carlsson, who is a dog psychologist and also started Sweden’s third agility course. She teaches several classes as well as competes herself on the highest level of agility (Gácsi et al., 2009).

Image 1) Lena Carlsson and her dog Zoo.

! of !6 94


2.1 Methods As none of the project team members had any previous experience in agility, we decided to first start with an observation of a beginner’s training to not only see how agility works but also how the concept is taught to the handlers and the dogs. This observation was conducted as least interrupting and epoché as possible in order to get a clear view on how agility is taught. Epoché is a method to understand a domain as naive as possible without being influenced by earlier experience (Fällman, 2003). Second, we decided to observe how one professional handler trains with her dog. An interview was used to answer open questions and get further information about agility, training and competition. After the first and second observation, the project group met to go through the collected video material with the goal to identify main topics and open questions. During this session bodystorming was used to enact and improvise the observed movements in order to get a better understanding and feeling for the movements (Márquez Segura et al., 2016). This also helped to prepare the final field visit with more detailed questions and tasks to better discuss individual movements.

To get a better understanding of how different professional agility handlers train and compete, online video material of different national and international agility competitions was used. Based on the knowledge from the observations, the focus was on different ways of human-animal interaction and different movements. As next step, we conducted a literature research, focusing on the theoretical background of human-animal interaction (HAI), agility and human-dog interaction (Westerlaken & Gualeni, 2013). Furthermore we looked at existing technology and designs from the field of HAI, animal-computer interaction (ACI) and human-computer interaction (HCI). The goal was to understand the existing research area and the current status of development as well as existing limitations and challenges.

The next step in getting a further detailed opinion on agility, was to interview a second agility trainer. In order to get more insight into the domain and to explore existing problem areas, we prepared and conducted a semi-structured interview with a Finnish agility handler.

The final step in understanding the domain, was to have a field visit at Lena’s training. The goal for this session was to give Lena specific tasks for the training, in order to help us answering open questions and exploring some areas of agility in depth. Different recording techniques were used in this observation to get a better perspective of Lena and her dog. Furthermore, we decided to use Lena’s detailed instructions on specific movements when navigating the dog, in order to try out these movements ourselves. After trying out individual movement, the next step was to do agility ourselves. When explaining the experience of trying the movements and doing agility three group members conducted an autobiographical approach (Márquez Segura et al., 2016).

! of !7 94


2.2 Observations 2.2.1 First Observation - Beginner’s Training

Image 2) The barn from outside. Image 3) The training area.

2.2.1.1 Planning

After the first contact we agreed with Lena that we could observe the beginner’s training. We explained that we do not want to interfere in any way during the session. Preparation and planning were done by phone and the final details clarified before the actual course started. We explained the topic, procedure and that we need a written statement of agreement of the participants for using pictures and video recordings. When the training started, Lena introduced us as students who want to observe the training sessions. Next, we explained the project and the goals to the participants ourselves and that we are going to take pictures and videos while they are training. We also asked them to sign the consent form (see appendix A1). Nobody mentioned concerns about being filmed or captured on pictures, but some did not want us to publish material about them. Therefore we will exclude image-/film material that shows these participants. The observation tasks during the course were separated in the group, so that two observants were taking notes, the other two were taking photos and video material. We did not actively interfere with any parts of the training but moved around the area constantly in order to get a good understanding of all activities and to see the training from different angles. After the training session we talked to some participants about their experience but without having an official interview. Finally, we talked to Lena about what we observed and how to proceed with the project.

What Agility training course for beginners

When 10.04.2016 18:20 - 19:20

Where Agility training place inside a barn outside of Luthagen, Uppsala

Trainer Lena Carlsson

Dogs 10Different kinds and sizesThe agility experience varied from 1-4 attended trainings

Handlers 15Some appeared in pairs (grand-/parents & children, friends, other)Age range was therefore very wide

! of !8 94


Image 4) Note taking Image 5) Filming from different positions.

2.2.1.2 The obstacles

The following list provides an overview of all obstacles that were available for the agility training course. Details on how the different tools were used, will be explained as far as the obstacle was explained by Lena. A full list of all existing agility obstacles with a description can be found in the appendix A2.

The first 3 images show contact obstacles. The yellow areas indicate parts of the obstacles that the dog needs to touch when crossing the obstacle.

Image 6) A-frame (Hus) Image 7) Dog-walk Image 8) Seesaw

Image 9) Tunnel Image 10) Chute Image 11) Slalom

! of !9 94


Image 12) Jump Image 13) Broad jump Image 14) Tire

2.2.1.3 The role of the instructor

Lena began the lesson by explaining that each handler should train individually with their dog. She also explained them how they should award the dog with treats on the obstacles, so that the dog will connect the award to the obstacle and not the handler. Lena also reminded all the handlers to make sure that the dogs do not fall off any obstacles, therefore the handler should hold on to the dogs on larger and more difficult obstacles. Additionally Lena said that she will be walking around the course area observing and if she sees difficulties she will help. Lena tells the handlers that the goal is that the dogs will learn all the obstacles, how to go through them as well as learn the names for them. The handler can give the obstacle any name they prefer. Also Lena encourages the handlers and the dogs to try out all obstacles. The handlers should hold on to the collar of the dog on the more difficult obstacles in case the dog would fall off the obstacle.

Guiding the dog’s focus

One of the main things to learn in agility is that the dog needs to focus on the obstacle. Normally the dog walks with the attention directed towards the handler. This needs to be changed in agility. Lena explained that treats can be given through trays, so that the dog doesn’t associate treats with the handler. Furthermore, she told that it is important to get the dog to learn the obstacle’s name by saying it and encouraging the dog at the same time as giving treats. For the example of the jump, Lena explained that the tray should be used at the end of the obstacles in order to guide the dog's attentions straight onwards instead of looking to the handler at the side of the obstacle.

Image 15) Guiding the dog’s focus, using a white plate for the treats.

! of !10 94


Image 16) The handler shows the tray to the dog. Next the handler brings the dog to the start of the obstacle.

Lena gave some specific instructions for more complicated obstacles when training the dog. Different obstacles require different kinds of explanation, body movements, positions of the treat tray and so on. Lena explained and showed four of the obstacles, which are slalom, bag- chute, see-saw and broad jump.

Slalom According to Lena, the slalom is the most difficult obstacle in agility. The most important part is to guide the dog through the slalom with the correct movements of the hands. She trained the right movements of the hands with several people in order to show them how to navigate their dogs. Lena demonstrates this by holding a treat in her hand and fast shows which direction the dog should go through, as shown in image 18 below.

Image 17) Lena observers and gives instructions for the participants.

! of !11 94

The following video shows a short part of the training observation, when a participant trained with this obstacle: https://youtu.be/9fgOju8WfFg.

https://youtu.be/9fgOju8WfFg

https://youtu.be/9fgOju8WfFg


Image 17) Slalom instructions

Chute First, the handler puts the treats on the tray which is at the end of the chute, and shows the dog where the treat is. Then, the handler leads the dog to the starting point of the chute and lets the dog go through it. To get the dogs to go through the chute the handler holds the chute up the first times the dog go through so that they see the treats at the end and then they let the dogs run through without holding the chute up.

Image 19) Lena holds up the end of the Image 20) The next time the dog can go through chute to guide the dog. the back without holding up the end of the chute.

! of !12 94


Contact obstacles First, the handler puts the treat on the seesaw and also shows it to the dog. After that, the handler leads the dog to the starting point of the seesaw and asks the dog to walk on it. When the dog reaches the middle point, the handler should help the seesaw turn down slowly to avoid the big noise which will scare the dog. And then, the dog gets the treat and walks off the obstacle. This technique is also applied for the A-frame and the dog walk.

Image 21) See-saw Image 22) A-frame

Image 23) Dog walk

Broad jump First, the handler puts the treats on the tray and takes the tray few meters away from the jumping board. Then, the handler leads the dog to the starting point and says “spring (run)”. The dog runs, jumps and gets the treats.

Image 24) Focus and distance for the broad jump.

2.2.1.4 The dog’s behaviour

In the beginning the dogs were anxious and excited, which meant that they were trying to smell and run around everywhere, there was also a lot of barking and whining. Some dogs were afraid of going on the obstacles, froze and were not willing to move on the obstacles or they jumped off in the middle. Some of the dogs were more focused on their handlers and ignored the obstacles. The dogs set the treats as their goal and after they finished the tasks they would get the treats as rewards. Some dogs knew how to go through the obstacles and they went fast without any hesitation.

! of !13 94

The following video shows how Lena uses treats on different places on top of the obstaclehttps://youtu.be/hsehN7-pSJ8.

The dog’s anxiety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsNNe3tfGuQ)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsNNe3tfGuQ

https://youtu.be/hsehN7-pSJ8

https://youtu.be/hsehN7-pSJ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsNNe3tfGuQ


2.2.1.5 The handler’s behaviour

When the dogs went through/over the obstacles the handlers ran beside the dog when they could, for example running beside the dog when it climbed the Dog-walk. Some handlers unleashed the dogs at certain obstacles such as the jumping obstacles. There was also a difference in how the handlers performed the movements needed to guide the dog, some used more verbal communication and others used their hands to guide the correct direction. Some participants struggled with the slalom for example and had to get more help from the trainer. The handlers held on to the dogs in case the dogs fall down from the high obstacles. They also held the seesaw to avoid making big noise. When the dogs were nervous on the obstacle the handlers held the dogs closer and forced them to get them to go over it. The handlers took regular breaks with their dogs and took them out of the barn or sat on the side of the area. To encourage the dogs the handlers used words as “Bra” (eng. good/well done) and “Duktig” (eng. good/clever) and gave treats.

2.2.1.6 Explanations

After the training session was over, we got some further details from Lena regarding what we had seen and why specific things are important. She explained us how different obstacles are working and that it is very important for beginners that the dogs do not get too scared or even hurt by any of the obstacles. According to Lena, treats are used to help the dogs in which direction they should look to. In agility dogs have to look straight. That is why they use the white plates in the training for positioning the treats. The goal is to change the dog’s focus. The dogs need to learn that they should not look at the handler but at the obstacle that is in front of them and that they will find the treat behind it. About agility in general she said that it very much depends on the dog but that they enjoy the physical activity and that you can see how they get used to the obstacles and enjoy it even if they are scared in the beginning. Another comment was, that dogs are very fast in agility and that is a reason why the training is very important. They use names for the specific obstacles in order to help them in a competition to know where to go. One other important point is that the handler is responsible for navigating the dog through the course in a very fast way.

2.2.1.7 ‘Wrong’ movements

One of the questions coming up during and after the training sessions was, what wrong movements are in agility. What does it mean if something does not work? Who is responsible for the wrong behaviour - the dog or the handler? We used the collected video material and notes from the observation to analyse with these questions in mind. As we saw a beginner’s class, one of the most observed situations with ‘wrong’ movements was the dog’s fear about the unknown obstacles. In several situations, the dogs did not want to go over or through the obstacle as they were scared. This is why the main reason for the first sessions is to get used to the obstacles and take away the fear. The handlers have to hold their dogs with more physical force in order to show them that they do not need to be scared. According to Lena, the slalom is the most complicated obstacle in agility. We observed several troubles with this obstacle. The slalom is a lot about how the handler navigates the dog through the poles. In the situations observed by us (and shown in the video below), the handler uses the wrong hand and the wrong movement when showing the dog the right way. As the dog always follows the handler’s hand, it did not do the slalom in the correct way. It was a ‘wrong’ movement by the handler that resulted in a ‘wrong’ movement by the dog (that technically did everything right, as it just followed the handler’s instructions).

! of !14 94


Another trouble that we observed was that the dog was too much focused in the handler and not on the obstacle. In one situation (that can also be seen in the video below) a handler tried to show the dog how to go through the chute but the dog did not follow the instructions.

Another example was a situation where a handler placed a treat in front of the tunnel, showed it to the dog, took the dog to the other end of the tunnel and wanted the dog to go through the tunnel to collect the treat. In this situation (as in the one before) the dog was focused very much on the handler. As the handler is not going through the tunnel, but runs next to it, the dog is not going through the tunnel itself. It either walks to the handler, next to the tunnel or jumps on the obstacle. What we also realised in this situation, is that the handler sometimes did not see that the dog was not behaving as expected. After bringing the dog in position in front of the tunnel, the handler’s focus switches to the end of the tunnel in order to catch the dog’s leash again when the dog leaves the tunnel. In this situation, the instructor was observing the dog’s behaviour and informed the handler if the dog did not enter the tunnel. Image 25 gives a better illustration of this situation, where the connection between dog and handler is disturbed, which can lead to misunderstanding and not observed ‘wrong movements’.

Image 25) Example for a wrong movement at the tunnel.

2.2.1.8 General impression of the first observation

Visiting a beginner’s course showed us how difficult it is to teach dogs the necessary abilities for agility. Taking part in competitions needs time and practice as the dog needs to get used to the obstacles, and to the way that the handler gives instructions. It shows how important the relationship between the handler and dog is for this kind of sport. The same applies for the importance of language and gestures. We agreed that agility is a difficult area for the given project, but that it also contains several interesting and challenging opportunities.

! of !15 94

The following video shows wrong movements at the slaloms and at the chute: https://youtu.be/1bZq7dHoJng

https://youtu.be/1bZq7dHoJng

https://youtu.be/1bZq7dHoJng


2.2.2 Second Observation - Professional Training

Image 26) Lena & her dogs Image 27) The training area in Gottsunda

In order to see how a professional handler trains agility, we decided to meet Lena on one of her individual training sessions in Gottsunda. The plan was to observe how Lena trains with her dogs and how the difference is to the beginner course. The focus was on the trained communication between dog and handler. Furthermore we wanted to get a better understanding of the difficulties and tactics of agility. As Lena has trained agility for 30 years, our main interest was in seeing how she communicates with the dog, using her own body, language and other tools. Finally we wanted to get a better knowledge about agility competitions. We prepared several interview questions that we wanted to focus on.

2.2.2.1 Preparation

When we arrived, we first told Lena our plan, that we want to observe her while training. After that she started to rearrange some of the obstacles and adapted the height of the jumps so that they matched her dog's size. Next, she introduced her two dogs - Zoo and Snö. Both are experienced agility champions who have competed in various competitions. She explained that both dogs are really calm. It was directly visible for us that both animals fully focused on Lena, with their eyes and body posture.

What Individual agility training by a professional handler

When 14.04.2016 15:00-16:00

Where Uppsala Brukhundsklubb, Gottsunda

Trainer/Handler Lena Carlsson

Dogs 2Zoo - 3 year old pumi (the breed) that Lena competes withSnö - 11 year old pumi, that Lena used to compete with, but is now retired (Snö is Zoo’s father)

! of !16 94


2.2.2.2 During the training

When Lena took off Zoo’s leash, both dogs start barking a lot. Zoo was jumping around in circles behind Lena while they walk around the course. Lena gave Zoo the command to sit at a certain point, says “sitt” and “stanna” (eng. stay). Next Lena walked away towards the obstacles. Lena started the training by leading Zoo through different obstacles from different angles. She pointed with her hands where Zoo should go and combined this with words like “runt” (eng. around) if Zoo was supposed to go around. She also said the names of the obstacles which Zoo should do, for example “tunneln”. Lena did different gestures that mean different things, she used her full body language. She used her full arm to show Zoo when to go far and smaller gestures when the obstacle is close. While she was running across the course, showing directions, she often rotated her whole body so that it faces Zoo or blocks his way. Lena sometimes already prepared the next move and obstacles while Zoo was doing the previous one, so often Lena was running ahead of Zoo. In addition to showing directions, Lena encouraged Zoo by saying “duktig” and “bra”. Sometimes Lena used clapping and calling Zoo’s name to get his attention. Finally Zoo’s reward was playing with a toy. Lena also used a clicker-tool to emphasise that he did something right or that it was time to play with the toy.

Image 28) Jump Image 29) Slalom Image 30) Tunnel

2.2.2.3 Answering questions during breaks and after training

After each training session, Lena used a tool to generate a click sound which meant she would give the dog a toy to play with as a reward. She also explained to us that there are two different clickers with different sounds, the second one means receiving treats. She told us, the dog should be excited but treats makes the dog calm, therefore toys are often used as reward in competitions to keep the dog alert. According to Lena, the agility training is not only about the dog, but the handler is as important as the dog when it comes to results. The handler’s position, body language, timing of the movement have a great impact on the results. Some movements can be done a little in advance but there is also a risk that the dog does the action too early. The dog trusts the handler’s body language. Already small changes can influence the outcomes. She also talked about the handler should not run more than the dog. Therefore finding appropriate positions, routes and controlling the accurate timing is really important. Every handler has their personal movements and gestures, although some are more general. Lena has chosen movements that are efficient for her, so that she does not need to do unnecessary or additional movements. She also said that there are continuously new trends on how to gesture in order to make the dog understand better. She always wants to explore more techniques to become better. When a handler creates a new style, the dog learns it.

! of !17 94


A dog is at its best when they are between 5-6 years old. To achieve good results, the relationship between the handler and the dog is important. It is not about dominating, the dog should be a family member and the handler should be more of a teacher, therefore, the dog will trust the handler and perform good in agility competition. As said in the first training, the slalom is the most difficult obstacle to teach the dog because the dog should always enter from the right side of the first pin and zigzag through the poles as fast as possible. The difficulty is in trusting that the dog knows from which side to enter and that the dog completes the whole slalom. When Zoo does the slalom, Lena already runs to the next obstacle. Therefore trust plays an important role.

Image 31) Clicking tool

2.2.2.4 Training strategies & ‘wrong’ movements

The main issues that we observed and that were also clarified by Lena during the breaks, were that focus, timing and trust play major roles in agility. As agility is very fast, it is important to have trust between the handler and the dog. The focus of both the dog and the handler is also very important. The handler needs to work with the dog’s attention when navigating it through the obstacles but needs to let it run in other situations, in order to create speed. Lena often called the dog’s name when she wanted to get his focus of example after running in the tunnel or in the salmon. When the dog’s attention was back on Lena, she could give instructions using her body and words to navigate to the next obstacle. The timing between these interactions and movements is very important in agility (due to the fast speed). Lena needs to know where her dog is, what it is focusing on and how to navigate him to the next part of the competition. If she is giving instructions too early or too late, the dog might not see it or does something different. If she does a movement to fast or too slow, the dog’s attention might already be on the obstacle again and he might have missed important instructions. The wrong focus, timing or instruction can lead to wrong movements by the dog which will either lead to less points or disqualification in the competition. The example of jumping should be used in this case to make it clearer how important movement, timing and focus are when doing agility.

! of !18 94

The following video shows how Lena explains the different movements and directions when showing her dog how to jump: https://youtu.be/Gp8OpzaCaTA.

https://youtu.be/Gp8OpzaCaTA

https://youtu.be/Gp8OpzaCaTA


Image 32) Jumping with two obstacles Image 33) Navigation “runt”

Image 34) Wrong movement until the dog makes it correct

Image 32 shows that body, arm and position in combination with saying “Hop” is needed to navigate the dog over two jumping obstacles. If Lena calls for the dog’s name (“Zoo”) the dog knows that it needs to come back to Lena. Image 34 shows how Lena was trying several times to make her dog go one way (number 6). Zoo did the wrong movement 5 times before he finally made the correct jump. Lena did not stop after he did it the wrong way, but continued until it was correct. She tried different kinds of movements with her body, playing with her position, body direction, arm, speed and size of the movement as well as with the commands until she got it correct.

2.2.2.5 Agility competitions

During the observation Lena told us a lot about agility competitions and training. She explained that the dogs are divided in 3 groups when competing: small, medium and large. Zoo is competing in small. The height of the obstacles depends on the size group. In competitions the handlers have 8 minutes to learn the order of 15-18 obstacles and think about the gestures and movements which they will give the dog in order to guide them through the obstacles. She also described how a competition might have 50 participants, which means all are learning the course during the 8 minutes at the same time. That is why some very difficult parts of the course become crowded. The obstacles are numbered to make it easier for the handlers to remember the order. The maximum length between two obstacles that a dog is changing between should be 7 meters. If the dog goes to the wrong obstacle or enters from a wrong direction, they are disqualified. But due to the importance of body language in navigating the dog, this often can be the handler’s fault and not the dogs.

! of !19 94


2.2.2.6 General impression after the second observation

After visiting Lena during her individual practice we noticed that there is a big difference between agility for experienced handlers and beginners. The way of practicing with the dogs is different because experienced dogs already know the obstacles and now the focus is on going in different orders between them, from different angles and in high speed. In our first observation everyone had leashes on their dogs when practicing, this is something that is only done when you start to learn agility since the sport requires the dog to be unleashed. We were surprised by the fact that handlers only have 8 minutes to learn the order of the obstacle course and decide on the gestures that will lead the dog through it. Also how though the rules are, if the dog goes to the wrong obstacle. Seeing Lena practice also made it visible how important all small movements and gestures that Lena did are. The dog is really attentive to the handler’s gestures and making the wrong movement can causes the dog to make the wrong action, even if these movements were done by accident or unintentionally. Through this we realised that the control of the body towards the dog is the essence of agility.

2.3. Competition Videos We furthermore decided to look at competition videos on Youtube because of time constraints we were not able to attend an actual competition. The reason for looking at these videos was to see how other handlers use their body and what types of gestures they use, since we have only been observing Lena. Therefore each team member looked at videos and paid attention to the handler's movements. Also we decided to concentrate on mistakes and how these mistakes are dealt with in competitions.

2.3.1 Different kinds of handling the dogExample 1 - Using one hand for navigation

In the first example it constantly changes which hand the handler uses depending on which side the obstacle is on. A noticeable gesture she uses is that she has all fingers open when showing the dog which obstacle to take.

Image 35) Example 1 - Small Dog Agility - 2013 Las Vegas.

! of !20 94


Example 2 - Using two hands

This handler uses two hands at the same time. She already lifts her right hand up before the dog has gone over the jump (as seen in image 36). She uses her left hand to signal the dog to jump the obstacle and the right hand to slow down the dog because the next turn is really steep.

Image 36) Example 2 - Agility - Championship Final | Crufts 2016

Example 3 - Using both hand and body posture

This handler also uses two hands. The dog has jumped too far as the next obstacle to take is the green one on the right. The handler leans her chest and left foot forward, and shows the dog to come to her. She also uses her left arm to balance and afterwards to guide the dog over the green jump.

Image 37) Example 3 - Agility - Championship Final | Crufts 2016

! of !21 94


Example 4 - Hands are close to the dog

This handler has his hands really close to the dog through the entire course, in front of the dog’s face as shown in image 38.

Image 38) Example 4 - Crufts Semi-Final Large Breed Agility Team Contest | Crufts 2012

2.3.1.1 General observation from different handlers

In the video from Crufts Semi-Final Large Breed Agility Team Contest in 2012 handlers from different countries competed and different styles of handling became apparent. Some handlers did as the one described above, had their hands close to the dog’s vision constantly through the course. Some relied more on combining gestures with voice commands than others. One handler was yelling constantly through the course, telling the dog which obstacle to go to, to focus on them, go faster and that they did a good job. You could also see that some used handlers moved less or slower than other handlers and then used other means to get the dog’s attention such as voice commands or big arm and hand gestures.

! of !22 94


2.3.2 Dealing with different obstaclesIn the appendix the full list of the different types of obstacles can be found. Here we will discuss them a bit more in detail.

2.3.2.1 Contact obstacles

Three of the obstacles are contact obstacles, which means they have an area painted in yellow and at least one of the dogs paws have to touch the area during the competition. The dog walk also has contact points in the beginning and the end. Handlers often run next to the obstacle while the dogs are running, they might show with hand signals the contacts, say ‘take it’ or stop for a few seconds at the end so that the dog knows to stop as well.

Image 39) The dog jumps over the contact point, which means they get 5 penalty points

On the seesaw the dog must use its balance at the midpoint to stabilise, uses it weight to lower the other side down to the ground and then can descend. The obstacle tests the dog's confidence, habitually a dog would jump off it, in agility the end of the seesaw has to touch the ground before they can jump off. The smaller the dog the more they have to go to the end to get it to tip. Handlers might wait next to the dog so that they for sure slow down. On the A-frame mistakes are made if the dog goes too fast and misses the contact in the beginning or the end. The dog might either jump off early before the contact point or jump over the area. Handlers signal the dog to slow down in the same was as in the dog walk explained earlier.

2.3.2.2 Other obstacles

Weaves (slalom): The handler encourages the dog to do slalom by clapping or by words. The goal, as explained by Lena earlier, is that the dog goes to the weaves from the right side, as fast as possible, and exits through the correct side.

Tunnel: The handler claps or encourages when the dog is inside the tunnel. The handler also shows with gestures which end to go in from and waits immediately for the dog to come out from the other end. It is important for the handler to be ready to guide the dog to next obstacle since the dog is running in the tunnel without seeing anything.

! of !23 94


Chute: The handler claps or encourages when the dog is inside the chute. It is important for the handler to give clear directions to the dog where he/she is after the chute because the dog does not see anything until it has come out of the chute.

Jumps: There are different types of jumps, we have mainly seen broad jumps and regular jumps during our observations. The commands regarding the jumps therefore is “runt” (eng. around) and “hopp” (eng. jump).

Tire: The tire is kind of like the jump, but that the dog should jump through a tire. The tire is two half's of a circle attached by magnets, so if the dog jumps into the tire instead of through it, they won’t get hurt.

2.3.3 ’Wrong’ movementsExample 1 - Wrong signals

The handler has her right hand after the obstacle a bit away from her body but does not signal the dog the next obstacle (the one in the lower left corner). As the handler does not signal the dog too clearly to jump on the next obstacle, rather than jumping the dog runs to her.

Image 40) Wrong movement - Small Dog Agility - 2013 Las Vegas.

Example 2 - Dog and handler running into each other

In this example the handler and the dog have problems communicating and the dog runs into the handler. As you can see in the image the handler is showing where to go to the dog, but the dog is looking somewhere else and is running to the handler's feet.

Image 41) Running into each other - Small Dog Agility - 2013 Las Vegas.

! of !24 94


2.4 Field visit

2.4.1 Planning and Methods

The goal of the field visit was to see how Lena memorises a course in an agility competition. We decided to design a competition course for her, and based on the material we had gathered from the previous observation we were able to design a course with the obstacles available. We put a few difficult turns to see how she uses her body to navigate through these. Also we wanted to see when we give her the time to practice and memorise the course, how does she plan what gestures and body movements to use. In addition to the competition course, we also made a sketch of different jumping sequences, in order to see more specifically how she moves body in tight turns. In order to get a new perspective on agility, we decided to add one camera to the dog’s back and another one to the handler’s chest. This way we hope to not only see agility from the outside, but to get a better idea of how the communication between handler and dog works.

Image 42) Harness to put the camera Image 43) Adding the on the dog’s back. camera to the handler’s chest

For the field visit we asked Lena to use the think aloud method so that we could get an understanding of how agility handlers strategies in competitions. One of the team members conducted an auto ethnographical approach. Finally we asked Lena several additional questions to get a deeper understanding of her thoughts.

What Individual agility training by a professional handler, including detailed tasks and questions.

When 26.04.2016 13.30-16.30



Dogs Zoo

! of !25 94


Image 44) The initial plan for a obstacle course to observe the memorising

Image 45) Plan to test different jumping methods to observe the movement

For the jumping exercises we placed two of the jumps relatively close to each other. We also used the numbers from the competition and changed them according to our plan as shown in the images above.

! of !26 94

9

8

5

7

6

14

16

1

2

15

4

1110

3

13 12

2 3 14

2

3 1

4

23 14

Start

4

2 3

1

4

2

3

1


2.4.2 Result

Lena gave feedback on our competition course, which resulted in a few changes as shown in image 46. The problems concerned that we weren’t aware of the rules of the placement and order of the obstacles. First problem was the distance between the obstacles which can be maximum 7 meters, second the order; you can’t take the same obstacles twice and third; the dog should not have to do u-turns between obstacles because they might get hurt. Because of this we adjusted the course, but still kept it similar even though it went against the rules (repeat same obstacle and u-turn were not changed). The areas with notification marks shows where Lena sees problems and complications which would not be allowed in competition.

Image 46) Updated agility map as developed together with Lena

When the course was build Lena walked around to memorise it, during which she thought aloud. During her memorising session she followed the numbers explaining the strategy she would chose for the obstacle and explained different strategies in places where she could think of more than one. One expression she used regularly when explaining was where she would “sätta hunden” (eng. place the dog) in relation to the obstacles.

2.4.2.1 Memorizing

There were a few places on the course where Lena said she could use different strategies, one of them was the transition from the slalom to the dog-walk. This was one transition that wouldn’t have been allowed in a real competition, and therefore it was difficult to manage. The different strategies involved on which side Lena should be of Zoo when doing the course, either she could be on the “inside” of the u-turn or “outside” related to Zoo.

! of !27 94

In this video Lena explains the two strategies in Swedish: https://youtu.be/1uZWWobkgns.


The other really difficult obstacle was the jump combination that Lena explained also is not allowed in real competitions. In this jump combination we wanted Zoo to jump over one jump, go around and jump over another, go back to the first jump and jump over and go around the same jump again to jump. She explained that this is difficult, because she never has done this type of combination before and also that there is a number of different strategies she could chose from. The problem was to think of the strategy that would result in the fastest way (least amount of meters) through the obstacles. When thinking about strategies for the obstacles Lena said that if this was a real competition a lot of handlers would get stuck here discussing different strategies with each other. After some time at the obstacles Lena decided to leave the jumps even though she hasn’t made a decision, she said she will keep thinking about it and go back to it later after she has checked the rest of the course.

2.4.2.2 Doing competition course

We placed the camera on Lena and also on Zoo. Lena remembered the course and there were no faults. The part of the course with the difficult jumps, on the first round Lena hesitated. She said that when you memorise and practice the course, it is always a bit different when you are actually moving. The second time Lena attempted the competition course we tightened the harness on Zoo. Again Lena remembered the course, and did not hesitate as much on the difficult turn as in the first round. Zoo dropped one of the jumps in the end.

The video highlights the speed of the dog and how important timing is when guiding the dog through the obstacles. It also shows how often Zoo looks at Lena and how her movement often is in his direct focus.

2.4.2.3 Jumping exercises Lena looked at the numbers and thought how to navigate and how to use her arms, she also thought aloud all the different ways and which one she would choose. From our original plan for the jumping exercises we also had to delete two, since through the competition plan it came apparent that some of the jump types are not allowed.

2.4.2.4 Auto ethnographical approach

After each jumping exercise, Moa also tried to do it and Lena commented and corrected her, which will be described below. Lena showed the strategy she would use for the first jumping exercise, she said that it was a rather easy combination and that you could stay in one place and just with arm movements and voice commands to tell the dog where to go. So she would place the dog in front of the first jump and then go and stand between the two obstacles on the other side, this is drawn in the first jump in the picture below. Lena explained that the arm closest to the dog is for showing that the dog should go forward and the other arm works as a way to get the attention to you. So she showed Moa to start by pointing with her closest arm to the first obstacle and say “hopp” so Zoo jumps over the obstacle and then you want Zoo to go in between the obstacles to take the second obstacle from the same side as the first. Moa imitated Lena’s movements and held her right arm against the first jump. Then she had to do a sweeping motion with her right arm from the first obstacle to the second at the same time as she used her left arm to get the attention to her and say first “Zoo” to get Zoo to come in her direction and next “runt”

! of !28 94

The following video shows the dog’s view and Lena’s view: https://youtu.be/9NrXoxAd2wI


so Zoo would understand that he should go through and around before jumping on the other obstacle. This was a real challenge and not at all a natural movement for Moa. At the same time Moa also had to adjust the direction of her entire body, because she had to point it in the direction where Zoo should go to make him understand better what she means. After the second jump the same principle should be applied but in the other direction. So, when Zoo would have jump over the second jump Moa would point her right arm at the first obstacle and say “Zoo” followed by “runt”. After trying this movements a few times Moa got a little more comfortable, but still had troubles combining all the movements and commands, she could easily admit that if “I would have tried it for real with Zoo I would probably have failed”.

Image 47) Notes about jumping

The second jump exercise Moa experienced as a lot easier than the first one. Lena showed the movements which involved spinning in the middle of the obstacles constantly holding out the right arm to show Zoo where to go. The hard part to grasp was that Moa had to start with her body positioned away from Zoo and keep it spinning through the combination. Moa had to hold out her right arm against Zoo, thus diagonally backwards. Then she would say jump and do a sweeping motion with her arm and body to guide Zoo over the obstacles in a circle.

2.4.2.5 Questions & Discussion

After the jumping exercises we had a discussion session with Lena where we asked questions and discussed problems and training in agility. Lena told us that the rules of agility are changed every five years and the sport is discussed all over the world all the time for the purpose of improving it. For example there is always a big discussion going on regarding the obstacles and their safety. Lena mentioned that Sweden is one of the countries that are most extreme with making the obstacles safe for the dogs and she told us that some handlers will not compete in a competition if they do not use a tire that uses the magnets to split into half for example. To be this extreme causes problems according to Lena, since if the dog knows nothing bad happens to them if they jump into the tire it is easier for them not to bother jumping through it, which has become ordinary. If a dog in a competition jumps into a tire and not through it they get five points fault. Lena is against being overprotective with the dogs and says that her dogs probably are so good with jumping because she practice with them at other places than at an agility course, such

! of !29 94

Here is a video of some parts of the auto ethnographical approach:https://youtu.be/Y64a_cWlk_A

https://youtu.be/Y64a_cWlk_A

https://youtu.be/Y64a_cWlk_A


as at playgrounds or in the woods. For example she showed us that you could use a park bench to practice jumps and balance by letting the dogs jump up upon it and shake it when they stand on it. When you practice more robust things like this instead of agility obstacles, she says, they learn to position their feet right because they will hurt themselves a little if they hit the edge of the bench.

When discussing how handlers improve their handling and Lena said it is common to film each other during training to later look at and analyze. She also said that handlers could benefit from talking and practicing with athletics trainers to improve their efficiency in their movements. As a last part of the discussion we asked Lena what she defined as a successful run in a competition. She explained that the position you end up in does not matter as much as the feeling after the run. Just because you get first place does not necessarily mean that you are entirely happy with your performance as well as you can be really proud of your performance and end up in 8th place.

2.4.4 ReflectionIt was a bit complex to have four of us looking from one paper to find the correct places for the obstacles. Also, it was a surprise that we had done the course agains the rules. As mentioned the same obstacle is never taken twice in agility, but Lena was willing to try the combination anyway. But it was visible in the result that the difficult parts of the course were those that wouldn’t have been allowed in a real competition. If we would have done a course with no faults the result and memorising would probably have been different. As seen in one of the linked videos, Lena thinks about different strategies for completing the course and compares them to chose the ultimate one. She looks at which side she should be on, where the obstacle is and on which side the dog should be on. Additionally she looks at what is the next obstacle and how to guide the dog there. Based on this she chooses the strategy.

2.5 Interview with professional agility trainer In order to get another perspective for our project, we interviewed a close friend Eija who has a long history with training dogs, agility and herding. We prepared questions and interviewed her on the telephone, because she lives in a different country. The interview was planned as semi-structured interview, with the following questions as guidelines:

• How long have you trained agility for?• Competitions, how often have you taken part in competitions?• Are you training different with your different dogs?• What do you think are the most important parts in agility?• What is the most difficult in agility?• What areas you see need improvement? (training, preparation)• Is there anything that might help when training agility, for beginners and experts + also dog

and human? • Problems in agility? (training, the equipment, competitions…)• If you could wish for any kind of technological help, what would you wish for?• What kind of information about yourself or your dog would help you train agility? Eg.

distance, speed, heart rate. • After the training/competition how do you evaluate if it was good or not?• How do memorise the course in a competition?

! of !30 94


Eija has been training agility for 16 years, she is not actively competing anymore but practices agility at least two times a week with all her dogs. She currently has four dogs, all border collies, which she trains agility and herding sheep with. She said to use similar gestures and hand movements with all of her dogs, but said that as the dog are of different ages, personalities and stages of training, she has to adjust her body language depending on the dog. Her youngest dog is two years old, and is so excited and full of energy on the agility course that she has to show the dog more clear gestures. The most important thing in agility to her is to find the co-operation between the dog and her, so that both the dog and trainer are able to read and understand each other. Also what is really important and the most difficult in agility is the timing of the movements. “The dog constantly looks at your feet, arms, palms, body orientation and eyes which makes the timing extremely important and difficult.” When asking about when does she think a training had been good or bad, she says that it depends on if there has been minimal mistakes and that she sees the dog has learned something new, and that they as a team have improved.

About the competitions she said that in the beginning it was the most difficult aspect to learn to remember the course, but after practice it get easier. She says that for competitions she has used a platform One Mind Dogs (https://www.oneminddogs.com). “They have created some of the movements based on the type of turn or angle the course has. Now that I have learnt these, it is easier to look at the course and see what type of turn there is and then use the movement meant for that type of turn.”

What she would hope to be improved in agility are video recording devices. “In horse jumping competitions cameras are used in the ceiling as drones of the riding ring to record what is happening, but it is easier because the rider is on the horse's back. In agility the handler and the dog sometimes move away or from a distance from each other, which makes the video recording difficult.” She would hope for better video recording devices, which would allow the handler and trainer to reflect on the video immediately and be able to slow down the video. “Many use tablets of mobile phones to record the competitions or trainings, but the screens are relatively small and always filmed only from one perspective”. “The video and reflecting back is extremely important, since if the dog is unsure of what to do it will immediately look at the handler, but the handler might not see this”. Also she says that the training periods should be short, that one exercise should be practiced for five minutes and then the video should be reflected on immediately. “It is difficult after a half an hour to think of what went wrong at a certain point in the exercise.” Another thing she said would help agility training is automated treat dispensers. “There are a few remote reward systems on the market, like the treat and train, but they are troublesome.” They are not connected to the obstacles and they are fairly big in size. Also they are controlled with a remote control, which means there is a lag when pressing the button until the dog receives the treat and also as a handler you have to press the remote at a correct time. A remote reward system should be invisible and small, and also connected to the obstacle in someway.” Examples of these can be seen in the images 48 and 49.

Another improvement area she discussed was competitions and building the course. “The referee or judge has designed the competition course on a computer and printed it out onto paper. When they begin building the course on the day of the competition it takes a lot of time to get the course precisely as in the design sketch. The judge has to look at the paper over and over again and reflect back on what he thought about for the course. If there would be some way of projecting the designed course through the ceiling onto the course, so that the placement of the obstacles would be seen immediately - this would help a lot.” She also mentioned that it is important to think about is the focus on a single person training their dog, for competitions or for the owners of big training halls.

! of !31 94


Talking about how difficult agility is to learn Eija mentions a television show where a famous alpine skier discussed how agility cannot be a sport, later he was put to the test and from the link you can see how difficult the sport is, as the skier admits in the end.

Image 48) Treat & Train Remote Image 49) Ready Treat Radio- Reward Dog Trainer Controlled Treat Dispenser

2.6 Doing Agility

Eija started by telling Juulia to try the few obstacles that were on the course with the older dog Rai, who is more experienced in agility than the younger dog. Juulia asked her “what should I say to the dog, or are there any specific things I need to know?” and she said that “no not really you will see how the dog reacts and reads your gestures”. Juulia had tried agility a couple of times earlier at their house, so Juulia knew which words she would use for jump and the tunnel. The course consisted of two tunnels and three jumps (see image 50).

Image 50) The course

What Learning agility at a friends house - auto ethnographical approach by Juulia

When 04.05.2016 11:00 - 13:00

Where Siuntio, Finland

Trainer/Handler Juulia/Eija (teacher)

Dogs Rai (7 year old border collie) & Tuima (2 year old border collie)

! of !32 94

Example video for how complicated agility is to learn: https://www.facebook.com/villikortti2/videos/vb.509209759245250/600827480083477/?type=2&theater (from 01:10 onwards)


Eija told Juulia to go through the tunnel on the left, then let the dog jump the three jumps and then to the tunnel at the other end, turn around and come back. Juulia started by sending the dog into the tunnel and then turning her body and running towards the jumps and saying “jump”, running next to the dog and the jumps, and then saying tunnel and pointing with her hand. Then Juulia had to turn the dog back to the jumps and into the tunnel again. The picture shows how the exercise should of been completed.

Image 51) The course and first exercise.

The task was much more difficult than Juulia thought. “I immediately had problems when I sent the dog after the first set of jumps to the tunnel, the dog did not know from which direction to go in and took the wrong one”. “I continued back and the same happened at the other tunnel, the dog entered the tunnel from the wrong side”. Eija immediately stopped Juulia there and started explaining to her what she was doing incorrectly. Eija said that when Juulia was telling the dog to go into the tunnel her body had slowed down and she had not ‘shown’ the movements completely. Eija said like in tennis (Juulia has played tennis before) “you have to take the swing of the ball completely to the end". As Juulia explained “I had sent the dog to the tunnel I had leaned my upper chest backwards, telling the dog to stop as well and also I had not stepped forward with my foot completely, so my whole body movement had slowed down and the dog thought it should stop as well”. Also since “I did not put leg down with speed and force, the dog did not know which side to go from”. Then she told Juulia to try again, keeping these things in mind. Juulia tried again and this time did all of the movements till the end. Immediately “I saw how the dog read my body language way better and how the dog looked at where which foot I was using, where it was pointing and I took my upper body with me to the movements to lean forward”. Eija also explained that the position of the upper chest and feet is extremely important, that the dog often looks at them and that the hands are not as important that they are more for the handler to do these movements completely to the end, help the body balance and handler to remember the course. Later that day she also showed Juulia a video about this, where a bag is put over a handler that they cannot use their hands and they successfully complete the course.

Juulia repeated the course a few more times trying to get the hang of it, and it was really fun but also difficult. “You have to constantly be ready for the next movement and have to try to think of the movement quickly”.

! of !33 94

Doing agility without hands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqMHmUj2rPY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqMHmUj2rPY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqMHmUj2rPY


Image 52) The second exercise.

Then Eija wanted to show Juulia how the chest position and eyesight are really important in agility. She told Juulia to take the dog to the tunnel and to the jumps, when the dog has jumped the first jump Juulia should look and point at the dogs take off point (the red dot), stop running and take her chest up straight. Then she should guide the dog to jump the obstacle again and back to the tunnel. “I was first a bit confused about what is the dogs take off point and she explained it is the point where the dog gathers its speed and jumps over the obstacle”. “I was also confused because she did not tell me that I should verbally say anything to the dog so that it would not take the third jump anymore”. “I started and it felt unreal that I looked down at the point, pointed, stopped from running and leaned my chest behind and the dog immediately turned to look at me after jumping the second obstacle”. This really showed what was the difference with running with the dog and implying with your chest, feet and eyesight that we are going forward compared to stopping, looking down onto its takeoff point and moving the chest behind.

After these exercises Eija wanted to also show Juulia how her two dogs differ. As said Juulia first did the training with the older more experiences dog Rai, then we got her younger 2 year old dog Tuima. Eija told Juulia that Tuima is so full of energy that Juulia will notice how much more effort and clearer signals she will have to give her. We did the exact same exercises with the second dog. “When I started the first exercise the dog was full of energy”. “The first time with the other dog, at the jumps, I had only had to say “jump” and run next to the dog and it jumped all of the three jumps”. “Now when I told the dog jump, it jumped the first one, not the second one and then the third one”. “The dog also went so fast that I had to run to be able to show where to go”. “It was really difficult to show and tell the dog from a distance which side of the tunnel to go to, and the dog already went straight ahead through one”. The difference between the two dogs was huge. The older dog was easier to control compared to the younger one.

In order for Juulia to get the dog to successfully do what she wanted, she had to see her body as an object in order to change what she wanted to do. For example Eija told her to not lean forward when trying to get the dog to stop earlier on an obstacle, but to rather lean back. In order to think and change her posture and actions, Juulia had to consciously reflect on different body parts where they were (Höök, 2010). Juulia had to think where did she in fact put her balance and where had she placed her feet, which was really demanding. This meant that as Juulia experienced the activity, in order to change and improve, she had to think and see her body as an object. As we often need to see our body as an object when training agility, this is something that could be though of in design – can we help agility trainers in reflecting specific body parts to improve their body movement in agility?

! of !34 94


As Höök transferred scenarios from her horseback riding (Höök, 2010), Juulia tried through her experience to transfer some qualities from her experience to the group. “Perhaps the best way to transfer the scenarios from my experience was to show by re-acting some of the movements and situations to my project teammates”. “I explained how the training had been set up, what types of dogs I was handling, reenacted movements that I had done and tried to describe the difficulties I had faced. This showed me how difficult it is to explain how you have moved you body and why, as well as how you did feel”. After explaining, demonstrating and reenacting Juulia felt that the same experience could never be transferred completely to another person. Perhaps video and audio material of her doing the training could have helped when transferring the scenarios, or that some team members would have done similar trainings in order to compare experiences.

From the experience one of the most important scenarios Juulia realized was that the hand movements are the least important from our bodily movements in agility. The handler’s movement, direction of chest, position of feet, contact with the dog and verbal queues are more essential to the dog. The hand signals are mainly for the handler to get the feet and the posture correct, and memorize the course. Also “from my experience I would like to transfer the fact that when training someone is needed to tell what is done wrong, or that you can yourself reflect on this through a video etc, so some type of reflection for correction is needed. When doing wrong movements in agility it helps to see your body as an object, which is not easy. It helps if a third person is examining the body as an object, which parts of the body are doing incorrect movements (signing the dog with wrong signals). As a handler it is difficult to realize what specific parts of the body are doing at all times, since you experience doing agility with the whole body, which is why a third- person perspective is helpful.”

2.7 Reflection on the Methods This part will reflect on the chosen methods for the project and what the impact of them were.

2.7.1 Methods for gathering knowledgeThe first method we used was epoché observation, as mentioned in the methods chapter. What we got out of these observations was a very basic but helpful understanding of the domain. The focus on movement helped to see different aspects of movement. It helped to get an understanding of how agility movements are trained and practiced. Furthermore, we saw what a wrong movement is, without having detailed knowledge about agility itself. These very naive and open observation helped to not just hear about agility but to make up our own opinion before getting clarification. The next step was this clarification of what we have seen, this was accomplished by the interviews and discussions with Lena. This mix of methods helped us to combine the observed findings with the deep background knowledge provided by Lena. We also did an interview with another contact to get more perspective. Having this second contact contributed to new information and also again showed how individual agility is.

2.7.2 Methods to analyse & understand the knowledgeAfter getting all the information and material from the epoché, interview and observation we started to analyze it. As a group we went through the different observations, looked at all videos, photos and notes and discussed what actually happened. We noted down specific movements, made sketches and made mind maps. All of this helped us to gather all the material together, share thoughts and understand small concepts more clearly. Bodystorming was used as a tool to help us understand some of the movements that were done in the observations.

! of !35 94


We found this was the best way to describe and make all team members understand the movements. For this we used items in the interaction lab to represent obstacles and tried to explain each other how the movement was done. As we have mentioned earlier in the report this was done because of the difficulty of explaining movements without visualizing them and testing them for ourselves.

2.7.3 Further resourcesIn order to see different ways of handling, all team members watched competition and training videos online. We found this to be valuable since we had only observed one professional and wanted to see different ways of handling. Also the videos were watched in order to identify when handlers and dogs made mistakes. We had not seen a lot of mistakes from a professional and from the competition videos it gave us more insight to what types of mistakes professionals often face. As these were mainly competition videos, they had expert commentaries which helped us in understanding what mistake had happened. This insight was an important one, since we focused a lot of attention on making a solution that would help reflect on mistakes.

2.7.4 Final understandingFor the third observation we tested all of our new knowledge with the course and jumping exercises we created. Also clarify questions that we had and make a more detailed observation. This observation contributed a lot with knowledge about how you build courses and competitions work in agility. It also gave a detailed description of the handler’s thinking about how they should handle a course, which movements the handler should do where they should run. The focus in this observations was the handler’s movements and strategies. Moa tried the hand movements herself and learned that it is far more difficult than it looks to have the necessary control you need over your body when doing agility.

2.7.5 DOING agilityDoing agility was a good learning experience to see how all small movements affect the dog and how the dog reacts. Also the training helped realize that agility looks easy when observed, but is totally different when you try it yourself, as a handler you are the person who tells the dog where to go and what to do. Additionally, we learned how eyesight, chest direction and posture, position of feet and complete movement is really important. As the training was done with different dogs also the difference between the dogs was noticed, that for some dogs you have to put a lot more effort to show clearly what to do. Doing agility with Lena’s dog Zoo for example was a good final feedback to our domain analysis it became much more obvious how important the handler’s body language is. Doing agility was much more complicated than we thought. The speed was totally surprising and the complexity of coordination and communication stunning. For example, when Laura did agility with Zoo, she did not expect the dog to be so fast and so demanding in navigation instructions. Laura’s personal speed was definitely a minus, as the dog was much faster. It was complicated to be in the right position at the right time. For example when the dog was running through the tunnel, it was not possible for her to be at the end of the tunnel when the dog reached the end. It resulted in the problem that Zoo came out of the tunnel and was searching for more instructions. The most stunning experience was the confused look by Zoo when pointing to an object with one hand. Lena explained that Laura’s body was pointing in one and her hand in another direction. The dog focuses on the direction of the body and is not just following one hand. It is a complex coordination for the full body. Not only the body position but also the movement need to point towards the next obstacle. This observation helped to get a better and much deeper understanding of the complex movements in agility.

! of !36 94


2.8 Final Domain Analysis Thanks to Lena’s great engagement, we were able see different aspects of agility and to get a good background understanding. This was backed up with further observations and interviews. In order to align all our observations, we created a short mind map to highlight the main elements which we saw that played a role in agility. This map by far is not complete and does not cover all the detailed observations that we made and that we mentioned in the report. But it helps to start categorising and organising the new knowledge in this until then unknown field. A more detailed description of the mind map can be found in the appendix A3.

Image 53) Mind Maps with thoughts and keywords about agility

! of !37 94


Next, in a brainstorming session (see image 54) we focused on understanding what positive and negative points in agility are. The positive points are elements that we wanted to focus on, the negative are points that are important but difficult to cover.

Positive: • Handler’s knowledge• Communication between dog and handler• Social activities• Change strategies• Very individual• Bond

Negative: • Concerns as ethics and safety• Ground is different• Location changes• Barn size is different• Smell

� Image 54) Brainstorming session

! of !38 94


3. Theory I In this part of the document, our goal is to connect our observations with the course literature and other literature. As human-animal interaction is a growing field, we did an extensive literature research of different topics in this research area. We wanted to look for existing literature about animal-human and animal-computer interaction, for existing examples and designs as well as for literature about the human dog interaction in particular. After the literature research we proceed by connecting our agility observations with topics mentioned in the course.

3.1 Literature Research The literature research were divided to four different topics; (1) Human-Animal Interaction, (2) Animal-Computer Interaction, (3) Existing Designs, and (4) Human-Dog Interaction. Human-Animal Interaction (HAI) concerns the relationship between human and animal and there has been research about how understanding of the animals perception would enhance this relationship (Westerlaken & Gualeni, 2013). Animal-Computer interaction (AIC) on the other side concerns extending computer interaction to our pets (McGrath, 2009). We found a lot of different examples of designs that incorporate HAI and ACI, most of them regarded how to keep the owner and the pet interacting with each other from distance (Lee et al., 2006). But there were also examples of technologies that helped working dogs to communicate with their owners (Jackson et al., 2013). The last topic we looked at was more specific to our domain; Human-Dog interaction (HDI). Most of the research in this area was about making the training of dogs more efficient (Hiby et al., 2004).

The literature research gave insights to the area of our domain, but didn’t contribute further in the project. This method provided us with a deeper understanding of how human-animal interaction is currently researched and what different kind of approaches and solutions are used for that. Furthermore, it showed us different areas that are totally unexplored - as agility! Most papers focused on needs as remote control of the pet, distance observation and social interaction for pets that are alone at home while the owner is working. Another area was hunting dogs, focusing on distance monitoring and feedback. All papers gave interesting insights but did not provide any approach for the given agility project. A more detailed discussion of the literature research can be found in the appendix A4, it will not be further discussed in the scope of the project.

3.2 Connection to course literature Animal-human interaction and especially human-dog interaction has been discussed in different papers in HCI research. In this part of the report, we want to connect agility with the topics from the embodied interaction course.

3.2.1 EmbodimentAs agility contains various actors and physical elements, the way that they are all embedded in the world and the ways in which they depend on each other is very important for agility. Thus, the concept of embodiment is applicable to the domain of agility (Dourish, 2004). Furthermore, movement and action are a main part of agility. Each movement has a meaning and intention and

! of !39 94


the results in further actions by other actors or elements. Therefore, the relationship between action and meaning plays an important role in agility - not only in competition but also in training.

Dourish’s design principles are also something that interesting when designing for a embodied solution for agility (Dourish, 2004). Especially because meaning arises in multiple levels and that the users create the meaning. This is particularly important in agility, as it is very unpredictable and different for different handlers.

3.2.2 Phenomenology Dourish (2004) describes that all kinds of phenomenology are about the different elements of experience, why it also has a central role in agility. Especially the philosophy by Heidegger (Dourish, 2004) and Merleau-Ponty (Merleau-Ponty, 1962) seem to contribute with helpful approaches and concepts. Heidegger contribute the discussion of agility with the concepts that tools can be ready-at-hand or present-at-hand. When a tool is actively focused on it’s present-at-hand and when it becomes part of an action and thus disappearing to the background it’s ready-at-hand (Dourish, 2004). These concepts are interesting in developing a solution but are also important when thinking about the role of the obstacles in agility. Merleau-Ponty’s idea of perception is important for our domain, as well as his understanding of the phenomenal field and the influence that an individual’s background has on the situation (Svanӕs, 2013). The intention and the directness of the handler’s and the dog’s movements need to be considered when thinking about agility. Another phenomenological approach that might be important is coming from Schutz, who focuses on the intersubjectivity and how a common experience can be achieved in a social world (Dourish, 2004). This because the dog and the handler share a common reality and need to understand each other.

3.2.3 Tacit KnowledgeTrying out the movements ourselves showed how complicated and important the individual elements of each defined action are. The handler needs to have tacit knowledge about the movements in order to perform them in the necessary speed of a competition (Dourish, 2004). It is not possible to be “present-at-hand” and to think about each movement all the time when communicating with the dog. Stating this, we use the concept of ”present-at-hand” further than Dourish explains it to go, since he claims Heidegger’s focus is on physical tools while we extend it to saying body parts can be seen as tools in agility.

3.2.4 SomaestheticsThe body consciousness plays an important role in agility. The handler needs to be aware of the own body but also of the dog’s movements and bodily situation. The same applies for the different ways of consciousness and awareness (Shusterman, 2013). Cognitive sensation plays as much a role as extereoception, intereoception and proprioception (Márquez Segura, 2016). The relative position of the body is as important as the sense of your own body and the body from the outside to understand what the dog sees. When observing agility it helped to think about the different levels of consciousness. Also the different kinds of awareness - First, Second and Third Person - plays a role in the perception of the own body in agility. The body is not only used as a tool but self-reflection is a main part when thinking how the dog perceives the handler’s body and movement. All these terms were introduced in the lecture by Márquez Segura (2016). When doing the observation, we used the different branches of somaesthetics, looking at the facts with interviews and literature research, used pragmatic methods to get a holistics understanding of the

! of !40 94


movement and finally did the movement ourselves (Shusterman, 2013). We tried to use our own somaesthetic skills and further develop them while meeting Lena and in our own discussions.

3.2.5 Body Schema & KinesphereDue to the importance of somaesthetics, also the concepts of imagining your own body when doing something and the space that you act in play a role in agility. A person’s kinespehere is one of these aspects - defined as the space you can reach without leaving your stance (Márquez Segura, 2016). In this project we extend the definition to the space around you can influence. The question is if your space is extended by the dog or if both have their own space that are interacting with each other and meeting at specific points in time.

3.2.6 Embodied Interaction - Design methods & frameworksIn our observation phase as well as in the designing phase, we focused a lot on methods mentioned in the course. As the body and the movement are in the center of agility, we used methods as autobiographical approach, bodystorming and embodied sketching (Márquez Segura et al., 2016). The main problems that we were facing (and which can also be seen by the length of this report) is how to articulate and capture movement and experience. That is why we needed to DO movements as often as possible ourselves to get a better understanding and feeling for them. In order to best describe the different movement, the use of different frameworks as Suchman, Laban and Benford et al. might be helpful and provide new insights (Loke et al., 2007). Laban as comparison to our proposed ways to represent movements and Benford et al. so that we can talk about expected, sensed and desired movements. The expected, sensed and desired movements can help with categorizing what the system measures in relation to what the handler does. Expected are movements the handler does naturally, sensed the ones the system measures and desired the ones the system requires. Also the different movement qualities helped us to better categorise the observed and trained movements (Loke et al., 2007).

Another concept that could be mentioned here is the materiality in design (Schon, 1992). In his paper Schon describes the design process as a doing - seeing - doing relationship where the design material is talking back to the designer. Due to the quick iterations in the design process of the given project, this was necessary to make quick judgements and to identify problems as well as opportunities with any given design ideas by actively seeing and by direct interaction with the design material (for example with the recorded video material, whiteboard sketches and quick physical prototypes).

3.2.7 Proxemics, Space, Environment, Orientation and connected conceptsTopics as distance, orientation, location, movement and motion play an important role in the interaction between the dog and the handler (Marquardt & Greenberg, 2012). The space in agility is designed in a way that it allows specific activities. In the following design sessions we need to think about these different spaces and zones and how the environment affects the communication and interaction. Marquardt and Greenberg mentions five dimensions of agility, which we all need to take into consideration; distance, orientation, movement and motion, identity, and location.

! of !41 94


3.2.8 Intersubjectivity & IntentionalityBoth topics are closely related to agility and the connection between the dog and the handler. As intentionality is central to any understanding of embodied interaction it becomes clear how the directness of meaning is important when navigating an animal through a course of obstacles. Dourish (2004) talks about intersubjectivity and intentionality as two aspects of meaning. Intersubjectivity is focused on social understandings and intentionality is instead focused on the relation between an object and its meaning (Dourish, 2004). In the book by Dourish we can also read about the difference between original and derived intention. Original intention as the intention of one person in his/hers actions and derived as the understood intention by other people observing the action.

Another concept mentioned by Dourish (2004) is coupling. Coupling is relevant to the project of the same reason intentionality is. The handler’s goal is to lead the dog through the course and in our observations we have realized that handlers says that they put the dog and makes them do the obstacles. This is coupling – the relationship between what we do and what we mean (Dourish, 2004). What the handler actually does is to use his/her body to try to show the dog what to do, they do not physically move the dog, but they still explain it as moving the dog. This is why it’s interesting to think about coupling for this project.

4. Problems Due to the high complexity of agility, there are several areas that contain problems or that could be improved by the usage of technology. We based the following problems and areas on our own observations and understandings as well as on the feedback we got from the two agility handlers we talked to. The training contains problems and questions regarding how to get used to the obstacles and the movements and the difficulties to learn the movements for the dog and the handler. Based on Lena’s explanation, it is possible to train movements and behaviour also outside of the agility classes with everyday life obstacles. Other areas for improvements are focus and movement. Focus between the dog and the handler play an important role in agility. The attention, connection and communication is crucial to the cooperation and the understanding of each other. In other words the intersubjectivity, how meaning can be shared between handler and dog. Movement is the main part of agility and includes both handler and dog. The dimension of movement and motion of proxemic is one aspect of movement, but meaning and understanding of the movements is something we also need to consider. When talking about meaning of movements in agility we both have the own meaning for the handler, which we will refer to as the original intention. We also have the dog’s meaning of the movements, which we refer to as the derived intention. To make the original intention of the handler correlate to the derived intention of the dog, the handler needs to be aware of the coupling between their movement and the dog’s behaviour. As we have mentioned before in the report, this is something that is practiced and with time the movements done to correlate the original and derived intention becomes tacit knowledge; something the handler does without thinking about how they do it. To achieve this correlation the handler needs to be aware of the somaesthetics of their body. The handler also needs to see to the cognitive sensations, perceive the surroundings - exteroception, and again be aware of their own body and movements - proprioception. The possible areas of improvement in movement is that it is difficult to communicate and learn the specific movements that are often based on the individual handler dog connection.

! of !42 94


As movement is used for communication, the intentions (original and derived) plays a role as a smallest error can result in the wrong movement by the dog. The original intention has to be shown in a way so that the derived intention correlates with it. This is also the last topic that we would like to discuss as a problem area: Wrong Movement. As agility is very fast, it is not always simple to see and understand what ‘wrong’ movement is and where an error is coming from. This makes it difficult to improve. The difficulty also lies in the complexity of movement, as seen many concepts and aspects needs to be considered when thinking about movements. The handler do not only have to look at their movements in a first person perspective, such as in somaesthetics, the second and third person perspective also needs to be considered. The second perspective concerns reflection and will be described later. The third perspective is about correlating the original and derived intention, thus about thinking about how your movement is understood by the dog. The last area is the competition itself. It starts with a building and preparation, what according to both our sources has a lot of troubles and rooms for improvement. This is why we also focused one part of our third observation on the memorising and learning of the course. But also already the building of the course from the planned map has proven to be very difficult. Finally, the reflection and learning based on a competition is very complicated as videos are often only done by friends from a distance position or (on higher competitions) are only from one perspective. We got the feedback and also the impression when watching the videos, that it often is difficult to see where an error is coming from and how to improve the efficiency for the next competition. This aspect of the problem mainly concerns the proxemic of an agility course. The handler needs to remember the location of the obstacles and making a course is limited by rules that regards the distance between and order of the obstacles.

After several discussions and reviewing the collected material, we came to the conclusion that the problem that we want to focus this project on is the reflection after training and after competition. We therefore focus on the second person perspective which concerns thinking about the movements you did to reflect upon them. Currently the personal evaluation of agility is based on the handler’s feelings. We would like to look into how it is possible to improve this situation so that agility handlers would have more insights in what actually happens and how they can change their training to get more efficient and how to get better.

4.1 Research Questions How can professional agility handlers make use of reflection in agility to have a better self-awareness of the own body and at the same time gain a better understanding of what the dog perceives?

• How can a design solution represent self-awareness and the third person perspective of the handler by the dog?

• How can reflection help to identify wrong movement?• How can we use this awareness to make training more efficient?

4.1.1 ClarificationIn the given research question we separate between the handler self-awareness and the perception by the dog. The reason for this is that we want to focus on the difference between the awareness of the own body while doing agility and the perceived movement by the dog. In agility it is not only important that the handler knows the own body and movement but also needs to know how the current position and gestures are interpreted by the dog. Furthermore, we define wrong movement as any movement that the handler does that results in an error by the dog.

! of !43 94


5. Design Analysis 5.1 Design Iteration 1 The goal of the first iteration was to create three different design ideas, which could be prototyped and evaluated together with our expert. First, we started by separating the process into three areas: measurement, reflection and improvement. This resulted out of the idea that we wanted to collect information (measure something), represent this in a helpful but not quantified way and thereby help the agility handler to improve.

The first big problem that came apparent, was that reflection is not easy to design for in the spirit of phenomenology of perception and without putting screens into the centre. This is also reflected by the second interview with Eija. Asking people how they want to reflect often end ups with having a video on a screen. Our goal was to find a solution that should use the existing numbers from the measurement and put them into context so that the handlers could use their own body to reflect on their training. Thus make use of somaesthetics as a reflection method. The second problem was the improvement part, as we are not qualified to say how handlers can improve as well as agility is so individual, thus it might differ from handler to handler. We therefore decided to leave the improvement aspect of the solution, so that this is something the handler would have to do themselves in their preferred way.

In the first iteration we also wanted to focus on what we could measure and what we could do with the measurements. The evaluation considered three different ideas of representing different measurements, both direct and reflective. The goal was to see which aspects that was interesting to professional agility handlers (according to Lena) and if the ideas made sense for the domain. This was done through showing Lena lo-fi prototypes to help her grasp the concepts and their goals.

From the interview Juulia conducted with Eija (see doing agility) we also got an insight that the hand movements are the least important for the dog when doing agility, that it is mainly for the handler to get all their movement with the feet, legs and posture to go into the correct direction. Of course there are differences between handlers, that some prefer to use more hands than others. Eija provided a video link of how there are trainings where handlers have a bag on top of their hands and do not use them at all (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqMHmUj2rPY). Additionally Eija informed of the key elements for agility handling:

1. The handlers movement2. Handlers position in relation to the dog 3. Handlers contact with the dog4. The direction of the handlers chest5. The direction of the feet 6. Handlers hand signals 7. Verbal commands (One Mind Dogs).

For this reason in the first iteration we decided to focus on the footsteps.

! of !44 94


5.1.1 Design Idea 1 - Limited reflectionBased on the mentioned problems, we decided to first focus on measuring limited information and keeping the reflection as simple as possible.

5.1.1.1 What do we want to measure?

The first basic information that we could collect when doing agility is the path of the dog and handler. This also contains the speed in which they are going and the distance between them at different points of the course. Based on the feedback we got in our domain analysis, we decided to furthermore concentrate on the footprints. Footprints are an indication of the body posture and direction as well as of the pressure and how the movement has been done.

In order to achieve these measurements decided to place sensors in the front and back of each shoe of the handler. These sensors will be connected with a wifi module on the handlers shoulder. This allows to not only get a more precise path but to also get the individual footsteps and the pressure that was used in the front and in the back of the foot. This would be an embodied way to show the path, in it’s context with detailed information about what happened in the form of the pressure.

Image 55) Sensor in front and back of the handler’s shoes.

Image 56) Wifi connection for the handler’s shoe sensors.

In order to measure the dog’s path, we decided to add a GPS sensor to the dog’s collar. Both ways of measuring the data should not be intrusive and interrupting as possible. The main goal was to create an invisible technology using the concept of seamless design, as doing agility is very quick and affords a high concentration by dog and handler. Therefore we decided to measure in a way that will not be noticed by the handler or the dog.

5.1.1.2 What do we reflect on?

Based on the given measurements and the result of our observations, we decided to provided a reflection on the following information:

• Path for handler and dog (see image below)• Speed for handler and dog• Distance between handler and dog• Handler’s individual footsteps (including pressure)

! of !45 94


The goal for the reflection was to create a mechanism that allows the handler to see and feel the situation again - with the full body and not only with the eyes. To make use of Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy of phenomenology of perception and Shusterman’s concept of Somaesthetics. The selected solution for the first design idea is to use two different balls or rolling devices, that indicate the handler’s and the dog’s path. Thus the solution focuses on the five dimensions of proxemics of the course done; (1) the distance between the handler and the dog, (2) the orientation of the handler and the dog in the course, (3) the movement and motion of the handler and dog in the course, (4) the identification of one ball as the handler, the other as the dog, and (5) the location of the handler and the dog.

We divided the reflection in two different use cases. First, the handler wants to see the full range of the path including the speed for dog and handler. Second, the handler wants to reflect on specific situations individually. This could for example be if the dog made a wrong movement and the handler wants to get a better understanding for the reason or for how to do it better the next time.

5.1.1.3 Use Case 1 - Full Reflection

After doing agility the handler places both balls on the ground. Next the handler walks to the center of the agility course. As the shoe sensors are still active, the devices realise that the handler wants to see the course in the real speed and time. The control of the system is thus focused on embodiment. The ball for the handler and the ball for the dog both roll to the position where dog and handler started the last course. Next they both reproduce the recorded path. The handler can stand in the middle and observe from a new perspective how he/she, and how the dog moved at the same time. This helps to create a new type of awareness for the handler in a very simple way. By standing in the middle of the course, the perspective is other compared to watching a video, which only is recorded from one perspective. This simple tools allows to have a quick representation that can be used in every place and on every ground. The handler does not need to carry around big technology but only needs the sensors on the dog and the shoes. The two balls are also portable and therefore can be used for different agility training places.

Image 57) The handler is standing in the middle, observing the situation when the balls go through the recorded path.

! of !46 94


5.1.1.4 Use Case 2 - Detailed Reflection

For the second use case the handler wants to get detailed information about one movement in one situation. This could for example be when observing a wrong movement. The handler walks to this position. Thanks to the sensors in the shoes, the technology will know that the handler is walking and the devices will roll to the position on the path closest to the handler. In this situation the handler controls the devices with his/her own body movement. When the handler is moving forward, the balls will also roll forward. When the handler is walking backwards the balls also roll backwards to the recorded path. This will not happen in the correct speed but in the position that handler and dog have been in. The recorded path is expected movements according to Benford et al., in other words movements that the handler does naturally. To control the system the handler is walking close to the balls, this are desired movements by the system, movements that needs to be done to control the system. Every movement the handler does on the course when reflecting is sensed by the system and will be understood as if the handler is controlling the system. Because of this we have to think about the controls further, because using the handler’s movements can be difficult because expected movements can be understood as desired ones even if that wasn’t the handler’s intention. For example if the handler just takes a step forward without wanting the balls to move forward.

In order to provide more detailed information on the movement the devices use coloured light (see images below). The pressure is transferred into different colours (example red = high pressure, yellow = low pressure). This should help to copy the movement while walking behind the device and should help to identify situations where the movement was not efficient or let to errors in the handler’s or dog’s behaviour.

Image 58) Right and left side of the Image 59) Different colours of light are ball indicate the handler’s footprints. used to indicate where the main pressure was.

Image 60) Distance indicator

! of !47 94


The light of the balls will also be used to indicate the distance between the dog and the handler at each time of the course. Based on the recorded course the device can calculate an average distance between handler and dog and can inform the handler later, when this distance was high or low. The area in the middle of the ball will be used to highlight a coloured scale to show the distance.

5.1.1.5 Open questions and discussion

One of the main issues that we discussed during the design process was how to switch between the use cases and how the handler can control the balls. At this point in the project we did not finalize the interaction design by differentiating between desired, sensed and expected movements. But as said the control will be done by movements in an embodied way. Another input might be voice or gestures. The goal is to keep the usage as natural as possible in order to allow a seamless integration into the agility training.

Another not completely explored topic is the questions of how to share the knowledge with others and how to handle several training sessions. In other words how to see to the intersubjectivity and social computing of the solution. If we decide to proceed with the idea, these points will be further elaborated.

5.1.1.6 Existing devices and technologies

The idea of putting sensors in the shoes evolved from a paper about GPS location of firefighters. The technology is used for precise location information. We would extend this information by pressure sensors in the front and back of the shop (http://www.gizmag.com/digital-positioning-shoe/30482/).

Programmable rolling devices existing in various editions. One example we found particular interesting was the following sphero (http://www.sphero.com/sphero) and ollie (http://www.sphero.com/ollie).

5.1.1.7 Prototyping

As the time frame for the first prototyping was limited, we decided to do a very quick physical prototype that we could test in the evaluation session with Lena. The real sensors were replaced by a small clip and the dog harness. The automatic rolling balls were replaced by two air balls that were pulled and pushed by sticks. The reflection of the footsteps was imitated by tape that was added to the handler’s ball, indicating the right and the left foot. The evaluation section of this chapter will further explain details about the test, but the main goal for the prototype was, to create a quick and simple representation of the idea. It needs to be evaluated if the representation by the balls is suitable and if any main information is missing. Furthermore the navigation and control by the handler’s movement needs to be tested. Therefore the prototype will allow the same interaction but without any technical functionality.

! of !48 94

This video should show how the reflection and the control could work:https://youtu.be/-ANoVnifj0k

https://youtu.be/-ANoVnifj0k

https://youtu.be/-ANoVnifj0k


5.1.2 Design Idea 2 - Detailed reflection

The second design idea is exploring the use of augmented reality as a tool to reflect. It is based on the same idea as the first design proposal - record the path of the dog and the handler and then represent this in an embodied way to provoke reflection. The difference between the ideas is the level of detail, and therefore also the amount of measurement. We started thinking about this solution with the question “What if we could see exactly what we did and how the dog responded?”.


As said, the design proposal measures the path as in the first proposal. But the handler’s movements are measured in more detail, capturing the positions of the arms and the body direction. This is done through combining the sensors of the first design proposals with two cameras placed on the course as well as stickers placed on the arms for the camera to recognise. These are shown in the pictures below.

Image 61) Stickers placed on handler. Image 62) Cameras placed on the course.

Image 63) Simplified example of how it would look through the AR glasses.

! of !49 94


5.1.2.2 What do we reflect on?

With all of these measurements the system will get a visual representation of the handler and dog doing the course, which we chose in this proposal to show with augmented reality glasses. The handler would, after doing a course, put on the glasses and see a representation of themselves, their footprints and the dog as shown in the picture above. By walking behind the representation of themselves they would be able to replay the course and analyse the movements done in it. We decided that walking in the course with the glasses would be the control of the replay to create an embodied way of reflecting. It enables you to imitate your own movements to recreate the training and see what went good and what went wrong.

Image 64) Lena using the AR glasses, the picture demonstrates how it would look from a 3rd person perspective if we could see what Lena sees with the glasses.

The use cases is the same as for the first proposal; the handler can chose to watch the replay in the speed it was done, or follow their representation (“ghost”) and more deeply analyse the training. What differs is that the handler also can chose to stop the replay and walk around the situation to get information from all angles. This would enhance the second person perspective when reflecting, since it would allow the handler to see exactly how their body was postured at a certain situation. The footprints would also, as in the first design idea represent pressure with colours. The picture above shows a fictional situation where Lena is using augmented reality glasses and the representations she sees and how she moves behind them. The picture would not technically be possible because a third person (as the view is) would not see the representations, but the point is to show how Lena would be moving behind the representations to control the replay. This design idea makes sense of measurements by visualising them in their own context, making it possible to reflect in detail over the training that has been performed.

5.1.2.3 Prototyping

The prototyping for the first evaluation of this design idea looked similar to the first design idea. We used the same “fake-sensors” for the shoes, the wifi data collector and the measurements of the dog. Additionally we added tape to the arms to represent the stickers the camera would recognise, used 3D glasses to represent the AR glasses and also told Lena that we would put two cameras on the course for this solution. As has been explained above the main goal with this evaluation was to test the concepts, therefore the prototype was lo-fi and not completely accurate. It was made so that it would be easier to explain the idea and what kind (and amount) of sensors that would be needed to fulfil it. So the questions we asked was mainly “Do you understand the idea and what do you think about it?” and “Is the sensors bothering you?”.

! of !50 94


5.1.3 Design Idea 3 - Direct feedback Besides the reflection, we also thought about giving direct feedback to help the handler to know when something wrong is happening.


The third design idea requires to measure the order of the obstacles on the course and record the dog’s path. To achieve that, we need the sensors on the dog and the number signs placed on the correct sides of the obstacles, in order to give the correct order. Two cameras are placed in the corners to recognise the obstacles and the dog’s path and detect if the dog enters from the right direction. The idea is to enhance the third person perspective by trying to provide direct feedback of how the handler’s movements affects the dog’s behaviour.

5.1.3.2 How to provide feedback and what to reflect on?

The handler has a bracelet which provides haptic feedback. When the camera detects that the dog enters the obstacles from the wrong direction or in the wrong order. The bracelet vibrates to notify the trainer that something has gone wrong. After one round, the bracelet will show the wrong obstacle numbers one by one and the number signs besides the wrong obstacles will light up. This not to lose the context and still give feedback at the location of the errors.

Image 65) Sensors in the number sign. Image 66) Vibrating bracelet.

Image 67) Reflection for the agility course. ! of !51 94


5.1.3.3 Use cases

When the handler doing the agility training, he/she will get the notification immediately when the dog goes wrong direction, or the dog takes the wrong obstacles. This allows the handler to have direct changes and repetitions while training. The handler can train the dog with the wrong obstacles repeatedly until the dog do the right thing. We use the handler’s exteroception to make the handler more aware of their proprioception in the goal to improve their training. This idea also applies for the reflection after the training round. The handler can walk around the course and check which of the obstacles went wrong. This allows to see errors and to correct them in the next round.

5.1.3.4 Prototyping

In order to help us and our test person to have insights about how does this idea works, we made some prototypes for the physical artefacts and sensors. For the signs, we made use of the number sign provided by the dog agility club and faked that there are sensors implemented on the surface. Besides, we used a smartwatch as vibrating bracelet for the handler to test if the handler feels the vibration when he/she is doing the agility. And the vibration of the smartwatch is done by message notification. The same sensor for the dog is used as in the previous two designs for tracking the location.

5.1.4 Evaluation

5.1.4.1 Test idea 1 - Following the Balls

What do we want to test? First we tested design idea 1, the limited reflection with the use of the prototyped balls. As mentioned before, we prepared two balls and two sensors which should be used in a training session with Lena, in order to answer the following questions.

• How can this solution look like?• Does the sensor annoy her or the dog or Lena?• Does the feedback from the footprints help?• Is the information about the distance between the dog and her helpful?• Is the concept and the navigation clear?• Does Lena has any concerns about the idea? Is information missing?

What Prototype testing

When 11.05.2016 11:00 - 13:00



Dogs Zoo

! of !52 94


The test We described what we and Lena should do, that she should do an ordinary training with her dog. Then imaginary sensors were placed on her and the dog. Lena prepared a training course of her preference and conducted it with Zoo with the sensors on. After we showed how she would place the balls on the ground and they would roll and repeat the course she and Zoo just completed. We had two inflatable balls with footprints on the handlers ball and we imitated the course Lena and Zoo had completed. Also as some functions were not working we explained how she could reflect on which footprint was used and that the balls would move with her body (forwards and backwards). While explaining and demonstrating the system, we focused on Lena’s movement and reactions. She followed the balls in a very natural way and used them as a memory aid for the last training session. After the demonstration we talked to her in order to receive her feedback. The main focus was on the questions that were already mentioned above. The intention was to find out if this idea provides enough information to reflect on the training session or if she needs more details.

Feedback We received feedback on our prototype and questions. Lena commented that she did not find the sensors distracting or annoying, and also the harness did not affect the dog. So we concluded that we somewhat succeeded in doing a seamless design. Her feedback on the balls was positive, she said it would help her reflect on the path she had just completed and especially that she could see the distance between her and the dog. Also she said the footprints would be beneficial in seeing where she has laid pressure on, since handlers should try not to put too much pressure when stepping in order that they can move quickly to the other direction. The only concern she had was about the price, that the sport is already fairly costly.

5.1.4.2 Test idea 2 - Following the Ghost

What do we want to test? For the second test we tested the design idea 2 - more detailed reflection. For this prototype we wanted to answer the following questions:

• Display the idea of how the sensors are placed, and ask for feedback do they annoy her or the dog?

• What would she like to see and how much she needs control?

The test We explained Lena that similar to the first one, she would conduct a training course as usual with her and the dog. There would be two cameras placed in the two corners of the course and she would wear similar sensors, but would need to add two on her wrists. After conducting the course she would put on glasses, she already was wearing sunglasses so we let her keep them and imagined they were the AR glasses. We then showed her how it could look through the glasses, one of us imitated Lena and the other one imitated the dog and went through the course as she had. Also when we were completing the course footsteps appeared behind Lena, so that she could see herself and where her feet had been placed. Additionally we told her that she would have the possibility to stop the action through the glasses at any time.

! of !53 94


Feedback Lena had a difficult time in the beginning understanding what the glasses would show, but through examples she understood. Again she said that it would be helpful, she said that many agility trainers film themselves and reflect on this and that probably professional agility handlers would be excited about any new technology in the market. The only setback and concern she discussed was again the price, that this might be too expensive for an individual handler but we could possibly target clubs where handlers could share the glasses.

5.1.4.3 Test idea 3 - Direct feedback

What do we want to test? The third test was about the third prototype - direct feedback. We used our prototypes and show our concepts to Lena. And with this test we wanted to find an answer to the following question:

• Is her speed too fast to notice the vibration feedback?• Is the feedback for the wrong movements useful for training?• Any other tools for obstacles will help ?

The test Before the test, we set up all our prepared prototypes and explained to Lena the idea and let her stimulate the given scenarios. The number signs placed besides each obstacles and cameras in the corner would recognize if the dog doing the right obstacles in right direction. We also placed the smartwatch onto her wrist. When she or the dog does something wrong, the vibration bracelet (smart watch) on her wrist would give her immediate feedback.We advised her to complete the course again, but this time paying attention to the vibration from the watch. The vibration would be used for mistakes on the course, but we wanted to test out will she feel it when running. She completed the course and we sent several vibrations to the watch. When she finished the course, the number sign besides wrong obstacles would have notification in the real case.

Feedback After the testing and discussing with her she said that she did not feel any vibration when running, which meant that in order for the product to be successful we would need to have a much more powerful vibration in the bracelet or other kinds of feedback. We also discussed would it be useful for her to receive information that the dog has a mistake on the course, she said that not necessarily because she notices this already very easily. On the contrary she said that it might be useful to receive feedback about if the contact points on the contact obstacles are touched. She has worked as a agility judge for several years and explained how it is difficult for them to see if a dog touches the contact; the handler might be in the way or the dog may have a lot of fur that it cannot be seen. Additionally she commented that it might be useful to have a treat dispenser which would be connected to the contact points.

5.1.5 ResultsBased on the evaluation session with Lena, we saw that most elements of our ideas were grounded in the right assumptions. Reflection really seems to be a topic that is complicated and not simply done when training alone. Therefore a solution should focus on this problem and try to provide a better information about what happened. Nevertheless, we also got the feedback that the price of a solution is an important factor, as agility mostly is done as a hobby. The idea to have one bigger solution that could be used by agility clubs and that could be borrowed to members, would be one possible way to solve this problem. According to the feedback, especially the idea

! of !54 94


of doing the movement again is as important as having detailed information as for example the foot pressure. Therefore we try to aim for a solution that involves the handler when reflecting on the training but that also allows to get more details in different ways. Going through an agility course without a dog is what happens already today - so an additional technology could help to make this practice more efficient.

5.2 Design Iteration 2 In the second iteration the focus is to find out what do agility handlers specifically need for reflection and redoing movements or the course, is footprints enough or do they need more information about for example chest or hip posture? So in order to improve the somaesthetics and proprioception, how much detail is needed? In order to approach this we limited ourselves to only one idea from the previous three. We combined elements from each previous design solution, and designed on big solution with several factors. Our aim is to test and evaluate this idea with Lena. From this we hope to find out what is needed and to choose the correct technology for the final prototype.

5.2.1 FeedbackFrom both the seminar and the peer review we received constructive feedback, which we have tried to clarify in the updated version. More clarification was wanted on the design idea 1, on how are the balls are controlled, what will happen if the handler goes out of the centre, which speed do the balls go in and does the ball jump over obstacles. Also for design solution 2 there were recommendations to possibly skip the cameras on the course completely and apply sensors on the handler, and also concerns on how to change the view from the cameras 3rd person to the first person. Another improvement suggestion was that we should motivate our designs. Additionally we were asked to think about did the initial test influence our research question and also more clarification on some parts of the research question was wanted (body and self awareness). Our visual portfolio got praise but also comments that we should let it stand more by itself, add more annotations and make the design ideas more clear.

5.2.2 Ideation - Bringing the ideas togetherAfter the seminar and feedback we had an ideation session where we brought all three ideas together. We discussed what were the positive and negative points of the ideas, and what elements should we combine together. This was a really difficult task, since we did not have one single idea we wanted to work with, all had great elements and as we combined them, we unfortunately had to leave some aspects out. For example the whole team really liked design idea 1 with the physical balls, but realised that we can provide almost the same information of following the movement of the handler through the AR design. Therefore although we decided not to use the ball design idea anymore, we still continued with the idea of reflection through following the movement. We thought that AR is the most valuable solution to the handler because through this they can follow the movement, reflect on the footprints and possibly other parts of the body. We also decided to leave out the concern about the cost of the product, since it probably will not be commercialised anyway, which also a reason to focus on the AR design. Additionally we decided that the second iteration and our design should strive to find out what is the most valuable information for reflection for the handler and which part of the design provides this.

! of !55 94


The final idea that is going to be tested and evaluated with Lena is AR glasses through which the agility handler is able to see the course they have just completed. They are able to see the dog's path, their own footprints and the pressure of their feet. Additionally the handler will be able to see which obstacles have been completed successfully and have the contacts on the contact obstacles been touched. We have designed several ways to represent movement through the AR glasses and will explore these with Lena. With this design we still want to get handlers to reflect on their movements, follow and repeat with their body.

5.2.3 Combined design solutionAs explained in the text above, the design solution for this iteration is focusing on the following points:

• How to use augmented reality to reflect on agility?• How can signs be used to know the correct path?• How to measure all necessary movements and paths without cameras?• How to use your own body to reflect on movement?

The reason for taking away the camera is mainly the practicability of such a system. Agility is trained in different places and the size and the light change are dependent on the specific location and often the weather. So the difference in proxemics of the courses will be a problem, since we can’t guarantee that the area can be changed so the use of cameras becomes optimal. With the final design idea we want to aim for a solution that focuses on sensors that can be added to the clothes independent from the location. This because Lena wasn’t bothered by those sensors and therefore the solution would be seamless. This might also result in specific clothes in further iterations. Nevertheless the main goal for this part is to evaluate which information is needed in order to evaluate which sensors need to be included. We decided to obtain the numbers because the idea is simple and could contribute, but we need to evaluate this importance in this iteration.

The idea for the second iteration therefore measures the following:

• Handler’s and dog’s path• Handler’s and dog’s speed• Handler’s footsteps and pressure• Handler’s arm and body movement, posture and direction• Handler’s voice• Errors in the course (when not following the correct path or not touching the contact areas

on the contact obstacles)

The measurements will be done by full body sensors on the handler, including the shoe sensors used for idea 1 and 2. The technical details for the rest of the sensors is not defined in this iteration as the goal is to evaluate if the information is needed and not how this information can be measured. The correct path will be evaluated by the use of the “magic” numbers from idea 3. Instead of using a camera, the idea for this iteration is to have a sensor on the signs that communicate with the sensor in the dog’s collar. The illustration below shows how the sign detects the direction that the dog is coming from. The handler’s input is needed when placing the signs, not only by placing the sign but also by saying on which side the dog needs to be in order to have a correct path. Therefore the handler needs to activate the right or the left side of each sign when placing it. Finally, each sign will have the information about the correct order (as they are numbered) and the correct path that the dog should go by knowing it’s own direction (the dog always comes from the front) and to which side the dog should go (through the handler’s input).

! of !56 94


Furthermore, we add sensors to the first and last slalom pole and to the contact areas for the contact obstacles. This not only helps to see errors that we would not see just with the help of the signs and it also helps to be more precise when generating the correct path. The next image shows how the signs and the sensors in the slalom and contact obstacle are combined to generate the correct path

Image 68) How to find the correct path.

The next to images will give a better introduction in how the signs are communicating with the sensors that records the dog’s path.

Image 69) Each number has different sensors. Image 70) The sign’s sensors communicate with the dog’s sensor to see the path.

�

�

! of !57 94


The next image shows a sketch on how to sense the handler’s movement. The inspiration was coming from motion detection sensors for three dimensional images. As mentioned before, the focus of this week is not to do something that will technical work as we imagine it now, but to find out which sensors we further need to explore.

Image 71) Different sensors that are used to capture the handler’s movements.

The next question was how to represent this information. Our goal was to not just show the movement in a video, but to help the handler to do it again and to use their own body to control the situation. As we decided to continue with the idea of augmented reality, we now had the question how much detail we need to represent in order to make it possible for the handler to not only understand but to do the movement again. Therefore we discussed different layers of complexity and information density. These options should be tested and discussed with Lena in order to understand how much detail is needed when describing movement in agility. After the first discussion and based on the findings from the first evaluation we decided to have a focus on the handler’s and the dog’s path, and the handler’s footprints. The main reason for this was, that the validity and importance of this information was already proven by Lena. What we need is to evaluate, how much detail we need about the handler’s body.

Image 72) The initial discussion about how much detail the glasses need to show.

! of !58 94


The different levels of detail that were discussed in the project are the following.

Image 73) The smallest amount of detail - only showing the handler’s path and footprints.

Image 74) The next level of Image 75) Next, all joints of the Image 76) The final amount detail is to add more handler’s body will be displayed. of detail would be to show information about the legs, the ghost - a full body the knees and the direction. representation.

! of !59 94


5.2.4 EvaluationFor this iteration our goal was to include as many elements as possible in the prototype, test and then remove all unnecessary or un-useful aspects. In order to achieve this goal we wanted to test the prototype in the real context with Lena, which meant we had to do fairly quick prototyping but we still managed to have an even more detailed prototype and test compared to the first iteration testing. Additionally we compiled different question areas with sub-questions before the test which we wanted answers to, which are presented below. The first questions concerned the signs, we wanted to receive feedback on are they helpful and understandable for her. The second question set was about the obstacle sensors, also to get an insight are they useful for her and do they disturb the dog. The third was about movement representation and what are the aspects of the body that would be most helpful for an agility handler. The fourth question set was about movement repetition, does an agility handler want and need to repeat incorrect movements and also the fifth question set concerned the wrong movements. Finally with the final questions we wanted to receive feedback on how the handler might want to control the ghost, what they would find most convenient.

Question 1) Signs • Are the signs working?• Is the right and left working?• Does is make sense for Lena?• Is she using the signs at all?• Any further feedback about the signs?

Question 2) Sensors on the Obstacles • What do we have to consider regarding the contact obstacles?• Is there something that will disturb the dog?• What qualities does the sensors need to have?• Any further feedback about the sensors in the contact and the slalom?

Question 3) Movement representation • How do we represent movement• How much detail does Lena want to see?• How much detail is needed?• What different kinds of representation can we use?• Are the feet enough? What other parts to we need to show?• How do we show body movement and posture?• Do we need the hands?

Question 4) Doing the movement again • How does Lena wants to “copy” the movement?• Does the want to only see or does she also wants to do it again?• How do we show that?• What is the interaction that is needed?• Is a ghost to “jump in” working?• How much does it make sense to follow the movement?• Should it be different “modes” for represent and follow? How to change?

! of !60 94


Question 5) Wrong movements • Does Lena need to know what went right and what went wrong?• Is she realizing the information?• Does the need that everywhere? Or only on the contact obstacles?

Question 6) Control the Ghost • How is Lena freezing the situation?• Is that something she would like to do?• How is she interacting in the system?• What would be a simple way to have different kinds of input (voice, movements, …)?

In addition to these questions we wanted to receive feedback and discuss with Lena what are her feelings and thoughts of the ideas we have presented to her. Also our goal was to really find out what is important for Lena by not only observing her in scenarios, but by discussing through a physical prototype.

5.2.4.1 Prototyping

The goal of the evaluation of the second iteration was to see what we could incorporate into one design and what was not necessary to incorporate to keep the design simple and helpful. For this iteration the lo-fi prototypes were more detailed than the first iteration, but still nothing technical was done. The questions mentioned above that this iteration should answer is all concerned with this exploration. Therefore, we did physical lo-fi prototypes of all the sensors and the input to show Lena and explore what she felt about the design. As in the first iteration, the prototypes were mainly done to show our concept and that’s why no high-fi prototypes was needed in this phase.

Image 77) Lena with prototypes of the sensors.

! of !61 94


Image 78) Prototypes of pressure sensor on obstacle and sensors on the signs.

Image 79) Prototype of sensors on slalom.

The prototypes done concerned both the sensors and the output. For sensors we used the same lo-fi prototype as in the first iteration, the wifi data collector and the shoe sensors. We also added tape to represent the movement and location sensors which we put at Lena’s knees, shoulders, elbow and wrists. For the sensor on the head we used a cap, see picture above. This was done for the same reason as in the first iteration, we wanted Lena to get an idea of how many sensors she would have to put on and how they affected her. To represent the pressure sensor on the contact obstacles we used black fabric which we fastened around the obstacle with clothespins as seen in the image above. To represent the chosen measurement side of the signs we used post it’s in different colors and with different letters (orange and the letter L for left, blue and the letter R for right), also shown in image above. The last prototype concerning the sensors was the sensors we put on the slalom, for this we also used black fabric which we tied around the first and the last pin, as seen in the picture above. These prototypes were done for the purpose to see if the dog was disturbed by them, and also to make Lena understand, as with the body sensors what sensors are needed to get the design to work in practice.

Image 80) Prototype of Image 81) Making prototype Image 82) Prototypes of footsteps and path. of the “ghost”. right and wrong symbols.

! of !62 94


The output we used in this evaluation was footprints, the path, Lena’s “ghost” and right and wrong symbols. The footprints, with indicators of the pressure were drawn on paper and put on the ground with the path which was a prototype with strings and sticks, as shown the the image above. This was done to show Lena what it would look like in the glasses when the course was done. This prototype enabled Lena to walk around and explore the output (representation) of the course she just had completed, in order to understand the concept of the design idea. Along with this we did prototypes of the Lena’s “ghost”. This was done by drawing movements on transparent papers which we held in front of Lena in the test. The movements were drawn in two different levels of detail as mentioned earlier. So the prototypes functioned as material to explain and compare the different levels of detail that the design could incorporate. To represent the symbols which would indicate if an obstacle was done right or wrong we used paper with a positive or negative mark and glued them on cutting boards, so that we later could place them at the different obstacles (see image above). These prototypes were also done for Lena to grasp this aspect of the concepts.

5.2.4.2 Planning

Before the training (before Lena arrives) We would need to do some preparation before the test. Therefore we planned to arrive at the training field an hour before it started and prepared everything. We would plan the course with 4 obstacles in the course map, which includes at least one contact obstacle and one slalom. Then we would place the the signs in front of the obstacles so that Lena has to move them to the desired place. After that, we would draw the “ghost” on the see-through papers, in different detail and angles for representing a whole movement (series of images, creating movement). Also we would make the fake sensors like movement sensors, we would use the same wifi connection for Lena and the sensors for the dog from previous test. Also we would need to place the sensors for the contact obstacle, number signs and slalom. Additionally we would make one of our group members become a “Ninja”, to represent the full body movements for Lena.

Before the training (with Lena) After Lena arrives, we would introduce our test plan and change the obstacles to match the given course map. Lena has to then place the right or left signs, and position them.

The training During the training, we have to directly try to paint the path on an extra paper (on the prepared map) and also record the training with a camera from a close position (from Lena’s back). We have to see if everything goes right and one person has to stand next to the contact obstacle in order to see if and how the dog is touching the contact area. Since if something goes wrong, we would mark the errors for representing them.

After the training (without Lena) After training, we have to prepare how our solution would look like using the physical prototypes, and Lena can continue training on the other part of the area. We will use the strings to mark Zoo’s and Lena’s path, place the footprints besides it and place the right and wrong signs next to the obstacles. If Lena does everything perfectly, we fake that there was one wrong movement on the contact obstacle (in order to represent what an error would look like). And according to Lena’s movements, we will finalise the movement papers (transparent papers).

! of !63 94


After the training (with Lena) After our preparation, we will bring Lena to the start of the course and she will put on the glasses. We would show her the scene and ask what she thinks that the different things are. When she goes closer to the course we can start holding up the transparent paper and explaining how that works and what it represents. We plan to first start with only showing footprints and pressure, then add more details like body movement and the “Ninja” to represent. We will tell Lena that she can “freeze” the situation and that she can walk around the “Ninja”. The papers and the “Ninja” will be based on Lena’s speed and movements, we can also make Lena reach out for the dots in the air to follow the movement. The whole process will be recorded.

5.2.5 Testing

5.2.5.1 Before the training (before Lena arrives)

We arrived at the location one hour before Lena would join us for the test. We used this time to prepare and finalise the prototypes. We also needed to make the first sketches for the augmented reality glasses. This could only be done at the place, as we needed the obstacles for predicting Lena’s movements. Unfortunately, the at the time that we arrived the club’s training area was filled with several people training with their dogs. Therefore we had to wait until Lena arrived to build the final course.

5.2.5.2 Before the training (with Lena)

When Lena arrived we organised the course with her together. We decided to take a very limited amount of obstacles in order to make it easier for us to represent her movements. We decided to chose the dog walk as the contact obstacle, two jumps and the slalom.

Image 83) The selected course for evaluation.

What Prototype testing

When 18.05.2016 11:00 - 12:00



Dogs Zoo

! of !64 94


After building the course we went through the course with Lena and asked her to place the signs and to chose if the dog will be on the right or the left side of the sign. We explained that this will be used to evaluate if the dog took the correct path. For example if the dog will jump from the correct side. We did that by having different coloured post-its that Lena could add to the signs, saying R (for right) and L (for left).

84) Explaining Lena how to tell the 85) The signs indicating where the dog system what the correct path is. will be for the jumps.

Next we introduced the sensors that we added to the contact obstacle and the slalom. The goal was, as mentioned, to discuss with Lena if her dog will be distracted by the black material. She decide to test it before doing the final test round. Zoo had no problems with the added material on both obstacles. Finally we put sensors on Lena.

5.2.5.3 The training

After finishing the preparation, we asked Lena to do the course as normal training. She did the course three times because she felt that it did not go correct and as perfect as it could be. While Lena was doing the course we took notes about her path on a prepared map and took pictures and videos from different perspectives.

86) Lena showing Zoo the jump. 87) While Zoo is in the Slalom Lena runs to the jumps to be there before Zoo.

! of !65 94


5.2.5.4 After the training (without Lena)

After Lena finished the course she went on training on other obstacles and talking to handlers. During this time we prepared the path, footprints and the correct / wrong signs on the course.

88) Preparing the path as observed 89) The finished prototype for Lena. during the training.

5.2.5.5 After the training (with Lena)

As soon as we were finished with finalising the prototype for the course, we asked Lena to walk through the course and tell us what she sees and thinks. After her first impressions we started focusing on details, how does she thinks the footprints work and her feeling about the path in general. After that we explained her how we thought about different ways of representing movement with different levels of detail. We tested the different versions in the corner where she had the most problems. Helping her to understand what movement she did when Zoo did not take the jump as planned. Finally one of us was standing in a position that Lena had while running and she could walk around to see what she wanted to change in the next training. In the end we discussed with her how much level of detail she needed and what is important information when reflecting. We also talked about if she wants to do the movement again or if she wants to try it in a different way and see the difference.

90) Reflecting on the problem with the minimum amount of detail.

! of !66 94


91) Reflecting with the second level of detail. 92) Reflecting with the third level of detail.

5.2.6 ResultsFrom the test and evaluation we acquired results from Lena for all of our questions. We will present the results for all the questions below (the questions were presented before in the evaluation part).

Question 1

Lena was confused about what the right and left signs meant, also she got mixed up between on which side the dog passes the sign and from which side of her the dog is on. In the end of the test when we presented the results from the signs (right or wrong) she did not really need the information, because she already knows which obstacle the dog did not do correctly, the only thing she was lacking was the information why did it go incorrectly. For these reasons we decided to leave out the signs, because they were confusing, did not bring valuable information and technologically are difficult to implement.

Question 2

Lena told us that there is no need for the sensors on the slalom, because she again will notice immediately when the dog starts the slalom if it enters from the correct side. She found the sensors on the contact obstacles really helpful, because as a handler you can not always see if the dog touches the area or not. The only concern she had was the size of the sensor or mat which is placed onto the contact part of the obstacle. As we placed the cloth onto the end of the dog walk, she had to test the dog walk with Zoo before starting in order to see if Zoo was afraid, or would avoid the cloth. Thankfully Zoo did not mind the piece of cloth but she said that this might not be the case with all dogs. We also discussed and thought about if the contact obstacle would be able to be done without any sensors, with some type of material which leaves in the print of the dog paw. Additionally if something is placed onto the contact part of the obstacle it would need to be fairly invisible, if the dog learns the obstacle and then suddenly the obstacle is very different at a competition this can affect the dog's behaviour. Thus it is important to create a seamless design for the sensor at the contact obstacles. Also from our first iteration Lena discussed could it be possible that the contact obstacle would trigger something else, for example a treat dispenser.

! of !67 94


Question 3

Concerning the movement representation Lena discussed that she would like to see her arms that they are an important part in analysing her own movements, but she also discussed that it might be enough to only see the hands not the the whole arms. This is something we need to consider in our next prototype. Again this shows that what the handler wants to see and reflect upon is really individual and might differ from round to round, which we consider in our solution. Question 4

We discussed with her does she usually repeat her movements and she said that she does not usually do her movement again. What she said to be more important is proxemics - to see the direction of her chest and body, as well as the distance between her and the dog. This information will help to understand what happened and then she will try the whole course again, and it might be useful to compare the two runs. For the next iteration we should think about how to display repetition and also how to show different runs for comparison.

Question 5

As mentioned a bit in the results for question 3, for the wrong movements of the dog on the obstacles Lena said she does need information about this since she will automatically see if the dog does the wrong movement.

Question 6

When we asked and discussed about the controlling of the ‘ghost’, what she thinks would be the best way, she said that she would like to control the ghost with her body movements. If she would stop that the ghost would stop and if she would start running the ghost would also start moving faster. Because of this we will keep developing this embodied way of controlling.

! of !68 94


6. The Final Vision After the evaluation with Lena and the feedback from the presentation and discussion in the course, we decided to finalise our vision with focus on tracking the full body movement by sensors and on reflecting by using augmented reality.

6.1 Measurements 6.1.1 Full Body SensorsThe first question that we had to answer was what kind of information we want to measure. Based on the feedback from two agility handlers and from further observations we made in the domain analysis by analysing agility competition videos, we decided to not actively exclude any parts of the body. The information of different parts of the body that are needed by a agility handler are dependent on the trainer and the personal way of doing agility. We therefore decided to look at a solution that could be seen as a modular set, where a agility trainer could decide how much information should be tracked and also how much information should be shown later. By doing this we placed the decision on how much detail is need back to handler and not excluded any parts of the body from the beginning.

After this decision we looked for feasible tracking ideas and existing solutions. By using our own bodies, we explored what parts of the body and which movements need to be measured in order to be able to get a full understanding of the body and the performed movement. We therefore used the concept of proxemics (Marquardt, N., & Greenberg, S., 2012) to see how different body parts are related to each other in movement and how distances could be used to get a understanding of direction and movement. Furthermore, we explored what kind of sensors could help us to get a high amount of information about movement by just placing small, individual sensors as for example stretch and flex sensors. We were looking for the minimal movement that gave us the most information about what is happening in the full body.

Image 93) Sketching and brainstorming about different methods for measuring movement. ! of !69 94


As our goal was to not only have the handlers path and location but to also have a full understanding of the body movement, we in the end decided to use full body 3D motion tracking as for example used by xsens (xsens products: MVN BIOMECH, source: https://www.xsens.com/products/mvn-biomech/).

For the final vision we concluded to focus on adding several sensors to the handler, that would allow us to understand and therefore create a 3D image of the full body movement as seen in the image below. Even so this currently is an expensive solution, we decided to go for this idea as it provides the most relevant information and is simple for the handler by adding smaller sensors to the body before training. This idea also allows a module approach, enabling the handler to not add all sensors but to focus on these once that he/she is interested in.

Image 94) 3D motion tracking as solved by xsens (xsens, MVN BIOMECH Awinda, source: https://www.xsens.com/products/mvn-biomech/).

6.1.2 Pressure sensor on the contact obstacle From the previous iteration we continued with the pressure sensor on the contact obstacle as seen previously in picture 78. The reason for continuing with this is that it provides relevant information for the handler to know if the dog touched the contact part of the obstacle or not. We also want to implement this pressure sensor physically so that it works, which means that we had an ideation session to decide how to build it.

Our idea is to build it from two thick plastic placemats, which onto we will attach aluminium foil. In between these we will add a small pieces of sponge (so that they do not touch) and also a circuit with a light. This will then be placed on top of the contact part of the obstacle (appendix A2 shows the contact obstacles and the parts in the end and the beginning where the dogs has to touch. When the dog touches this, the two aluminium papers will touch each other and the light will turn on. This will be then seen through the glasses, if the light is on, the dog has touched the contact, and if not the dog has not touched the contact. This is illustrated in the image below.

! of !70 94

https://www.xsens.com/products/mvn-biomech/

https://www.xsens.com/products/mvn-biomech/


Image 95) The pressure sensor on the contact obstacle we are going to build.

6.2 Reflection by showing Movement The next question was how much information we need to display and how can we generate the best value for the handler. How to reflect on the full body movement? The goal was not only to display a video of the generated 3D figure of the handler’s body, but to provide a solution that gives a better understanding of the movement, direction and body’s focus. Instead of just showing the collected information, the augmented reality should be used to provide more qualified feedback for the handler. The focus should not only be on seeing the previous training in detail but in providing a tool to understand and reflect on movements and their results on the agility training. Therefore we decided to put the focus in the visual output on the following elements:

• Handler’s and dog’s path• Handler’s footprints and pressure• Handler’s movement by showing the flow of the movement

6.2.1 Movement flowFor the presentation in the course, we generated GIF files showing the different movements that we observed in the last evaluation sessions. This is a slower but still connected way of displaying helped us a lot to understand what went wrong in one situation and what was better in another situation. The images below show how Lena’s body direction is different in both rounds. The GIFS show how this different body posture results in different movements, not only by the handler but also by the dog.

! of !71 94


Image 96) First round (http://gph.is/1UcQmpi) Image 97) Second round (http://gph.is/1TxtlQP)

The use of these animated pictures helped us to get a good understanding, but it also provided us with the necessary tools to reflect on the movements in a good speed again and again. Seeing Lena’s movements in slow motion from one perspective several times was a very suitable way to understand what happened in the specific situation.

Based on this observation, we decided to continue with the idea of not just displaying a single moment in time but to show the movement that happened in a specific situation. This theory is supported by our observations and interviews while evaluating the first design. Explanations and reflection by agility handlers are not mainly done by focusing on the body position in one specific point in time, but by the movement that happened at this position. For example when explaining a mistake and the responsible movement, Lena used her own body to replicate the movement in a specific context. She did not just stay in one position but she used her full body to explain it.

The next goal was to find a way to show movement in a way that it is easy to understand and at the same time still helps the handler to reflect on what happened in a specific situation. Therefore, the next step was to research and explore different methods of visualising movement. Based on papers from the Exertion Games Lab in Melbourne about skateboarding (Pijnappel, S., & Mueller, F. F., 2014), an article and videos about movement visualisation in kung fu (Michel, 2016) and our initial idea of showing the hander’s path, we further explored the idea of showing movement by highlighting the path - not only of the handler in general but also of different parts of the handler’s body. The idea was to find a way to connect the movement in a way that the handler can see where a specific movement at a specific time is coming from and what it is going to be after that.

Image 98) First sketches of movement visualisation.

The next steps will be to explore different options and ideas to visualise movement and how this could be used in the augmented reality to provide a better reflection.

! of !72 94

http://gph.is/1UcQmpi

http://gph.is/1TxtlQP


6.3 Scenarios and Use Cases Before further exploring different ways of visualising movement we decided to explore how the handler would interact with system in different situations. The goal of this step was also to understand how much detail we need in which context and in which use case.

6.3.1 Use Case 1 - Reflecting on one round of training First we only decided to focus on the simpler use case that the handler is doing one round of agility and is afterwards reflecting on this information. We decided to split the reflection into two different scenarios.

6.3.1.1 Scenario 1

First the handler wants to see the full course in the full speed. The focus for this scenarios does not have to be on the full body and the movement flows but on seeing the full situation. Therefore the main information that needs to be displayed in this situation is the handler’s and the dog’s path. This scenario reflects some parts from the current situation that the handler has a video that he or she is reflecting on in real time or in a slower speed. Nevertheless in our solution the handler also has the possibility to change the position and look at the full speed round from different position.

Image 99 & 100) The handler is observing the round from different positions.

The amount of detail is kept to a minimum, only showing the handler’s and the dog’s path.

6.3.1.2 Scenario 2

The second scenario is that the handler wants to see the full course in a slower speed, focusing more on the movement of the full body. The goal is to identify situations where improvement is possible and necessary. The added value in this scenario, compared to the existing situation, is that the handler has more flexibility when walking around in the situation. The solution should allow the handler to see the course from different perspectives and angles. It is not only limited to the video perspective, but the handler can walk around, change the position and how to look at the training. This scenario also allows the handler to not only walk around to see the path but it also allows to walk around the representation of his/her body to see the movement from different perspectives. It is not longer possible to only see a movement from one perspective but to walk around in a frozen movement of the path to see more details.

! of !73 94


Image 101 & 102) The second scenario provides more detail on the situation.

The goal is that the handler uses his/her own body to walk around and navigate in the situation. When the handler is walking around, the system will recognise this movement and can react with what it is showing in the augmented reality. As shown in the image above, when the handler is walking around, the system provides more details on the situation that the handler is closest too. This is going to be explained in more detail later in the report.

6.3.2 Use Case 2 - Reflecting & comparing several roundsThe second use case is that the handler wants to do several rounds of training before reflecting on them all together. This use case again contains two scenarios, differentiating between seeing all rounds in full speed and with less detail and the walking around in the situation, comparing the details of different paths.

Image 103) The handler sees three rounds of agility training in one reflection.

As seen in the image above, parts of all the paths that are very similar to each other, are put together in order to limit the information that is shown to the handler. This also allows a better focus on the comparison between the different paths by actively highlighting where they differ. This use case involves more complicated interaction and navigation in the system. The handler still uses the own body to navigate in the situation, but a different kind of interaction is necessary to select and deselect specific rounds, for example if the handler only wants to compare round two and three and does not want to look at round one. Furthermore, the amount of information that is displayed needs to be matched with the amount of rounds, as it will not be possible to provide full detail when the handler is looking at more than one round at the same time. Details about the interaction and amount of details in this use case will be further elaborated in later parts of the report.

! of !74 94


6.4 Interaction with the System As mentioned before, one of the biggest concerns was how the handler should navigate in the system and what kind of input should be used to control the system. Our goal was to create a system that allows natural interaction. This means that whatever technology we chose, it needs to merge with the user’s actions (O'hara et al., 2013).

The basic idea for the interaction and the amount of detail that is shown, is that the movement is displayed by showing the different steps of the handler’s actions while doing agility. In other words - we freeze the movement every two or three seconds when the handler is doing agility and display this in one connected round (as illustrated by the image on the page above). As seeing all of this information at the same time, we decided to use the handler’s movement when walking around for reflection to chose which part of the round needs to be visible.

6.4.1 Boundary BubbleBased on the above mentioned use cases and the handler’s movement when walking around, we introduced something we call the boundary bubble. It is an area that marks the handler’s area of detailed view when wearing the AR glasses. This area marks a zone that allows the handler to walk around and at the same time focus on the details that happened in this area. Further details such as the size of the area haven’t been explored and won’t be defined in the scope of this report. But we discussed that this area could be dependent on the handler, it could be that it’s connected to the handler’s kinesphere, that will differ from handler to handler. In this case the area would have to consider the handler’s size and movements. Although we think that the kinesphere will be too small to be able to see enough details, this is something that has to be tested. Either way the system will probably include a way to calibrate this area to the handler’s preferences.

Image 104) Boundary Bubble

The idea has been derived from the fact that Lena often knew where she was going to when reflecting. If she or the dog made a mistake in one situation, she went directly back to this situation. In this case, the information about the rest of the course is not necessary for her to see in detail. She will still see her and the dog’s path and some slightly transparent representation of the footprints but she will not see the body and movement representation until she gets close to this situation - until the path is crossing her boundary bubble.

! of !75 94


In order to verify and to have a short evaluation of the idea, we used bodystorming to prototype various ideas using our own bodies. Strings were used to mark the path and three of our group members represented bodies of the frozen movement in a specific situation (“the ghosts”). One team member represented the agility handler, observing the situation. A black fabric circle was used to indicate the boundary area that the handler would see the movement details in.

Image 105 & 106) Bodystorming session

The goal of this session was to use our own bodies to see how the area could be used to show and hide details. It helped us to understand that the boundary bubble could be used to show the movement in an way that it is controlled by the handler. If the user walks forward, the area moves forward as well and the detail in front of the handler appears. This can be made in a style as if the ghosts are moving forward. At the same time the ghosts in the back part of the area fade out and disappear as they are not in the focus of the handler any more. To see them again, the handler can walk back to this situation. By doing this we do not force the handler to walk forward and backward to navigate but to just walk around to see the details that he/she is interested in. At the same time the handler’s speed influence the speed that the movement is shown in. In the case that the handler is walking slowly, the movement will appear slowly. If the handler is running, the movement will be visible in the same speed. This gives the handler the freedom to decide what information should be shown where and in which speed. Furthermore, this answers the previous question on how to freeze a situation. The handler just needs to stand or only move in the area of the boundary bubble. As long as the handler is not moving away from one situation, this part is frozen and the handler can see the movement in detail.

Another possibility provided by this solution is that the handler can step between the ghosts, taking one of their places, to see the movement from a different perspective. This was also prototyped by the bodystorming, evaluating how this could be used in order to enact movements and to do them again in the same situation that they have been done in before.

! of !76 94


Image 107 & 108) Stepping between the ghost, exploring future and past movements.

Stepping between the ghosts allows the handler to look into various directions and also to connect with the movement of the previous and the following movement. As the ideas is not only represent the movement by having unconnected 3D representation of the handler’s body, but by actively connecting the individual parts of the body, the handler could easily take over one of the ghost’s roles and see and experience the past situation with the own body.

6.4.2 Movement visualisationAs mentioned in the paragraph above, the goal is to add more details to the movement visualisation in order to allow the handler to see movement and not just 3D representations. In the image below you can see how we were envisioning the movement representation by highlighting the different paths of the hands and other parts of the body. It also shows how the handler’s voice commands during training can be represented in the augmented reality. The image below is missing some details regarding the connection of the movement of the legs and the chest direction.

Image 109) Example of movement visualisation.

! of !77 94


6.4.3 Example Use CasesThe first use case is that the handler wants to observe the movement in full speed and from any given position. For this use case the boundary bubble will not be needed, only the handler’s and the dog’s paths will be displayed.

Image 110) Use Case 1: The handler is observing how the path builds up in real time.

The circle around the handler highlights the boundary area. In this zone, the handler will see details about the movement (as exemplified in the image in the movement visualisation paragraph). For the rest of the path the handler will see the path and the footprints.

Image 111) Use Case 2: The handler is walking around, seeing details in the boundary area.

6.4.4 MarkingOne new element that has been added for the final design iteration and that is connected to the movement visualisation is the marking of body parts. The idea is that the handler can choose which part of the body he or she wants to focus on when reflecting on an agility round. As we have seen in our observation and in our interviews, different handlers train with different methods. The same applies for the reflection. Furthermore, in one situation it might be more interesting for the handler to see the full movement of the arms while the rest is less interesting. Whereas in other situations the position and direction of the chest might be more meaningful to better evaluate the situation. In order to approach this, we introduced the idea of marking specific body parts. This is something that can be done by the handler while wearing the AR glasses and while

! of !78 94

The following video shows how the handler observed the building of the two paths:https://youtu.be/w9nYbs1PPgo

The next video shows how the handler is walking around the area:https://youtu.be/oa1cvCxVRl0

https://youtu.be/w9nYbs1PPgo

https://youtu.be/w9nYbs1PPgo

https://youtu.be/oa1cvCxVRl0

https://youtu.be/oa1cvCxVRl0


reflecting in one or more rounds of training. Marking means that the handler selects one part of the body by touching the representative sensors on his / her own body. Thanks to the full body movement tracking, the handler is wearing several sensors on the body. In order to select one specific part of the body the handler just needs to touch the matching sensors.

Image 112) The sensors on the handler’s body.

As soon as the handler touches the sensors, this part of the body is highlighted in the represented part of the ghosts. For example if the handler touches the right lower arm, all ghost’s lower right arms are highlighted. This means that they are more visible compared to the other parts of the body, which will become more transparent the moment the handler highlight another part of the body. The image below shows an example of how it can look like in the case that the handler touches the sensor on the belt. The green line in centre of the ghost’s bodies is more in focus and the movement lines for the other parts of the body fade out but are still visible.

Image 113) Highlighting the central part of the body.

The handler can select several parts of the body at the same time. In order to de-select one part of the body again, the handler just needs to touch this sensors again.

! of !79 94


6.4.5 Visualisation of the dog movementAs the dog and the handler are not moving at the same pace, or next to each other all the time on the course, the visualisation of the dog in relation to the handler needs to be shown in some way. The handler can be ahead of the dog, next to the dog or behind it, therefore it is important for reflection for the handler to see his/her position and where the dog was at that specific time. With the sensors on the handler and the dog we know the exact place and time of both. When the handler has the AR glasses on, sees their boundary bubble and the ghosts of themselves, they also see the dog’s four points in relation to their ghost positions. This is better illustrated below in the image.

114) How the handler sees his/her position in relation to the dog.

The image shows the handler and the boundary bubble, and how the handler sees the four ghosts represented on the path. Also the handler sees the dog’s points on the green path. The dog’s first point is before the first jump and at that point the handler was standing a lot further than the dog.

6.4.6 Control of the systemNext to controlling the system by moving, the handler also needs some more detailed and precise ways of navigating in the solution. This involves the switching between scenarios, for example when first watching the round in full speed and next walking around, as well as the management of the different paths in the case that the handler is comparing different rounds at once. After considering different ways of interacting with the system (as for example voice commands or gestures) we decided to used one of the sensors again. In order to not force the handler to make strange gestures or saying out loud any commands in an agility training area (which might be populated by other people as well), we decided to use a small display to one of the sensors on the handler’s hand. By doing this, the sensor is no longer just used as sensor or for marking the hand movement but also to provide further interaction with the system.

This screen is also used to provide feedback while the handler is putting on all the sensors before the training. The next two images show what the handler is seeing on the display while preparing the sensors. The right image indicated that all sensors are calibrated and that the training can start.

! of !80 94


Image 115) Wireframes of the display for the hand sensor for the training preparation.

Furthermore, this display allows a simple interaction for the handler to choose between different path in the case that he/she is reflecting on several rounds at the same time. The images below shows how different rounds can be visualised using the suggested device. Changing between the rounds is done by simply swiping between them on the screen. The colour is matching the colour that the handler is seeing the round in with the AR glasses. The display allows the handler to select and de-select a specific round and to also totally delete it if it is not needed anymore. The solution allows for storing three rounds at a time. This solution also provides space for further settings as for example the adjusting the speed of the re-play.

Image 116) Wireframes for managing the different rounds.

6.5 Discussion This part is going to motivate our choices in more detail as well as explain why other solutions were abandoned.

Why augmented reality? Already early in the project we discussed the possibility to use augmented reality (AR) in the solution. Although there are downsides with AR, such as the technological complexity and the price, we still decided that this kind of technology would work best for our purpose. Our first three initial design proposals concerned AR, robotic balls and haptic feedback. We decided to not further develop the ideas with the balls because with AR in comparison we don’t have to limit ourselves in what we can show the handler. The balls will, however they are developed, only be able to show a certain aspect of the round done, and this in a more abstract way since the human’s and the dog’s body is represented by balls. To use the solution with the balls would also require a learning phase for the handler so that they know what the balls and their functions

! of !81 94


represent. Furthermore, the observations have shown the individuality of agility and therefore our goal was to capture as much information as possible so that it later could be customized. Although the customization isn’t considered thoroughly in this stage of the project.

As mentioned earlier in the report we got suggestions that for our solution it would suffice to use a mobile device to show the AR, instead of through glasses. To some extent we agree, you would still, as a handler, be able to look at the round and that in quite a lot of detail. What we don’t like about the idea of a mobile device (screen), is the fact that you lock the handler’s hands and arms since they would need both of them to hold the device and perceive the round. Our design solutions, as described in iteration 1, all focused on an embodied way to reflect upon the activity done, which a solution with a screen limits. We also designed in the spirit of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology where perceiving is acting and somaesthetics, which requires that the handler can make use of their entire body. Another aspect why this solution wasn’t considered further was because the level of detail wouldn’t be as high as with the use of glasses.

Why wearable screen and touch sensors? With all the upsides with AR and it’s possibilities we soon realized downsides came along on the other side of the ’AR-coin’. Yes, AR gives us the opportunity to show a lot of different information, but how do we control it without a physical interface? AR is handsfree and let’s you use your body, but how exactly do we make use of the body in a ’natural’ way? A lot of issues came up when we tried to create natural gestures to control the re-plays, this because trying to create natural movements most of the time ended with the creation of ’unnatural natural’ movements. In other words movements that was easily mapped to their function, but awkward to actually do. Such as reaching for the path you want to chose, which would give no haptic (real, sensed) feedback and look weird for people in your surroundings.

Considering all these problems we needed to re-think the controlling of the re-play. We decided that it’s more natural to touch the sensor of the body parts you want to highlight (mark) because this movement gives you more haptic feedback, you can do it without looking and it won’t be too visible for people in your surroundings. It also makes it possible to control the marking independently of your location in the course. Although both solutions would have worked we wanted to create a solution that wouldn’t feel awkward to do even if other people are present on the course, since our observation showed that this is often the case.

Touching sensors on your body only takes you a step on the way. We still faced the problem with the controls of the different rounds for example. From going with a solution with no screens whatsoever, we therefore decided to include a wearable device with a screen for the handler’s wrist. As shown in the report it would look similar to a smartwatch and give the handler options to show/hide/delete different path as well as other options. Again this solution is to keep away awkward movements to control the re-play. Since you as a handler already has sensors on we simple decided to use one of them and upgrade it with a screen to make the control easy, but still handsfree.

! of !82 94


6.6 The final prototyping For the final prototyping a video prototype will be made along with a physical high-fi prototype to show the entire vision of the final design solution.

6.6.1 Video prototypeSince our solution regarded the use of AR, we decided to do a video prototype to show our concept. This because of obvious reasons as the time limitation, cost and complications of making something real with the use AR. For the video we created new prototypes of the sensors that would be more realistic than the ones we have used before.

Image 117) Making prototypes for location Image 118) Making prototypes for sensors. and motion sensor holders.

The images above show the making of the new sensors, which in this case were made as bands with fake sensors that we could put on Lena for the video.

Image 119) The sensors for Lena and Zoo. Image 120) The wearable device with screen.

! of !83 94


Image 121) The pressure sensor for the contact obstacles Image 122) Lena with all the sensors

What we hope to show in the video is an introduction to how the actual product would work and what the AR glasses would show the handler, since this wouldn’t be possible to do live, a video will work to explain our vision. The focus in the video is to show our concept and trying to present our idea.

6.6.1.1 Visualising movement

In order to represent the movement of the handler through the AR glasses in 3D we needed to think about how can we look at the videos we had of Lena training and identify all of the movements of her body while she is doing the course. We got the idea to project the videos through a projector onto the white board, we replayed the video few seconds by the time to identify when her body movement changed and then traces the outlines of the movement onto the white board. This was a really good way to see all the movements after each other. Additionally these movements were the basis for us to create the 3D models of the ghost, which is seen through the AR glasses when reflecting

Image 123 & 124) Visualising movement on the white board through videos with the projector.

! of !84 94


Image 125 & 126) Movement visualisations on the white board.

6.6.1.2 Final video

The video was edited by using iMovie, Keynote and Blender. Blender was used to create the 3D models of the ghosts, Keynote to add details to the 3D models and the paths and then iMovie to put everything together.

As you can see in the movie different colors of the ghost represent different sides of the body. When using the AR glasses the ghosts are transparent, so that you can see through them and see hidden body parts from all angles, in order to get a full understanding of the body posture. ghosts are not moving, but show snap shots of the course done. The snap shots are not completely time based but made so that they do not overlap. If all of the snap shots would be included there would be too many ghosts, so this is why when the position moves to another (so that it is not overlapping) a new ghost is created.

! of !85 94

The final video can be seen here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klAiqQm1oGY&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klAiqQm1oGY&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klAiqQm1oGY&feature=youtu.be


Image 127) How the ghosts look through the AR glasses. Screen shot from the video.

In the image above you can see how we visualize the ghosts, the boundary bubble and connection of the ghost and the dog (the numbers on the path) in the prototype. In the image you can also see the point where the handler has used the voice command “runt”.

Below, in image 128, you can see the paths of two different rounds, from the handler and the dog. On the contact obstacle (which will have the pressure sensors) the handler will see through the AR glasses if the dog has or has not touched the contact. This is represented by a green or red dot just above the contact area.

Image 128) The paths through the AR glasses and the success and failure on the contact obstacle (red and green dots).

! of !86 94


Image 129) When the marking is done by the handler, the body part which is marked will light up and the movement flow will be visualised.

The image above shows how the marking will appear in the VR glasses. The body part which is marked will light up and the movement flow can be followed.

6.6.2 Physical prototypeOne of the aspects of our solution is the pressure sensor on the contact obstacles to see whether the dog touches the area or not. This was built according to our plan mentioned earlier in the measurements section and which can be seen in image 95. Due to time limitations, this physical prototype is only designed for the dog walk, but the concept can be used on all contact obstacles.

The building process was started by measuring the pieces of the plastic cutting boards according to the measurements of the contact part of the dog walk. Pieces of anti-slip material were added onto the sides of the prototype, so that the dog will not slip, since the plastic cutting boards are slippery. On the other side we added the sheets of aluminium foil (as visioned in image 95). After gluing all parts together, we cut minimal pieces of kitchen sponges to hold the aluminium foil apart from each other. The sponges allow the pieces of aluminium foil to touch when the dog touches the contact. When the parts were finished we connected the wires to the Arduino and to the aluminium foil on both sides.

Image 130) The circuit for the physical prototype.

! of !87 94


Image 131) The prototype up close Image 132) Building the prototype

Image 133) Final prototype

! of !88 94


6.6.3 Testing

The aim of this testing session was to test the physical and video prototype with Lena. From this we wanted to receive feedback in order to do any additional changes if necessary.

6.6.3.1 Before the test

Again we went to Brukshundsklubben earlier than the decided time with Lena, so we could prepare the test. The preparation included checking if the prototypes and the circuit work and that the physical prototype is placed securely on the dog walk. Due to the fact that our physical prototypes together were longer than the contact area we chose to only use two out of three prototypes. Also we decided not to take the third one since the obstacles had bumps that made the third prototype stand up from the surface and would therefore be in the way for the dog.

The prototypes were fixed to the obstacle with the help of strings glued to the bottom of the prototypes and the technology was put under the obstacle in the shadow so that we could see when the lights turned on and off. This is shown in the image below.

Image 134) The prototypes of the pressure sensor fixed to the obstacle.

What Testing final vision

When 31.05.2016 11:00 - 12:00



Dogs Zoo

! of !89 94


We also had prepared several questions that we wanted Lena to answer after seeing the video prototype. The aim was to see if the video prototype is understandable and is anything left unclear.

Questions1. Do you understand the concept of the solution?2. Do you understand what we want to show with ghosts and paths?3. What do you think about the amount of displayed information?4. Anything you think that is missing or confusing?5. Would this help you to better understand the training and its effect?

A. What understanding do you believe this solution would contribute with?B. Do you get a better understanding of your body?C. Do you get a better understanding of your movements impact on the dog?D. Would this solution make your training more efficient?

6. Does this help you to identify wrong movements?

6.6.3.2 During the test

When Lena arrived we started by briefly explaining the physical prototype, that it would for now only show lights, but in the vision it is supposed to give feedback in the augmented reality. Then we showed Lena the video. After seeing the video Lena answered the questions and we had a discussion about the final vision.

Image 135) Showing Lena the video prototype.

After this we wanted to test the physical prototype with Lena and Zoo. First we let Zoo run back and forth on the area with the prototypes so he would get used to them, then he did the entire dog-walk a few times so we could see if the lights worked.

! of !90 94


6.6.4 Evaluation The evaluation will be divided into two parts; video prototype and physical prototype, followed by a reflection of the result.

6.6.4.1 Evaluation of video prototype In order to compare two different rounds Lena thought this solution would be helpful. Already looking at the video she reflected upon her different rounds that were shown in the video prototype. She said things like ”I was probably to fast in the first one” and to describe the other round she said ”I was blocking his way”. So just by watching our video prototype of her two rounds she reflected upon what had happened and why the error occurred in the first one.

One thing Lena had troubles understanding was if the ghosts will move or not. We had to explain that the ghosts, in other words the snap shots of her movements from the different rounds would be still, but which of them that will be visible will depend on where she goes on the path.

Lena also discussed the customization parts of the vision, such as the marking. She said that when first starting to use this solution you would probably use both and then later figure out which one is better for you individually.

When we asked Lena if she thought this solution would help agility handlers in general she was positive and said ”Absolutely, if a club like this buys it and they have the glasses […]. I think people will love it!”.

Again the comparison to filming was brought up. As mentioned before this is the way agility handlers use now to understand their body movements, and it has a lot of flaws. So Lena said this solution would be more helpful, because of the details it contribute with. It also makes it easier to detect wrong movements.

We asked Lena what she thought about the difference in detail between the dog and the handler, since the dog is just presented as a line and then dots with numbers correlation to the number of the ghost. This gives the handler the location of the dog and the location of the handler at a certain time, and Lena said that this is what matters. The dots seemed to be enough for Lena as she said ”Okay, my number two and the dog’s number two… Okay I understand it!”.

6.6.4.2 Evaluation of physical prototype

When we tested the physical prototype, Zoo didn’t seem to mind it too much. At one point he jumped over it, but after walking across it a few times he didn’t pay attention to it.

We experienced some technical difficulties during the testing. Firstly one of the three prototypes didn't work, which can be because the cables got lose when we transported the prototypes. When everything was put to place it worked from time to time, but one of the prototypes still gave feedback when it wasn’t supposed to. This gave a bit of trouble in the testing since the light was on even though Zoo wasn’t standing on the prototype, but this was not the case for the entire test. The images below show one successful round (when Zoo touches the area) and one failed round (when Zoo jumped over the area).

! of !91 94


Image 136) Successful round, red light Image 137) Failed round, Zoo jumped overshows Zoo touches prototype prototypes

In the first video you can see that the red light is blinking even if Zoo doesn’t touch the first prototype, but you can also see that the blue light lights up when Zoo touches the second prototype. The second video shows the test in slow motion.

Lena gave some feedback concerning the physical prototypes. She said that it could be helpful to get direct feedback of these, so that maybe it would be a good idea to add a sound that tells the handler that the dog has touched the area. We asked if she thinks dogs would be distracted by the sounds, but she doesn’t think so because dogs are quite used to different sounds.

6.6.4.3 Reflection

Using a video prototype to show our vision was the best way both to explain to others and amongst ourselves what we wanted the solution to look like. This because it was hard to show drawings in 2D for a solution that would involve movement in 3D. Lena had hard to grasp some parts of the solution when watching the video. One of these we mentioned; that the ghosts not are going to move. This could be because we have explained to Lena earlier that the solution would include moving representations and this was changed for the final vision.

When testing the physical prototype we realized that our sensors were too sensitive. One of the prototypes reacted when Zoo was running on the obstacle, and sometimes the wind activated the sensor. In hindsight we say it would have been better to have bigger sponges between the two plates to separate them better.

! of !92 94

Here are two videos displaying the testing of the prototypes:https://youtu.be/HRFH2-ZOO2M, https://youtu.be/qZqBY06TOdY

https://youtu.be/HRFH2-ZOO2M

https://youtu.be/qZqBY06TOdY

https://youtu.be/HRFH2-ZOO2M

https://youtu.be/qZqBY06TOdY


7. Conclusion 7.1 Reflection & Lessons learnedGoing in to a new domain, the use of epoché was a good way to learn and understand the doing of agility and especially the importance of movements. This is because it is a method where you go in without assumptions and previous knowledge that would impact your observations. In our case we didn’t know much about agility which helped us not making assumptions. We assume that if we would have had more previous knowledge it would have been more difficult to use epoché.

As our project focused on the lived and active body, bodystorming was not only helpful for prototyping ideas, but also to understand movements by enactment. Thus we used bodystorming both to show ideas and create new ones. One big takeaway from this project was the importance of the designers body and bodily experience. Even though observations and interviews gave a lot of information about agility, doing it provided much deeper knowledge about the complexity of movement and interaction between handler and dog. Bodystorming is a good way to get a first feeling of the movement, but doing in the right context is a very valuable asset.

As shown by several authors, for example Höök (2010), it’s hard to describe movements and experience of movements in the correct context. This is something we also experienced in our project, especially when doing agility ourselves. It was obvious we learned more actually trying agility instead of just observing, but what exactly this new knowledge was and how to communicate this within the group was difficult.

Using quick and lo-fi prototypes was a very good way of visualizing ideas and collecting quick feedback by showing it to our contact. It enabled a way to do designs, see problems and insights and therefore find a better solution. This is matching the doing-seeing-doing concepts by Schön (1992). To begin the project by developing and testing three different ideas gave good feedback and depth into what kind of solutions was fitting or not for the domain and the problem. Iterating in a quick way kept a creative mindset and helped to design new ideas.

We faced a problem with our chosen domain since agility is a very big domain with several topics and problems to explore. Finding the focus and deciding on a solution therefore was challenging and only focused on the feedback from two agility handlers. In a bigger project this is a drawback that needs to be solved by including more handlers. One problem, but also possibility, is the fact that the area is unexplored in the field of HCI, HAI, ACI. Doing this project, and especially doing agility made us all interested in the sport and the communication between handler and dog. The way that handlers use their bodies to communicate with the dog was something totally new and different than what we had experienced before.

Finally, one of the biggest challenges we faced during the project was the visualization of movements. We explored GIF’s as ways to understand and explain movements as it is possible to see a short movement in slow motion and go through it many times. This also had an impact on our final design solution, by not only showing a video but by showing individual steps of the movements. Furthermore, we explored simplified ways, at least compared to labanation, to note down movements. This provided a lot of helpful insights, but was not explored further.

! of !93 94


7.2 Use of phenomenologyAs mentioned before, using a phenomenological way of approaching a domain analysis has proven to be very helpful but at the same time challenging in the regard of explanation. Movement and movement of the own body is important, but it needs to have a clear communication and a good way to visualize.

We have mentioned briefly in the report how difficult it has been to go from screens and design with a more phenomenological approach. By phenomenological approach we mean a design that uses doing when perceiving. Therefore also connecting it to embodiment, we want to act with our body to perceive information. Although the challenges, it has been an inspiring way to look at the problem and solution. Going from a ‘regular' design approach we had to think about alternative ways to show and control the visualisation of information with the use of movements.

7.3 Future workOne of the details that needs to be clarified about our final vision is the size of the boundary bubble. It should be matching the handler’s kinesphere, but additional information and space might be needed. This must be explored in user tests, since the using the kinesphere as a template is something we assume would be appropriate. It could even be possible that the size should be flexible, that it either adapts automatically or can be adjusted by the handler.

The details of the sensors needs to be clarified, one example came up in a discussion about the handler’s hips. Do we need more sensors to get the information we need, or is one enough? This is also something that needs to be explored with collaboration with the handler and depends on different visualization techniques and approaches. Also the whole technology behind the measuring and the augmented reality should be tested and explored. The customization is also an aspect of the technology that needs to be further developed.

Due to the limited scope of the project we could not develop a full vision of the interface of the wrist screen. This option provides opportunities for several interactions and changes between use cases. The mapping of the interface and the different screens is something that needs to be considered in future work.

One big opportunity for future work that we see, is the development of the physical prototype. This because it could work as a individual device or be incorporated in the augmented reality. Due to feedback it is clear that the idea needs revision, such as making direct output or connect it other devices such as clickers or treat giving machines. Also the way of building it, the material needs to be revised to it works more smoothly and sustains the quality. It would also be nice to look at other solutions that wouldn’t involve technology, like using material that would show the dog’s footprints or that makes sounds.

If we would have the opportunity to proceed with this project, we would involve more users and explored the real technology and make a working high-fi prototype. This is especially true for testing the sensors and see what information they create and how this can be visualized.

! of !94 94

Embodied Interaction Agility Agility - LAURA WIEGAND · 2018. 8. 31. · 3. Theory 39 3.1...

Documents

Transcript of Embodied Interaction Agility Agility - LAURA WIEGAND · 2018. 8. 31. · 3. Theory 39 3.1...